Testimony in session

[ UPDATE 1: Jay Currie‘s got a drinking game. Meanwhile, Jay Currie liveblogs the proceedings. Check out his blog for more updates as they come.

Now, to my own liveblog.

12:50 – the first questioner [ Brian Murphy ] is taking up most of his time with his own question. Usual dribble from Jennifer Lynch: ‘justice, human rights, and hate messages strike at the core of equality’, etc. Haven’t we heard this before? Says we have been relying on Taylor decision; most extreme forms of expression only. Says that out of 70 cases, they’ve only punished about 22% by Tribunal ( which is a misrepresentation of the facts ).

CHRC has been applying the definition of only the most extreme forms of expression; does not regulate offensive speech; no need for concern.

*Laughs

Wants an amendment more closely mirroring the Taylor decision. Not that the Tribunal needs it, of course, in its wisdom, but so as not to upset the average, uninformed citizen.

12:54 – next question.

How nice. Questioner doesn’t even know if there’s been an appeal on Warman v. Lemire! Where is Warman v. Lemire at right now?

Lynch: talks about the judicial review application. Explains about the Appeal, which the questioner should have known to begin with.

Asking about the neo-nazi postings, and other misconduct. Any investigation?

Lynch: goes back to talking about the CHRC’s job. In order to do that, they have to be a part of a very clear, fair process. Key point: CHRC employees adhere to a strong code of ethics and values, and have not erred ( that’s a pretty messed up code, then ). Talks about confusion, and ‘mis-information’….

*laughs

She’s looked into the matter, to reassure herself. Canadians can feel proud in the CHRC’s employees, and in the way that they do their ‘complex’ job.

Comartin notices that that’s not an answer to his question. Lynch: have conducted internal investigations. RCMP and Privacy Commissioner as well. Those latter have closed their files ( which is a misrepresentation of the facts ). Internal investigations: no breach of any law or any ethic ( that’s because the CHRC has no ethics code! ).

Any civil action against Levant or Steyn because of their ‘allegations”?

Lynch: they’re just humble civil servants. Processing complaints is a small part of their job; they’re also talking about and promoting equality and such in Canada, and ‘internationally’. These horrible, nasty, mean assertions are a lot of work for a CHRC employee to spend their busy time working on. Treasury Board will not cover those costs; plaintiffs would be on their own ( oh noes ).

Lynch has ‘tried to put the record strait’, and has tried to balance two freedoms: the freedom of expression, and the freedom from discrimination, which is also apparently a fundamental right…

Comartin again: any analysis of what other countries are doing in her report?

Lynch: talks about some different countries, including Australia ( which is having its own HRA problems ), and have done analyses of other countries. Can provide those analyses if wanted.

On to Mr. Rathgeber – confused and concerend that Lynch asserts that the r3eason that the CHRC hasn’t pursued libel courts for reason of expense. But what about CHRC complainants: they get a free ride, don’t they?

Lynch: Canada has a process that can give people the opportunity to come forward when they’re vulnerable; Section 13 cases included. Rathgeber cuts her off: the respondent in these enquiries has no legal aid.

Lynch: ‘our processes are informal, and paper-based’. No individual needs to retain council. Rathgeber: but if they do…

Lynch: no provisions to cover costs. Lynch has suggested that this be done in certain cases before Tribunal.

Question: does the CHRC have a code of ethics.

Lynch: CHRC subscribes to the code of ethics of civil servants, but mentions no specific code of ethics.

Question: about Steacy’s conduct.

Is that kind of conduct covered under a strong adherence to ethics.

Lycnh says they did no such thing. AHAHAHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHA

They have a statutory requirement to investigate hate on the internet. Just as the RCMP must go under-cover, the CHRC can do similar under-cover actions to determine whether there’s hate or not.

Rathgeber mentions Steacy’s testimony that he did what he’s accused of.

Lynch: Mr. Steacy used ‘jadewarr’, and made one post. But it wasn’t anything to do with hateful expression ( never mind that he was engaging in conduct that Warman tried to nab Lemire for, to a T ), and engaged in emails, which are ‘bland’, and have nothing to do with hate.

Rathgeber: what about the domain name hacking.

Lynch: isn’t true.

Next questioner:

1:18 – Marlene Jennings; looking forward to documentation showing that the allegations are baseless.

Looking at two recommendations by Lynch, now, including the ability of the CHRC to dismiss complaints if they don’t meet the Taylor definition ( as far as I understand ).

Jennings wants to know why the CHRC wouldn’t be the only party involved, the complainant prosecuting the case. Why hasn’t the CHRC asked for this ability? There’s a bit of a disconnect there.

Lynch: the Act does give them the ability to initiate a complaint, but they haven’t done it a lot, although they will consider doing it more. They don’t see the need to take away a person’s ‘right’ to initiate a complaint before Tribunal. The Act also gives them the mandate to represent the public interest. Again, the ‘layperson’ doesn’t understand the meaning of hate, because obviously nobody has to fear the CHRC’s hate speech provision.

Jennings: amendments to the legislation, so that an ordinary citizen can complain to the CHRC, and that the CHRC can be the party to the complaint, instead of the victim, because then we’re burdening them.

Marc Lemay – before you make an amendment, you have to be careful. He’s read the Moon report, and when he reads Section 13 and (1), and Section 3, he finds them hard to amend. Also, there’s the criminal code, with its own provisions. Since the Internet is a public place, why amend Section 13 at this point? We already have section 2 of the charter, and section 3(19)  (did I get that right? 3(19)? 319? ) of the criminal code.

Lynch: Section 13 complaints represent about 2% of CHRC complaints, and one case has brought up the freedom of expression debate. CHRC tried to address this concern, and had the benefit of Moon’s report, and other consultations and their own research. Came to the conclusion that the Act will be better understood if amended, and their processes improved if they have the ability to dismiss unfounded cases early. They have a statutory obligation to investigate all complaints. And with hate message complaints, it can be pretty obvious if speech meets the test. So Lynch wants the ability to put an end to about ‘three-quarters’ of these complaints, which will be beneficial, because it will give people a better understanding of the CHRC’s activity. Or whatever.

Russ Hiebert – no questions, which seems a little bit odd, since he was so hot to trot earlier, with his own parliamentary committee to play with. Is he so disappointed by these proceedings?

Next question: wants to know of the principles involved. Stephen Woodworth, by the way. Wants to start out with Lynch’s comment that ordinary Canadians do not have to fear. When he hears about the issue: it’s not about Canadians expressing fear, but expressing a love of freedom of expression. The difficulty that he’s having is that Section 13 prosecutions are actually quite punitive right now. The judicial system makes certain mistakes, but it has all sorts of safe-guards at least, which Section 13 prosecutions are not subject to.

Any recommendations which would safeguard freedom of expression in the Tribunal process?

Lynch: finding the balance between the right to equality, and to freedom of expression is fundamental. They get their direction from the Statute and Charter,  the balance was achieved in Taylor, and the language of prosecution does not apply to the CHRC because they’re an administrative body ( how reassuring ). The Tribunal isn’t prosecuting either, because it’s quasi-judicial. The system’s part of a network, which all adheres to natural justice and such, although with a less formal approach.

In regards to freedom of expression, it’s already protected in their Statute, and so the only speech that is prosecuted is the most extreme form ( which still isn’t free ). Section 2 of the Charter protects freedom of expression; Section 15 protects equality; and another section provides for a balance between the two, which the CHRC/T have run with.

1:35 – out of time. May need to have her back. Break for five minutes.

Alright, so I’ll go through what I’ve already written for typos, adding in links and stuff like that. See you in five minutes…]

OK – Starting again, with Richard Moon and Bernie Farber. Moon’s opening statement: talks about the Moon report. Seems like a fairly nice fellow, although he ‘keeps losing his rythm’. Goes over various aspects of his report and recommendations. Rehashes a lot of the things that he’s already stated; nothing new here.

*Laugh. “Unfair attacks on Human Rights Commissions’.

1:48 – Bernie Farber speaks. I’m going to the bathroom.

1: 51 – Frieman speaking.

Oh gawd – he trotted out the ‘fire in a crowded theatre’ argument. Kill me now. Talks about various regulations on freedom of speech: libel, porn, food advertising, etc. All of these are geared toward preventing harm and society itself ( well, so long as we aren’t being too high-minded about it ).

1:55 – Ah, mentions various propaganda of dictatorial governments: of course, it’s the speech, not the governments which seems to get the blame now.

His argument: Section 13 handles dangerous speech, because it handles demonization, and becasue demonization has always been the precursor to violence.

*Laughs.

1:58 – Criminal prosecutions punish the wrongdoer. The HRA handles the meaning of the acts themselves.

This being said, is the focus of the CHRA too subjective and dangerous? He doesn’t believe so. Dickson’s definition is quite precise ( too bad the CHRA/C/T aren’t governed by that definition. )

There are problems, of course. CJC believes that the CHRC should be allowed to dismiss complaints early on ( what does this have to do with Section 13? ), etc.

Questions:

Brian Murphy – is Mr. Levant wrong,  and it wasn’t all that long ago that people like Ezra Levant weren’t protected, no matter how good they were at defending themselves? Would something like Section 13 have helped in places like Rwanda, etc. to prevent genocide?

Frieman replies that, well, no, genocide couldn’t have been prevented in many cases. But the demonization in europe in the thirties led to a sort of anasthesia which allowe3d otherwise intelligent people to stand by and let the, erm..proceedings proceed.

So is Mr. Levant naive? Farber: yes, he is.

Murphy: there is a clash of rights then, between freedom of speech and the right to be protected from demonization ( what?). What balance is struck now, with the improvements that have been suggested?

Frieman again. Isn’t he going to let anybody other than himself speak? Need to define what expression is – we have expressive freedom, but how far can we take it before it becomes harmful? Believes that these changes would help to maintain the proper balance.

Farber: mentions the Holocaust. People alive today still suffer because of it, and the thought that there are people out there who would continue to promote such acts is ‘incredible’ to him. Mentions an invasion of the Jewish memorial grounds in Ottawa, swastikas scrawled, etc. ( by the way, couldn’ t this be prosecuted under actual, criminal grounds? What does it have to do with s. 13? )

Argues, do we want this to continue?

2:07 – Marc Lemay: of Frieman, you don’t think it’s useful to repeal S. 13, but say it should be clarified. To his mind, S. 13 seems rather clear -mentions Taylor ( again, this hasn’t been tied in with S. 13, has it now ) – and mentions criminal code provisions.

Frieman again! S. 13 doesn’t need clarification, unless maybe to include Dickson’s ruling in Taylor. Suggestions he was making were administrative improvements.

Lemay: of Frieman, do you think they need Dickon’s decision?

Frieman ( seriously, is he going to let anybody else speak? ), agrees that they don’t necessarily need it, but wouldn’t be upset if they had it. Mentions various administrative updates, including a specialist tribunal to handle S. 13 cases, no more rotation of jobs within the CHRC, etc.

Lemay: of Moon. Do you share this opinion?

Missed Moon’s answer, but I think his tone was generally in agreement ( I think ). On to Comartin:

Asks about Moon’s essay for a Sask. law school. Any way that the committee could see it before publication?

Moon: sure, but you’ve got an abridged version. Talks a little more about it.

Comartin: how can we handle demonization?

Moon: not sure that the standard in Tribunal proceedings is necessarily different from criminal court proceedings.

Mark Frieman: agrees; and no need for intent, because intent is a ‘side-trip’ that isn’t profitable. What a ridiculous argument.

2:19 – Moon talks about a criminal code provision ( 319(22) or somesuch ) that handles online hate speech.

Rathgeber: what protection is/was s. 13 providing to Farber and Frieman from such things as swastikas scrawled on their memorial gravestones?

Frieman: s. 13 provides a check against out-of-line speech, and so is important to help provide a definition of what is beyond reasonable. Would taking down such websites prevent such desecration? Unclear, but seems intuitively correct that the less the web is a forum for such hate, the more that such acts will be reduced.

Rathgeber: well it wasn’t this time.

Bernie talks: his goal is to use civil proceedings to get to the kids before things go so far as to scrawl swastikas on graves ( or somesuch ).

Rathgeber talks about likely to expose; expresses concern. Who gets to decide such things as what is demonizing? Question: of Mr. Moon about s. 3(19) of CC.

Moon: missed some of his response. But mentions some concerns of his, including that of the provincial attorney generals, whose consent is needed to go forward for CC prosecutions of hate speech.

2:27 – time running out. Ten more minutes. Yay.

Marlene jennings: asks again about the CHRC being the only party in s. 13 prosecutions; expresses disagreement with Rathgeber that the definition of demonization and dehumanization is subjective, which he had stated earlier ( which is irrelevant, since this isn’t written into law, to my knowledge ).

Moon: he proposed that the CHRC be able to be the only party.

Frieman: agrees that Demonization, etc. is not subjective. Mentions again the Taylor decision.

Marc Lemay – no questions.

Comartin again: wants to talk about members apointed to Tribunal. Have clear criteria for members been looked at so far?

Frieman: yes, this would probably be a good thing.

Russ Hiebert: Alan Borovoy has made similar recommendations as Moon has made, although for different reasons. What does Moon think of Alan’s recommendations. Asks about whether the CHRC’s recommendation that legal fees be covered in extreme cases; why has this not been suggested for all cases?

Moon: didn’t really give consideration to that last point, because he was busy with other issues. But if the CHRC were to handle these cases, it would seem possible for defenses to be considered. Talks a little bit about Borovoy’s suggestions. Expresses concern that a body that deals with hatred broadly be dealing with hatred specifically.

2:34 – alright, so that’s it. Adjourned. I hope I was able to provide a little bit of a guide to the proceedings here. But if not, well, too bad. I’ll follow updates as they arise, if I can. ]

I slept in a tad too much ( BC time ), so I missed the first few minutes of Lynch et al’s testimony. But no longer. It can be viewed here.

Blazing Cat Fur writes:

Had it been business as usual today’s Justice Committee hearing on Section 13 (1) would have provided the few wonks who might have cared with insight into how Special Interest Groups, Civil Servants and our Members of Parliament work behind the scenes to formulate policy affecting all Canadians. This assumes that today’s hearing would have taken place at all, a doubtful proposition at best.brokerage politics that hides behind the decayed mask of official multiculturalism and the need by politicians to be seen as “taking action” – otherwise known as vote buying. Section 13 (1) is legislation that brings visions of votes dancing through the heads of short sighted politicians giddy with the belief that minorities are homogeneous voting blocs. This will likely remain the case for our out of touch politicos who imagine advocacy groups are always representative of their alleged constituencies best interests and despite the fact that the campaign to rid Canada of Section 13 (1) has proven to be as non-partisan and grassroots an effort as any I have witnessed, garnering overwhelming public and institutional support.“defamation of religion” as a sort of global blasphemy law. The CJC and B’nai Brith simply represent the other side of this front in the Arab Israeli conflict, each group hoping to enforce the law in accordance to its will and agenda, an engagement that is being fought by proxy via Section 13 (1).“In addition, they are impartial and do not represent either of the parties involved in the complaint.”

Today’s session is special however and affords us an opportunity to witness all of these actors in the cold light of day, under circumstances they would have preferred to avoid if at all possible.

What do we have to look forward to? Jennifer Lynch of the CHRC, Mark Freiman and Bernie Farber of the CJC will present their justifications for the continued circumvention and erosion of Canadians fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and established criminal justice principles, notably due process. Richard Moon will hopefully expand on his expressed distaste for the “tone” of the public debate, otherwise known as democracy.

So expect the worst from them and even less of the Liberal and NDP committee members, after all Section 13 (1) was cynically born of the

I am saddened to see that the Canadian Islamic Congress and the Canadian Arab Federation were not invited to today’s session. Their presence, comic relief aside, would highlight the perverse nature of Section 13 (1)’s support base which, other than the human rights cult itself, is limited to a few special interest groups whose true goal I suspect is to seek a means to further political agendas and specifically control debate on the middle east. For the CIC & CAF Section 13 (1) fits nicely with the Islamist campaign to institute

Pity that the rights of all Canadians may well be sacrificed to satiate the Gods of Political Correctness and the appetites of craven politicians.
…
One line of questioning I would love to see asked of Ms. Lynch relates to the CHRC’s policy on Investigations which states of investigators that

Now that would make for an interesting exchange, just imagine the possibilities.
…Today’s session will be broadcast live on CPAC commencing at 3:30 pm.

Poison Control Advisory:

Don’t miss today’s session, Jennifer Lynch is first up but caution is advised, you’ll need this antidote to make it through the day – The Official Jennifer Lynch Drinking Game.

Read it here.