Today’s Lynch List

*Phew. This is tiring, man…

First off, a heckuva lot more on the Hadjis decision, from all over the place:

Blazing Cat Fur – Tribunal: the CHRC has been breaking the law for years – Angry Catlicks Say: Section 13 ruling a move in the right direction – Catholic Civil Rights League – Angry Jew Lady: Human rights commissions have to go – Ezra Levant In The National Post: It’s a great day for freedom of speech

Northerntruthseeker – Canadian Hate Speech Laws Unconstitutional! According To The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Deborah Gyapong – Deborah Gyapong: “Today’s a great day for freedom”–Ezra Levant


Dead Reckoning – Canadian Human Rights Commission maintains its 100% conviction record

Brian Lilley – Human rights law likely to be election fodder

All Headline News – Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Finds Hate Speech Law Unconstitutional

Full Comment – Chris Selley’s Full Pundit: Iggy strong, like bull. You vote for him.

The Persecuted Church Weblog – Canada’s human rights hate speech law is ruled unconstitutional

Blazing Cat Fur – National Post editorial board: End the Canadian Human Rights Commission Witch Hunts – Brian Lilley: Human rights law likely to become election fodder

The Shotgun Blog – Censorship tribunal rules censorship is unconstitutional (or does it?)

Girl On The Right – Human Rights Adjudicator Does Right Thing

The Daley Gator – Some good news!

The National Post – End the witch hunts for good

The Globe and Mail – Hate-speech law violates Charter rights, tribunal rules

Signs Of The Times News – Canadian hate speech laws violate Constitution: Rights tribunal

The Canadian Press – Tribunal declares Internet hate speech law unconstitutional

The Toronto Sun – Tribunal: Internet hate provision unconstitutional

Reuters – PRESS DIGEST – Canada – Sept 3

The Chronicle-Herald – CANADA IN BRIEF

The National Post – Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal

CNews – Internet hate speech law unconstitutional

Full Comment – Section 13 Blogosphere Roundup: The Good, The Bad, and the Worried

The “G” Blogs – Gunny G Online – Section 13 Hate Message Clause Unconstitutional Rules Canadian Human Rights Tribunal By Patrick B. Craine

The National Post’s Posted blog – Section 13: History and key facts on Canada’s hate speech law

Small Dead Animals – Hate Speech Law Unconstitutional

Slashdot – Your Rights Online: Canadian Hate-Speech Law Violates Charter of Rights

Full Comment – National Post editorial board: End the human rights witch hunts for good

The National Post’s Posted blog: Canadian hate law: A timeline of events:

By Daniel Kaszor

Canada’s hate law has its roots in the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (also known as the Cohen Committee), released in 1966. The report described the serious psychological harm caused by hate propaganda and noted that hate messages can also lead to an increase in discrimination.

After an early draft of the legislation that did not include provisions for dealing with hate messages stalled and died in Parliament in 1975, an updated bill (C-25) was introduced the following year. It passed and received royal assent on July 14, 1977, and became the Canadian Human Rights Act, Chapter 33.

Prominent neo-Nazi John Ross Taylor was ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to shut down a telephone hotline that offered a recorded white power message. He refused, and was jailed for contempt.

Related to Mr. Taylor’s case, the Supreme Court ruled that the section did in fact violate the Charter right to freedom of expression, but it passed the “Oakes test,” which means it is a justifiable breach.

A subsection allowing the tribunal to order a person found to be spread hate messages to pay compensation of up to $5,000 to the victim was amended to expand the tribunal’s punitive powers. The federal government reasoned that raising the penalty limit under the act from $5,000 to $20,000 would ensure that tribunals had the discretion to award an amount that was fair in the circumstances.

Then justice minister Anne McLellan established a panel to review the act. Its report recommended that “the prohibition of hate messages in the act be broadened to encompass both existing and future telecommunication technologies in federal jurisdiction.”

Canada’s anti-terrorism bill (C-36) further amended the act to include the communication of hate messages over the Web.

Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, pictured below, is found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal of promoting hate on his website, following a complaint that was brought forward in 1996.

Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer who would become the most prolific complainant under the controversial law, files a hate speech complaint against far-right-wing activist Marc Lemire, pictured at right, which reached its conclusion yesterday. Mr. Lemire responds by challenging the law itself.

A Muslim organization files a complaint under a comparable law in Alberta against Ezra Levant, then publisher of the Western Standard, for publishing the Danish Muhammad cartoons in the magazine. Mr. Levant responds by launching an advocacy campaign against human rights commissions.

Three hate speech complaints filed against Maclean’s for running excerpts of conservative columnist Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone, which described a rising demographic tide of Muslims in Europe that threatens to undermine liberal democracy, were dismissed by the federal human rights tribunal and those in Ontario and British Columbia.

Liberal MP Keith Martin put forth a motion to scrap section 13(1), expressing concerns later that “someone could be using the power of the state for their own private initiative.”

November, 2008
Law professor Richard Moon, who was commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to review Section 13, urges the government to repeal the provision so that online hate speech is only a criminal matter.

June, 2009
Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, presents a report to Parliament that recommends, among other things, that it scrap the penalty provisions.

Sept. 2, 2009
Six years later, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dismisses all but one complaint against Mr. Lemire and calls Section 13 unconstitutional.

Compiled by Chris Boutet and Natalie Alcoba, National Post

Read it here.


–> – What Canada’s Free Speech Victory Says About America’s Matthew Shepard “Hate Crimes” Bill

Mark Steyn, in NRO’s The Corner: Re: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Says ‘Hate Speech’ Law Unconstitutional:

Thank you for posting that, Mark (Hemingway). The Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal’s decision is a huge victory for the free-speech campaign Ezra Levant and I and a few others have been waging for the last couple of years. When Maclean’s magazine and I were acquitted by the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal last year, a lot of people looked on it as a Steyn exemption — that if you were a prominent person with a powerful publisher and you both had deep pockets, the thought police would decide that discretion was the better part of valor. And, once the bigshots were out of the way, they’d go back to making life hell for little guys.

But Marc Lemire, though dogged and very deft in his approach, is not a prominent person. Indeed, he’s exactly the kind of obscure figure the thought police would have taken to the cleaners a couple of years back. Now the judge has, in effect, ruled that Section 13, Canada’s “hate speech” law, is unenforceable against anybody:

I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of theCharter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him.

This is the beginning of the end for the Canadian state’s policing of opinion: Judge Hadjis has repudiated the “human rights” regime’s entire rationale as well as a couple of decades of joke “jurisprudence”.

I confess I wasn’t optimistic when the thought enforcers decided to pick a fight with me, but Ezra Levant persuaded me that the thing to do was go nuclear on this disgusting racket and re-frame the debate. We succeeded. There’s a lesson here for American conservatives, particularly as the president and his allies, with the “fairness doctrine” and bills to control the Internet and whatnot, are tempted down a very Canadian path.

Read it here.

Five Feet Of Fury – It’s over because I say so (UPDATED)

Jihad Watch – Free speech wins huge victory in Canada

Free Dominion – Section 13 declared unconstitutional. Thank you Marc Lemire!

Instapundit – September 2, 2009

Kenneth Hynek – Marc Lemire Acquitted!

Stand Like A Rock  – ‘Hate-speech’ law declared unconstitutional

Mark Hemingway, in NRO’s The CornerCanadian Human Rights Tribunal Says ‘Hate Speech’ Law Unconstitutional

 The Ottawa Citizen Hate speech laws violate constitution: Human rights tribunal

The Toronto Star – Hate-speech law rejected in rights ruling

L’observateur Du Peril Innomable – La section “anti-haine” (#13) de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne jugée anticonstitutionnelle!

David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen – Kafka comes to Canada:

It is hard to say whether the decision announced Wednesday by Athanasios Hadjis, the quasi-judge of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, is a victory for free speech in Canada. He ruled that Marc Lemire, webmaster of, should not be punished for exercising his right to free speech, nor for allowing others who contributed unmoderated comments for exercising theirs.

 He found only one act of Lemire’s sufficiently bitter to constitute “hate speech” — namely his posting of an article entitled “AIDS Secrets” by an American neo-Nazi, that went on rather tendentiously about blacks and homosexuals. But he let that pass, too, on the interesting argument that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is in conflict with our Charter of Rights, which unambiguously guarantees free speech. Either that, or his argument was that the CHRT has no right to punish anybody for anything: I have even more difficulty than other reviewers in making out the reasoning in

Read the rest here.

The Freedomsite Blog – Statement by Marc Lemire on the Tribunals decision to declare Section 13 as unconstitutional and the “AIDS Secrets” article – OTTAWA CITIZEN: Kafka comes to Canada – NATIONAL POST EDITORIAL: End the witch hunts for good – MONTREAL GAZETTE: Parliament should abolish this odious law – LEVANT: It’s a great day for freedom of speech – CATHOLIC CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE: Section 13 ruling a move in the right direction, says League – and CALGARY HERALD: Free speech at long last!

Post-Darwinist – This just in: Infamous Section 13 hits a wall

 More to come, next time ’round.

Second, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, afraid? From 6minutes: Home births are safe: study:

When home births include as many women with diabetes, hypertension, cardiac disease, previous stillbirth, substance abuse, twins, breech, placenta previa, macrosomia, IUGR, fetal anomaly, maternal anemia, renal disease, lupus and all other maladies as do hospital births, some sort of comparison may be possible. Until then, papers like the Canadian report rank below the lowest nadir in the scale of evidence – level 7 or “junk science”.
This paper is as valuable as reports of the sighting of the Loch Ness monster, of UFOs over Perth, of alien abduction and of successful transmutation of base metals into gold.
For sure the Canadian Medical Association Journal published it as they were afraid of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the body that ensures even raving lunatics have an equal right to publish their delusions in medical journals. I pity the women of Canada, and their babies.
Obstetric and Internal Medicine
Royal Perth Hospital and King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Perth

Read it here.

Third, the Persecuted Church Weblog talks about: What is the difference between a human rights commission and a human rights tribunal?

Often in the discussion about the human rights commissions and tribunals in Canada and its provinces, the terms get confused or interchanged.  So what is the difference between the two?  Here is what their respective websites say:

What is the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is empowered by the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal jurisdiction. Under the Employment Equity Act, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that federally regulated employers provide equal opportunities for employment to the four designated groups: women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities. The Commission is also mandated to develop and conduct information and discrimination prevention programs.

What is the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) is much like a court. It was created by Parliament to inquire into complaints of discrimination and to decide if what is alleged to have occurred is a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act. As an administrative tribunal, the CHRT has more flexibility than regular courts. This allows those who appear before it a chance to tell their cases more fully without having to follow strict rules of evidence. The Tribunal’s main goal is to ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Act is interpreted and applied fairly and impartially at all hearings. The Tribunal is not an advocate for human rights issues: That is the role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Read the rest here.

Finally, the curse of Steyn; Steynian 379; I hate the HRC;


One Response to Today’s Lynch List

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: