Today’s Lynch List

Alright, here’re the linkses.

First off, yet a little more coverage of the Hadjis decision on the Warman v. Lemire hearing, from the following:

Scaramouche – Mutation abomination

Prison Planet – Canadian Victory Inspires U.S. Hate Law Resistance

American Thinker – Free speech in Canada again

 Canadian Content – Canada’s Internet Hate Law Will No Longer Be Enforced

Kenneth Hynek – CIC “shocked” about something; must be Friday

Brian Lilley for CFRB – Human rights law likely to become election fodder

Law is Cool – Athanasios Hadjis Rules in Lemire v. Warman

Truth is Contagious – Canadian Victory Inspires U.S. Hate Law Resistance

What Do You Believe? – Marc Lemire, CHRC, CJC, B’nai Brith … what’s the big deal?

David Warren, for RealClearPoliticsPolitical Correctness in Canada–Or Else

Second off, Blazing Cat Fur notes Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant’s dual appearance on Brass Balls Radio. Also noted by No Apologies. Wendy Sullivan from Girl on the Right gives a rundown, with accompanying mp3.

Third, Girl On The Right writes: Jennifer Lynch could not be reached for comment:

A Shi’ite who has been on death row in Saudi Arabia for 16 years for insulting the Prophet Mohammed was sentenced this week to another five years in jail for criticizing the Saudi justice system, an activist said.

Insulting the Prophet Mohammed. That’s what Ezra Levant was brought in front of the Alberta “Human Rights” Commission for. For printing the Danish cartoons in the now-defunct Western Standard magazine. But he wasn’t charged in Saudi Arabia – he was charged right here in “freedom-loving” Canada. A lunatic, illiterate Imam scrawled a complaint to the AHRC, and for two years Ezra was dragged through an expensive and ultimately bogus process.

No, he didn’t face death row for insulting the epileptic child molester who founded Islam as a land grab. Not this time.

You hear a lot of talk about the slippery slope. In Canada, the Human Rights apparatus was set up to make sure that minorities had equal access to housing and employment as other Canadians. It was a good idea at the time. But the slippery slope has slid us into a place where printing cartoons or writing a book about demography can get you hauled in front of a government body for years on end at high expense… for the good of the people.

Brass Balls Radio records tonight, and with me to discuss the outcome of Warman v. Lemire in front of adjudicator Athanasios Hadjis of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will be Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn. Yes, I’m asking these two great friends to give up part of their Friday evening before a long weekend to talk about the Kangaroo Courts. Again.

Read the rest here.

Fourth, Denyse O’Leary writes for Mercator: Shooting the messenger:

Should government censor news to avoid social conflict? Yes, according to some.

In Canada recently, that idea was tested when Islamists got Canada’s Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine charged by human rights commissions in several jurisdictions for alleged hate speech in connection with an article about the significance of large-scale immigration of Muslims to the West (“The future belongs to Islam”, October 20, 2006, an excerpt from America Alone: the End of the World As We Know It.

Steyn was blunt about the outcome of high birth rates, characteristic of current Muslim communities, vs. low birthrates, characteristic of current post-Christian ones: “On the Continent and elsewhere in the West, native populations are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic. Time for the obligatory of courses: of course, not all Muslims are terrorists — though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists — though enough of them share their basic objectives (the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America) to function wittingly or otherwise as the good cop end of an Islamic good cop/bad cop routine. But, at the very minimum, this fast-moving demographic transformation provides a huge comfort zone for the jihad to move around in.”

Meanwhile, Ezra Levant, the peppery civil rights lawyer from western Canada was charged for publishing in 2006 the famous Mohammed cartoons that originated in Denmark. However, Canadian journalists have fought back against Islamist efforts to control the news, to prevent what they see as defamation of their religion or prophet. That was a good thing for public policy in general. In the research for their cases, the journalists discovered evidence of serious abuses, including the fact that human rights commission employees pretended to be Nazis in order to secure convictions and even hacked a private citizen’s email address, probably in order to conceal their activities.

 

Read the rest here. Also noted by Blazing Cat Fur, and EChurchWebsites.

Fifth, from Jay Currie: Hadjis v. Hadjis:

To my not very great surprise the decision in Warman v. Lemire is beginning to ramify. An application has been made in Warman v. Beaumont for Hadjis to retroactively apply his finding of unconstitutionality to the Beaumont case and to a) eliminate the cease and desist order, b) reverse the penalties assessed.

Now, was this a decision of a Court there would be zero chance; but with the procedural free form which characterizes the Tribunal and the fact the cease and desist order is ongoing, there is at least a faint hope this absurd decision might be revisited in light of Lemire.

The more general point being that the Hadjis ruling in Lemire has thrown the CHRC onto the defensive at the legal level. It was already underwater as a matter of public and press opinion.

Warman’s pigeons are coming home to roost.

Read it here. Meanwhile, from Free DominionPaul Fromm: Demands that Hadjis Reverse Beaumont Penalties Hadjis Imposed:

Paul Fromm
DirectorIn my comments frequent commentor, truewest writes:

 

You guys keep proclaiming victory and yet, s. 13 is still on the books and, arguably, still good law. While I think Hadjis’s comments on the effect of s. 54 on the constitutionality of s. 13 is well-reasoned, he is only one tribunal member and his findings of law are not binding on any other member, much less any other tribunal or court, just as the two earlier decisions finding s. 13 constitutional were not binding on him. 

So, no, s. 13 is not a dead letter. Hadjis didn`t gut anything. truewest

 

So, just for a second imagine you are counsel for a person against whom a s. 13 complaint has been lodged. What would be your first move? My bet is that you would make a motion to dismiss on the grounds that s. 13 has been found to be unconstitutional. And note, Hadjis did not differentiate between the constitutionality of s. 54 (the penalties section) and 13. He ruled:

 

However, 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 the Charter. warman v. lemire

Note the inclusive language which I have bolded. 

If a Member declined to dismiss – as is his or her right as tw notes – counsel would be off like the proverbial shot to the Federal Court for a ruling as to the constitutionality of s. 13. As a general rule, a court gives great deference to the “man on the spot” in such matters and Hadjis wrote his decision with the Federal, indeed Supreme Court, in mind.

Canadian Association for Free Expression
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3
PH: 905-274-3868; FAX 905-278-2413
September 4, 2009

Mr. Athanasios D. Hadjis, Vice-Chairman.
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4

Dear Mr. Hadjis:

Re: Richard Warman v. Jessica Beaumont

Dear Mr. Hadjis:

You were the Member seized of this complaint; that is, Richard Warman v. Jessica Beaumont. Hearings were held in Vancouver in December of 2006. I was Miss Beaumont’s agent throughout these proceedings.

You found her guilty of a discriminatory practice, contrary to the controversial Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and, in your decision, delivered October 26, 2007, assessed certain penalties:

  •  
      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 the Charter.
  • [94] In assessing the appropriateness of such an order, the only messages in issue are those that reference Mr. Warman, and not the entirety of the material that has been found to be in breach of s. 13. Ms. Beaumont knew or should have known that the language she was using to attack and ridicule Mr. Warman was likely to expose him to hatred and contempt in conjunction with his identification as a Jew. The reference to “Dead Warman Society” accompanied by images of swastikas is particularly troubling. Words suggesting that harm should come to another cannot be taken lightly, even if they were made in jest. Others viewing this material on the Internet may not see it as such and take the message more seriously. Mr. Warman also points out that Message 30, for instance, was posted after Ms. Beaumont was served with the human rights complaint. Thus, rather than halting the hate messages, she continued them and began to include references to Mr. Warman by name.
    [95] In the circumstances, I therefore order Ms. Beaumont to pay the sum of $3,000 in special compensation, pursuant to s. 54(1)(b) of the Act.
    104] Taking all of these factors into account, I order Ms. Beaumont to pay a penalty of $1,500. Payment of the penalty shall be made by certified cheque or money order payable to the “Receiver General for Canada”, and must be received by the Tribunal within 120 days of the date on which this decision is served on Ms. Beaumont.

    [80] I therefore see no reason to deny the order. Ms. Beaumont is ordered to cease and desist from communicating or causing to be communicated, by the means described in s. 13 of the Act, and particularly the Internet, any matter of the type contained in the messages at issue in this case that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
    On September 2, you rendered your decision in Richard Warman v. Marc Lemire and declared Sec. 13 to be unconstitutional:

     

Miss Beaumont complied with your orders and paid her fine in full and the $3,000 awarded to Richard Warman. Ironically, Mr. Warman obtained a court order and a further $3,000 was removed from Miss Beaumont’s account after she had purchased a draft to pay him. It was some weeks before this money was returned to her.

In light of your decision in Warman v. Lemire, I seek:

1. that you rescind the “cease and desist” order. This is especially vital, as it is a legal burden hanging over Miss Beaumont for life, an obligation to silence under a law you hold is a violation of the Charter! Your “cease and desist” order is doubly onerous, as Miss Beaumont, who is not a lawyer, is enjoined not to communicate messages of |”the type contained in the messages at issue in this case.” Yet, in your ruling, you found that “many,” but not all, the impugned messages in the complaint violated Sec. 13.

 

    [74] In sum, I find that in most of the impugned messages, Ms. Beaumont engaged in the communication of matter that was likely to expose persons identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination (namely race, religion, national or ethnic origin, and sexual orientation), to hatred or contempt.
Thus, Miss Beaumont has no guidance as to which messages were deemed acceptable.

2. that you cancel the $3,000 award to Mr. Warman and order that he return these monies, plus interest back to the date of the decision, to Miss Beaumont.

3. that you cancel the $1,500 fine imposed on Miss Beaumont and order that these monies, plus interest back to the date of the decision, be returned to Miss Beaumont.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Fromm
Director

Read it here. Also noted by Blazing Cat Fur.

Sixth, Glenn Kauth, writing for the Law Times: When rights collide:

News the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled the country’s anti-hate law unconstitutional is a significant victory for free-speech advocates in the battle between right-wingers and lawyer Richard Warman.

In making his decision, tribunal vice chairman Athanasios Hadjis noted he lacked the authority to declare the Canadian Human Rights Act’s anti-hate provision invalid.

Nevertheless, he elected to ignore it in a case involving Warman and Marc Lemire, webmaster of freedomsite.org. He concluded s. 13(1) of the act is “inconsistent” with the Charter’s provision on freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression.

The case stems from Warman’s allegations about comments on freedomsite.org. In one complaint, the only one which Hadjis deemed to have merit, Warman took issue with a column titled “AIDS secrets: What the government and the media don’t want you to know.”

In it, the author links the AIDS crisis to the U.S. black population. The article claimed African-Americans are between 14 to 20 times more likely to get infected than white people and that blacks account for 90 per cent of all AIDS infections among heterosexuals.

For Warman, those words and other web postings he found contravened s. 13(1) by exposing minority groups to hatred or contempt.

Hadjis’ conclusions about the constitutionality of s. 13(1) centres on the punitive aspects of the law. Noting the Supreme Court of Canada already dealt with the issue in 1990, he argued that what has changed since then is the imposition of a fine and the expansion of the hate-speech provisions to the Internet during revisions to the Human Rights Act in 2001.

It is that aspect that Hadjis determined to be problematic given the earlier Supreme Court decision’s focus on a conciliatory, rather than penal, approach in dealing with restrictions on free speech under the act.

H/t to Blazing Cat Fur.

Seventh, from Jay Currie: Keep Hope Alive, truewest edition:

In my comments frequent commentor, truewest writes:

 

You guys keep proclaiming victory and yet, s. 13 is still on the books and, arguably, still good law. While I think Hadjis’s comments on the effect of s. 54 on the constitutionality of s. 13 is well-reasoned, he is only one tribunal member and his findings of law are not binding on any other member, much less any other tribunal or court, just as the two earlier decisions finding s. 13 constitutional were not binding on him.  So, no, s. 13 is not a dead letter. Hadjis didn`t gut anything. truewest

 So, just for a second imagine you are counsel for a person against whom a s. 13 complaint has been lodged. What would be your first move? My bet is that you would make a motion to dismiss on the grounds that s. 13 has been found to be unconstitutional. And note, Hadjis did not differentiate between the constitutionality of s. 54 (the penalties section) and 13. He ruled:

 

However, 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 the Charter. warman v. lemire

Note the inclusive language which I have bolded.  If a Member declined to dismiss – as is his or her right as tw notes – counsel would be off like the proverbial shot to the Federal Court for a ruling as to the constitutionality of s. 13. As a general rule, a court gives great deference to the “man on the spot” in such matters and Hadjis wrote his decision with the Federal, indeed Supreme Court, in mind.

Read the rest here.

Eighth, Robin Anderson, via the London Free Press: Worker feels discriminated against:

Q I am writing on behalf of my wife. She works at one of the big banks and gets treated very badly. She is pregnant, due at the beginning of November. Her employer has told her she is going to be fired in October (at first it was November, but that changed when they found out her due date). She has some of the highest customer ratings in the branch and double the number of served customers as her fellow employees. Before she was hired, she informed the bank she was not a salesperson and was told that was not a problem. A few weeks later, she discovered most of her job is about selling credit cards and she gets into trouble for not selling enough. She’s also gotten into trouble for not getting back to work right away after her lunch break, but other employees take longer and nothing is said to them. These other employees call in sick often (again, nothing is said), but if my wife calls in sick, she does not hear the end of it. She has had a medical order to take a week of leave from work for which she was chastised. The most important thing, though, is racism. My wife is one of three white people at the branch. The rest of her colleagues are of East Indian descent. The bank sends out a racism/discrimination questionnaire every six months, but since she is not a visible minority, she is excluded from taking it. In her branch, though, she is the minority and is discriminated against. We don’t know what to do. — Unequal Rights

How sad women are still discriminated against, period, never mind for bringing new life into this world. According to a report from CBCNews.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/04/22/maternity-leave.html), “The slumping economy is being blamed for what appears to be an increasingly common action — laying off or firing mothers while they’re away from their jobs on maternity leave.”

Unless she isn’t telling you the whole story, it does sound like she is being picked on, whether due to her race or her pregnancy.

The first thing she should do is speak to her union representative if her bank is unionized. The union rep will help her prepare for, and could accompany her to, meetings with management. If she isn’t part of a union, she may have to go it alone and possibly have someone as a witness.

Before she does anything, she needs to ask herself if she’s positive there is racial discrimination. Are the other Caucasian employees saying the same thing? If they are, would they be willing to speak out?

Read the rest here.

Finally, shocking Elmo; a dawg with crust in its mouth; the mother of all questions; and human rights commissions ( scroll down ).

Advertisements

One Response to Today’s Lynch List

  1. ahmed says:

    i try many time to help other some time i try to help African poor kids other time i help old people and now i try to help my country .
    i try to help people to find a good job to make canada the best place in the world
    many stay at home and didn’t find a good job or they can’t find their career
    i think alot about that finally i find out what to do…..
    i create a new website not a website it is a forum it contain many jobs in canada that many can enter it and get a good job and it is free i hope you help me in that and send it to you friends to help them to
    finally we not leave alone in the world this is the link of it
    http://www.today-jobs.com/canada/index.php
    i need you to support that website

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: