Here we go again.
First off, just a wee bit more coverage of the Hadjis decision:
Covenant Zone – Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Refuses to Apply the Law
The Freedomsite Blog – Marc Lemire on RoadKill Radio – Tonight 7:30 to 8:30pm (PST)
Canadian Human Rights Commission Exposed – Marc Lemire on RoadKill Radio – Tonight 7:30 to 8:30pm (PST)
Ferreras J. – Dissenting – Don’t bother reading Hadjis’ decision
SoCon or Bust – Blogosphere Pressure Sacks The Star Chamber
Second, I can’t remember if I posted this earlier, but here it is. From Jay Currie: Busy basement Nazis:
B’nai Brith Canada’s audits of anti-Semitic incidents include the firebombing of a London, England location of Starbucks (whose chairman, Howard Schultz, is Jewish). A synagogue firebombed in Saskatoon, and another desecrated in Ottawa. In Toronto, a community centre and a Jewish agency that helps developmentally disabled adults was defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti. From college campuses that were once, but no longer, friendly to Jews, to newspapers that spout vile nonsense about Israeli theft of bodily organs, old-fashioned Jew hatred is on the march in this country and worldwide. We urge all Torontonians to resist this latest call for a boycott, the way they responded to the misguided attempts to boycott Israeli wines and the outstanding exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls. karen mock and james morton
So the obvious solution to this problem is to bring bogus CHRC cases against loser basement Nazis. Dr. Mock is surely not clueless enough not to have noticed that much of which she is writing about above has be done by Islamists and or their ultra left university supporters. So, rather than a cadge match between Harry Abrams and loony Arthur Topham before the CHRC, let’s see counter demos and, where warranted, criminal charges where there is incitement. And where the government won’t proffer those charges serious pressure. Dr. Mock spent twelve years as national director of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. She is certainly aware of the changing face of anti-semitism in Canada but in all that time BB went after loser in basements. Waste of time.
When I say Mock should know here’s what I mean:
In most cases, no perpetrator is ever identified since the cloak of anonymity, which provides immunity, is more attractive to the purveyors of hate. In 2008, there were 31 cases where the perpetrator self-identified as of Arab origin, up from 24 such cases in 2007. The concern here is that the virulent propaganda being disseminated against the Jewish State by so-called “mainstream” Arab/Muslim groups may be seen by some of their constituents as a virtual call to action against Jews in general. There were also perpetrators of Aboriginal (7), Black (5), Chinese (2), German (3), Greek (2), Hungarian (3), Iranian (1), Polish (2), and Russian (5) origin. These incidents included cases of both harassment and violence. B’nai Brith
Third, MP Rob Anders finds himself in some hot water, due to the usual suspects. From Blazing Cat Fur: Liberal Activist lacks irony gene, accuses MP Rob Anders of offending Muslims in criticism of Section 13 (1):
Update1: 6 of 10 Anders Pamphlets are now online, see below, sorry the offending versions remain MIA, we are working to obtain them.
By Renata D’Aliesio, Calgary Herald
A political pamphlet from a Conservative MP that urges changes to federal human rights legislation has raised the ire of Calgary’s largest Muslim organization, which views the dispatch to residents as inflammatory and divisive.
(The offending bits below)
“It is now illegal to hold opinions that offend radical Muslim activists,” and “under Section 13 of the so-called ‘human rights’ code, Canadians have been prosecuted for holding personal beliefs which offend radical Muslim imams and liberal activists.”
Liberal activist David Leipert spokesman for the Muslim Council of Calgary, and contributor to Mohamed Elmasry’s 9/11 Troofer and Jew Baiter rag the Canadian Charger says that the pamphlet isn’t factual.
The full Calgary Herald article is here.
We are working to obtain a copy of the Rob Anders pamphlet in an effort to ensure we have the proper context in which Ander’s remarks were made, as noted here the first statement is debatable, the second not so much;)
Rose from the comments sums it up: So the MODERATE Muslim message is no dialogue regarding RADICAL MUSLIMS cause it offends us, wow at least the Islamists aren’t hiding their agenda anymore.
Related from Tarek Fatah: However, instead of distancing themselves from jihad, too many Muslim leaders are defending it by hiding behind its supposedly peaceful nature….
Update: Following is one version of the 10 flyers Ander’s sent to his constituents. Connie at Freedominion has pdf’s of 6 in total however none is the offending version which we are waiting to get our hands on. Frankly of the 6 I have viewed none are objectionable – hard hitting yes.
NB: You will have to rightclick and use the rotate function to view these properly.
Fourth, an update on Jim Corcoran’s complaint before the Ontario HRC, from Scary Fundamentalist:
In the latest instalment from the Northumberland Today with respect to Jim Corcoran’s complaint against the Catholic Church, we find another interesting aspect to this entire shakedown – that Corcoran wanted to keep everything under wraps.
[Corcoran] said that it was never his intention for the matter to become public and that someone leaked it to the Catholic Registrar(sic) who wrote an item for the religious publication.
When you publicly use the government apparatus to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars and force others to humiliate themselves and say things they don’t believe, that’s called oppression. Nasty things might happen, like a grassroots campaigns to rectify the oppression, or financial support for the legal costs of your victims, allowing them to mount an annoyingly effective legal defence. All good reasons for Corcoran, and the Human Rights industry in general, to keep these complaints as quiet as possible.
When you do it in secret, it’s extortion. When you muzzle the defendant with actionable confidentiality clauses, it’s blackmail. And when you take up thousands of taxpayer dollars to fund a petty complaint, that becomes everybody’s business.
But, most of all, when you use the state to force your own will on the church, well, you’re in the company of a certain Sir Henry.
Fifth, Father Alphonse De Valk writes an open letter to one Rob Nicholson:
September 09, 2009
The Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Canada K1A 0H8
Dear Mr. Nicholson,
We believe that you and the staff at the Department of Justice are now well acquainted with the Wednesday, September 2, 2009 ruling of Mr. Athanasios Hadjis of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that:
“I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(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.”
The same section of the code has also been used to penalize the expression of viewpoints based on religious beliefs, including the case against Catholic Insight Magazine http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=4987.
It is welcome news that an adjudicator of the tribunal has found Section 13 inconsistent with the freedom of speech guarantee in the Charter, but we are looking forward to action by Parliament to strike down the provision.
Critics of Section 13(1), including many newspapers, regard it “as an unwarranted chill on our Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression that imperils spirited public discourse.” (Toronto Star, Sept. 4)
This ruling strengthens the case for Parliament to get the CHRC out of the business of policing hate speech to the criminal courts.
As a letter to the editor put it: “In our zeal to become the most virtuous nation on the planet, we have enshrined a ‘justice system that is anything but just; that shuns many of the values we hold so dear—truth as a defence, due process, the presumption of innocence, etc” (National Post, Sept. 4).
The time has come for action. With the rest of the delegates at the last Conservative Convention you voted in support of a policy amendment to delete Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, first we expect you not to appeal the Hadjis ruling in an effort to resurrect this oppressive legislation. Second, we look forward to new legislation that will a) define hate literature much more restrictively and b) leave it to federal Courts to interpret that legislation.
As we pointed out in an earlier letter, in view of its horrendous anti-Christian bias—self-admitted in its own history published in January 2009—the CHRC and the CHRT should be abolished.
Rev. Alphonse de Valk,
Sixth, it’ll soon be your last chance to pick up a Lynch shirt. From Blazing Cat Fur: If you’re going to the Jason Kenney event in Toronto tomorrow…
Prior to Thurs, I will also be taking requests for specific sizes/colors of the 4 slogans. So far, I still have screen for all 4 HRC shirts — but before too long I will need to scrap (at least some of) them to make room for new designs.
So this may be last chance for our people to get one of these historically-important, future collectors’ items before they DISAPPEAR.
Read it here.
Seventh, a ruling that wasn’t to be. From the Canadian Press: Transgendered lawyer’s complaint against Canadian Forces rejected by tribunal:
MONTREAL — A federal human rights tribunal has rejected a complaint by a transgendered lawyer that she was discriminated against when the Canadian Forces refused to enlist her.
Micheline Montreuil alleges the Forces did not accept her 1999 application because of her sexuality.
“For sure, it’s a disappointment,” Montreuil said of the ruling Tuesday.
“More than anything, it’s a loss for human rights.”
In December 2002, she filed the complaint and tried to claim $547,000 in damages for loss of salary and moral prejudice.
The case was heard in Quebec City between December 2006 and December 2007.
A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled last month that Montreuil, who represented herself, couldn’t prove her sexuality was the cause of the refusal.
In the 300-page ruling released Tuesday, Judge Pierre Deschamps said the “allegations are not credible and that Micheline Montreuil is not credible.”
In a separate case in 2007, the human rights tribunal ruled the Canadian Forces discriminated against Montreuil when they passed her up for a job as a grievance officer.
The Forces found she was a qualified candidate but ultimately turned her down, claiming there wasn’t enough work to justify hiring someone who spoke only French.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Montreuil’s sexuality was the real reason she didn’t get the position and awarded her $40,000 for loss of income.
She won a similar case in 2004 when the same tribunal ruled against the National Bank for failing to hire Montreuil as a customer service representative.
In 2007, Montreuil was nominated to run for the federal New Democratic Party, but was dumped as a candidate by the party a few months later.
She claimed it was because she is transgendered.
Eighth, an unsigned editorial in the McGill Tribune had the following to say: Tribunals aren’t the way to deal with hate speech:
If something can’t be done consistently and fairly, then it shouldn’t be done at all. That’s the message the Canadian government needs to hear about prosecuting hate speech through flawed human rights tribunals, and, thankfully, it’s a message that might be starting to get through.
Last week the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act – which gives human rights tribunals the power to issue penalties of up to 20,000 dollars against people who publish hate speech on the Internet – violates Section 2 of the Charter of Human Rights (namely, the right to freedom of speech) and is therefore unconstitutional. In effect, the Tribunal stripped itself of its own punitive powers, and we applaud them for that decision.
Dealing with hate speech through human rights tribunals is a terrible idea. Section 13 gives plaintiffs with no injury or relationship to the alleged hate speech the right to sue publishers or authors in front of appointed tribunals that can then issue punitive punishments (including fines of up to 10,000 dollars payable to the government or 20,000 dollars to an identified victim). The system allows only well-connected and wealthy complainants to see their case through to a verdict, which has resulted in one lawyer, Richard Warman, being responsible for the lion’s share of Section 13 cases. Even if a complaint is judged to be invalid, the complaint process often takes years, and is both financially and emotionally exhausting for the defendant.
Ninth, Angela Browne writes for Suite101 on: Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal:
The Truth About the New Human Rights System in Ontario
During the provincial leadership race for the Progressive Conservative Party, two of its candidates, including winning candidate Tim Hudak, proposed that if their party should ever get to power in Ontario, they will scrap the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. While much of their politicizing about the work of the Tribunal is based on the experiences of a few individuals with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, much of this campaign is based on misinformation and a poor understanding of how our human rights system works.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is an Evolving Body
As with any specialized agency, board or commission set up to deal with and address specific issues, the Human Rights Tribunal is designed to receive, mediate and hear complaints about alleged discrimination and harassment of persons characterized by certain attributes, such as a race, religion, disability and gender, by other persons or organizations in the areas of employment, services, trade associations, housing, among other social areas identified under the Human Rights Code. Contrary to what some believe, there is nothing governing the conduct of freedom of speech or expression under the provincial Code. As telecommunications, websites and publishing are federal responsibilities, any jurisdiction over this area is given to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The new provincial Tribunal was set up and empowered by Bill 107 to provide “direct access” to complainants for the first time in Ontario. This law came fully into force on June 30, 2008. In the past, complaints were sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which screened, analyzed, investigated and where necessary, prosecuted them on behalf of a complainant. This former system was criticized by its users as being too slow, cumbersome and arbitrary in the way it dispensed with many complaints. As the Commission served an important Mediation function, it was able to resolve many complaints without a hearing. However, less than 5% of all complaints were referred to be heard by the old Human Rights Tribunal. The new system allows all complainants to file their complaints directly to the Tribunal and eventually get heard.
Read the rest here.
Ninth, Anti-Racist Canada writes:
We’ve said it before, we’re sure we’ll say it again in the future, and we will say it again right now. Considering how often this blog is declared irrelevant with absolutely no readership by some of our self-styled opposition, they sure do pay an inordinate amount of attention to us.
We, on the other hand, don’t usually go out of our way to read what they’re writing about us, but we are occasionally sent links by our non-existent readership when we are mentioned. Sometime we read what they have to say about us. Sometimes we don’t. But when we are, in part, the subject of an article by the mighty blogger Jay Currie, well, our hearts go all a twitter.
Our dear readers may remember when we published documents indicating the real life identities of the Free Dominion “John Does” who, along with Mr. and Mrs. Fournier, are subjects of a Richard Warman defamation suit. Our readers may also remember the folks at Free Dominion were not please that these documents, all of which are public domain and available to those who wish to access them once they were filed, were made public, even in their redacted form (unlike some of those published by those on the right, we removed home and work addresses, email addresses, some websites, names of spouses, and in one case information regarding a family matter). They called us all sort of nasty names, including but not limited to communists, a violent street gang, and criminals. That the folks at Free Dominion rather routinely post similar court documents on that web forum seems to be of little consequence; it would appear that these powerful voices for free speech get a little squeamish when they themselves don’t approve of the speech.
After the initial hubbub died down we figured that cooler heads had ultimately prevailed. Perhaps it did, but it was brought to the surface again recently.
That brings us to Jay. On August 23, 2009, Jay Currie published an article detailing an apparent “investigation” by the Department of National Defense into Richard Warman to determine whether he had been pursuing his human rights work (though we’re sure Jay would use a different term) on company time and using the department’s resources. To his credit, Jay seems to think that not much, if anything, will be found to have been improper. His original article linked to a Free Dominion thread that appears to have now disappeared, perhaps owing to fears that it may be used against the subjects of Warman’s litigation. In that thread was an email (written not long after the Free Dominion meltdown about ARC having published public domain documents and when emotions were pretty heated), ostensibly from one of the “John Does” to no less than the federal Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay.
Read the rest here.
Finally, a salivating Barb; old friends of Barbara Hall; crafty organizers; a tired old argument; greivous financial losses; cleverness abounds; I’m ready when you are; betcha thought; and according to the Ontario Human Rights Commission ( scroll down a ways ).