On November 26, Brian Storseth's private member's bill to repeal Sec. 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act had it's second reading. Should the Conservatives all get behind Bill C-304, and there's no reason to think that they won't, it is perhaps likely that Sec. 13 is living on borrowed time.
One would think that people like Paulie would be jubilant, however such is not the case, for one reason, Sec. 319 in Criminal Code which deals with hate speech is still in place, which means that is their next target:
This might not be a surprise, but we do get a chuckle that Paulie's biggest complaint is that he and his fellow travellers aren't the one's being given the credit.
Who does he and his friends complain have been given the credit?
First, our Nazi friends are pretty poor when it comes to math. Thanks to our friend Louis, we were able to read the following on another Facebook profile:
Sure, he was in fourth place, if by that you mean fourth last. As in 11th place.
For those who might wish to give, "Max" (pictured here with Paul Fromm, Tomasz Winnicki, Louis Morin, Dave Ruud and Terry Tremaine) the benefit of the doubt and argue that he might be talking about some of the early returns, that's a no go too. At no time was Winnicki ever better than 10th place as results rolled in.
But we aren't here to rehash the election. Nope, Winnicki is in the news again because he was rejected. Now we're sure that Winnicki has become quite used to being rejected in numerous areas of his life, but this one must really sting.
The April 26, 2010 edition of "Macleans" featured a story entitled, "The Return of Hitler" written by Katie Engelhart. The main focus of the article was to discuss the growing interest in Hitler's, Mein Kampf and the resurgence of the far right in places such as Hungary, but also the growing popularity of Hitler's book and the ideas found within in such unusual locations as India and Turkey.
Not too far into the article, Engelhart mentions something that most literary critics have stated already regarding Mein Kampf. As writing goes, it's really not particularly well done. In fact, it's tedious, convoluted and as Winston Churchill stated (and whom Engelhart quotes in the article), "turgid, verbose, [and] shapeless."
One of our resident boneheads from Calgary took great offense to this characterization of der fuhrer's efforts:
-->
KATIE ENGLEHART calls Mein Kampf “Hitler’s poorly written, 700-page magnum opus,” “a badly written book” and “part autobiography, part raving philosophical treatise.” And she seems to base this largely on the opinions of other critics. Has she ever read Mein Kampf? Can she provide any actual examples of poor writing from within this tome? Hitler’s writing is straightforward and clear.
Bill Noble, CalgaryOkay, okay, we know this is an old photo and that Billy looks a bit different now, but it sort of makes the point that we're not exactly dealing with someone who is dealing with a full deck of cards. But if our readers insist that we provide a more up to date photo, well, this is the most up to date that we can come up with:
She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.
"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."
She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
So said the hero of Canadian speechies (and a woman we think Ed Kennedy would like to father children with given how he fawns over her) Ann Coulter during a speech in Gainesville, Florida in 2005. This quote, as well as others even more detestable, have been repeated ad nauseum during the last couple of days as Coulter engages in her speaking tour of Canadian universities.
As we write this article, Ms. Coulter is about to take the stage at the University of Calgary. Well, not the university itself. She's now speaking off-campus for security reasons based on claims that she felt threatened in Ottawa, resulting in the cancellation of her speech there; this cancellation has sent the speechies into an apoplectic rage as they demand heads roll.
We know we should care about Ms. Coulter. She writes and says things that are vile, hate-filled and disturb every sense of civil discourse. We should be frothing at the mouth in rage that "Coultergeist" has even been let into Canada.
But...... we're not.
Not even a little bit.
Now don't get us wrong. We believe that what Coulter writes and says is everything that people say it is and people have a right to exercise their freedom of speech to denounce and oppose her and her rhetoric.
Problem is, we're not entirely sure Coulter believes what she writes or says either.
We remember when Coulter was just one of a number of political talking heads making the rounds on t.v. news and talk shows in the late 1990s. We were first introduced to Coulter as a semi-regular on the Bill Mahr program, "Politically Incorrect." At the time, there was really little to distinguish Coulter from any of the other political talking heads on both the left and the right. She was, in retrospect, extraordinary by how absolutely ordinary she was. She was a generic conservative, often picked to "debate" a generic liberal. She acted the way other conservative pundits acted. Spoke from the same script. Really, the only time she actually stood out to any of us is when she was rocking the eye patch for a while.
Being a political pundit in the United States is a bit dog eat dog. If you want to have any staying power, you have to find some sort of gimmick (Tucker Carlson's bow tie as a somewhat nerdy case in point). Once you have your gimmick and you achieve a certain level of notoriety with the base you're appealing to, then that's when you get your own talk show on FOX (if you're a conservative) or MSNBC (if you're a liberal). Or, if you're aren't consistently capable of hosting a full hour of television, you write books. But these are relatively rare considering the number of talking heads that are out in the media trying to get their big break. Most end up back working as junior partners at small law firms, a fate that Coulter could easily have fallen into herself.
So, what is a generic conservative pundit to do if he or she doesn't want to start punching a regular clock? In Coulter's case, things didn't look very promising. He grasp of policy was (and still is) weak. She was moderately attractive, though not as much as she'd like to think, but there were a lot of other more attractive pundits so that gimmick wasn't exactly unique. But Coulter did come up with one that has turned out to be a gravy train that just won't stop.
Ms. Coulter decided the best way to gain a significant fan base was to write and say the most outrageous, shocking, intolerant, ignorant, insulting rhetoric she could think of. And it has worked, and continues to work, beautifully.
Coulter has been wildly successful by appealing to the ugliest parts of her fan base's intellect and emotion. This approach has made her an embarrassment to mainstream conservatives (she's been fired as a columnist for a number of conservative publications), but her admirers eat it up. She's made millions on books with simple titles (simple titles for simple minds perhaps): Treason. Godless. Slander. Guilty. All in an effort to manipulate the base emotions of her mostly male readers (right down to the slinky, formfitting dresses she models on the covers) who already are inclined to believe that Democrats, liberals and progressives are not people with whom they have they fundamentally disagree with on a variety of issues, but as a cancer in the body politic that needs to be destroyed with extreme prejudice. She's helped contribute to a polarized political environment in her own country in which civil discourse is not only rejected, but stomped into the mud.
And she's laughing all the way to the bank because she's managed to fool the rubes who really think she believes what she writes and says.
Take the current controversy that has the speechies frothing at the mouth. Ms. Coulter cancelled her speech at the University of Ottawa because of the threat posed by protesters. As Kady O'Malley, Scott Tribe, and Dr. Dawg have pointed out, it seems just a bit contrived. Sort of like something a controversial speaker and writer would do to drum up controversy. And has it worked! As an example, by our last count, there was something like 15 threads on Free Dominion concerning the cancellation of the speech in Ottawa. And boy are they pissed! Hell, this beats the 7 threads they had created last month attacking us for a postering campaign started by a completely different group.
Add to this that Ms. Coulter plans to file a human rights complaint against François Houle who had the temerity to ask Ms. Coulter to please be respectful and show restraint. Only people who love Ann could view that mild mannered email as a hate crime, but such is the power of Coultergeist.
Anyone want to bet if she sells out her speaking engagement in Calgary given the free publicity she's getting?
Now in Calgary, Ms. Coulter isn't above continuing to use the cancellation of the event in Ottawa to create controversy and, thus, more publicity to put bums in the seats and people buying her books. Now she's clumsily attempts to use regional tensions to further her efforts:
"It's quite a country you have here," Coulter told Evan Solomon, host of Power & Politics, on CBC News Network on Thursday. "I'm more determined than ever to turn pretty much from Calgary through the west into the 51st state now. We got to save the good Canadians."
"Save us from what, Ann?" Solomon asked.
"From the crazy liberals. From the crybabies," Coulter answered, sporting sunglasses. "How did Canada go from being the country that sends us all our best comedians to a bunch of whining, crying babies that can't take a joke?"
And though most people, including conservatives, will reject this view, it will have it's support in the Canadian branch of the Coulter fan club.
Coulter went on to say this about freedom of speech in Canada:
"I have discovered that Canada's approach to free speech, and that is speech they like," Coulter said Thursday. "It's not free speech if they are going to say, 'Yes, you can have free speech as long as you don't say X, Y, Z.'"
When asked what her message to Canadians was, Coulter answered: "It's a lovely little country. I do recommend that you get free speech. It's a lot of fun."
From the sound of things, you're going to be in luck Ms. Coulter. It appears that there will be a number of people who will be exercising their freedoms as they protest your presence in Calgary. And we don't expect you or Ezra or Mark or the FreeDom crowd to complain because, well, it's just not free speech if you only allow the speech that you agree with. Right?
However, as far as we know, no one in the ARC Collective will be participating in the Calgary protests. We do support those who will peacefully voice their displeasure with Ms. Coulter and her views, but we think we'll sit this one out.
Instead, most of us are going to stay home and do what poor Ann and her empty, dusty womb will not be able to do tonight.
We're spending time with our wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends and children. With people we love, and who on good days love us (and on bad days must love us more for putting up with our shit).
And with that, so ends our contribution to the plethora of blogs, forums and news sites that have managed to find themselves involved in the Coulter hysteria. And it does end because we've got better things to do.
Remember how Lemire, Fromm, Levant, JayCurrie, Levant, Steyn, the Fourniers and, of course, "Macleans" magazine have alleged that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, "hacked" a private citizen's wifi to access and post messages on hate sites? Well, it looks like "Macleans" has had second thoughts:
On Thursday, October 1, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Commission applied for Judicial Review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision in the Warman v. Lemire case before the Federal Court.
The Commission applied for Judicial Review so that technical but important legal issues raised by the decision can be clarified. These issues go beyond this particular case and could have an impact on other administrative tribunals. As a result, the uncertainty created by the decision is not in the public interest and merits a binding decision by a higher court.
The application is based on two grounds. It is the Commission’s view that:
The Tribunal erred in law when it found that the manner by which the applicant exercises its statutory mandate could render section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional; and
The Tribunal’s findings of unconstitutionality also resulted from the adoption of subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, subsequent to the Supreme Court of Canada’ s decision in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. The Tribunal erred in law when it refused to apply section 13 of the Act because a refusal to apply subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) would have provided a sufficient remedy in respect of this ground.
The Commission endorses the Tribunal's narrow interpretation of section 13, which is consistent with the Supreme Court and Tribunal's jurisprudence as well as with the Commission's 2009 Special Report to Parliament. The Commission accepts the Tribunal's finding that the penalty clause is unconstitutional. In fact, the Commission itself has recommended that this provision be repealed in its Special Report to Parliament.
The Commission is a servant of Parliament and considers that Parliament's statutes must be applied unless they are found to be unconstitutional. In this case, it is the Commission’s view that the Tribunal went too far in refusing to apply section 13 in its entirety when the constitutional concern could be remedied by refusing to apply the penalty clause in 54(1)(c).
Given that the original decision was a bad decision based on a poor understanding and application of the law, we couldn't imagine that the decision wouldn't be appealed. On way or another, at least we'll be closer to some clarification.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.
The decision released this morning by Tribunal chair Athanasios Hadjis appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.
It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.
Today's shocking decision is a victory over Mr. Warman by Marc Lemire, webmaster of freedomsite.org and a prominent figure in the Canadian far right, who was supported in his constitutional challenge of Section 13 by the legal team defended Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.
Mr. Warman alleged that postings on Mr. Lemire's website, written by others, contravened Section 13 in that they were "likely to expose" identifiable groups to "hatred or contempt."
Mr. Lemire responded by challenging the law itself, which was last upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1990 split decision, before the Internet age.
That decision, about neo-Nazi John Ross Taylor, upheld the law as a justifiable limit on free expression largely because of its supposedly remedial, non-punitive purpose. But Mr. Hadjis found that that, today, the pursuit of Section 13(1) cases "can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature." Rather, the law "has become more penal in nature."
He cited Mr. Warman's request for a $7500 penalty against Mr. Lemire. Mr. Warman has won over a dozen other Section 13(1) cases, many leading to similar fines as well as legal restrictions on Internet activity.
This criticism about a penal law masquerading as a remedial one echoes that of Richard Moon, a law professor hired by the CHRC last year to provide an expert analysis of their online hate speech mandate. In essence, his advice was that it could not be done fairly, and so should not be done at all.
Mr. Hadjis' decision to reject the law as unconstitutional, in light of its penalty provisions, leaves a central area Canada's human rights in limbo, and kicks a political hot potato over to the government and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which can appeal the ruling to Federal Court.
Mr. Warman's case was supported by the CHRC, and various advocacy groups joined the case as intervenors in support of Section 13.
Mr. Hadjis rejected Mr. Warman's complaints in all but one instance, an article called AIDS Secrets. He found that this posting contravened Section 13(1). But he also found the law itself -- with its threat of penalties such as an order to cease the discrimatory messages, or pay fines up to $10,000 -- violates Mr. Lemire's Charter right to freedom of expression, and therefore refused to make any order against him.
"Since a formal declaration of invalidity [of Section 13(1)] is not a remedy available to the Tribunal, 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," Mr. Hadjis wrote.
Gee, one would think based on the unbiased report in the "National Post" that they didn't have a stake in this particular case. That, and Mr. Brean really should leave the analysis of the repercussions of this decision to people who actually know what they’re talking or writing about.
So that's it? Naw!
We have a feeling that it is far from over.
One issue here is that two cases (here and here) were previously argued before the CHRT which were essentially the same challenges to the amendment that Lemire was making. On both of those occasions, the amendments were deemed to be constitutional. So now we have conflicting decisions, two of which found the amendments to be constitutional and now this one which does not.
A second issue is that the CHRT claimed that the tribunal process was not conciliatory in nature and almost appears to place that burden solely on Mr. Warman. Of the two men. Mr. Warman has a better history of conciliation having mediated two prior complaints successfully. Lemire, on the other hand, appears to have continually poisoned the well by his actions online.
Finally, and something that BigCityLib also appears to have picked up on as well, is that Mr. Hadjis simply got the law wrong. If the financial penalty is what is deemed to be unconstitutional, then the right thing would be not to impose the financial penalty provision. However, the section itself could still be applied and that it could include a cease and desist order. Clearly, as Mr. Hadjis stated that Lemire was in violation of the section on at least one occasion, a cease and desist order could have been implemented.
One big concern that we had when we read the ruling was that Mr. Hadjis stated that while Holocaust denial is, “extremely hurtful,” it doesn’t rise to the standard of being likely to expose the Jewish community to hatred and contempt. Let’s paint you a picture Mr. Hadjis. "Person A" claims that the Holocaust didn’t occur and that it’s all a scam to extort money from Western nations for Israel. "Person B" reads what "Person A" writes, becomes enraged, and firebombs a synagogue in retaliation for this perceived wrong. Doesn’t happen? Mr. Hadjis might want to consider visiting Jewish cemeteries in Europe after they’ve been vandalized on days memorializing victims of the Holocaust.
In short, the decision rendered today was both shortsighted and bad law and we're not sure that it will stand. The Canadian Jewish Conference has come to essentially the same conclusion and are urging the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Mr. Warman to appeal this decision. It wouldn't surprise us in the least if an appeal was launched.
BCL has managed to beat us at our own game a few times now when covering subjects related to racist activities. The most recent example is his post detailing how Mr. Ezra Levant's and Mr. Mark Steyn's claims that section 13 is not enforceable are patently false; BCL uses the examples of Melissa Guille and Jason Ouwendyk to more than sufficiently prove that Mr. Levant's and Mr. Steyn's claims are without merit. We added to his proofs the case of Tomasz Winnicki who spent time in jail for contempt.
We would now like to up the ante as it were.
Below is a copy of the CHRC’s initial submissions in the contempt application before the Federal Court of Canada (a “real court” like the "speachies" and boneheads keep complaining about not being involved) against Terry Tremaine for his violation of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s cease and desist order against him. In terms of the “unenforceable” of section 13, well, the Federal Court seems to believe otherwise as they have scheduled the first part of the contempt process against Tremaine for July 23, 2009 in Regina.
We've blocked out the names of the lawyers for the CHRC to prevent the crackpots can't harass them. No conspiracy here Jay Currie so you needn't worry your pretty little head over it.
BigCityLib has posted another blog entry covering an area that we here follow. This time he addresses the fact that, despite claims by Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn that Section 13 of the Criminal Human Rights Act is not enforceble, it has, in fact, been enforced, including a time this month:
And, oh look! Here is just such an example--a ruling issued in the Richard Warman v. Canadian Heritage Alliance and Melissa Guille case from April 21, 2009:
We would add to BCL's example the case of Tomasz Winnicki who, in July 2006, was sentenced to 9 months in prison for comtempt having continued to violate the terms of the Federal Court injunction by his continued online posting of, "the unrelenting message of hatred"; he was released in October of the same year pending an appeal [see page 3]. Winnicki had been ordered by the CHRT to stop posting hate material online in April 2006 (the injunction on his postings, which he ignored, had been placed on him by the Federal Court pending the decision [see page 7]).
To sum up, Lemire has very quietly admitted that Mr. Dean Steacy and other CHRC members did not post racist materials on his website's message board. Further, he is no longer claiming that the CHRC hijacked the wireless Internet service of an Ontario woman as previously claimed.
We wonder if Mr. Levant, the "National Post," Mr. Steyn, etal will publicly apologize to Mr. Steacy for their libelous claims?
Those who follow the activities of the far right in Canada are well aware of the situation involving Marc Lemire. He's the former head of the Heritage Front (the leadership he assumed after Wolfgang Droege stepped down and which Lemire promptly ran into the ground) who is challenging the validity of Canadian hate crime laws. Owing to their recent brushes with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Levant andSteyn have been highlighting Lemire's court challenge and have been going after Commission members and Richard Warman, the human rights lawyer who initiated a case against Lemire and who has been successful in every case that he has brought before the Tribunal.
Well, we haven't been talking too much about it here on this site, mainly because our attention has been more on street-level thuggery of groups such as the Aryan Guard in Calgary. That being said for those who are interested in the Lemire case, or in the hypocritical response of Ezra Levant, we invite the reader to visit the following blog: Big City Liberal Strikes Back
This blog is the most comprehensive source of information when it comes to the Lemire court challenge, as well as the involvement of Levant, Steyn, Free Dominion, and other parties. Truth is the information so completely demolishes the arguments of Lemire and his cohorts that rather than reproduce the information here, it's better to simply get the news from the source.
