Red Alert: Go & Do

Dear Ever-Growing Army of Pre-Dead Minions: reports the following: M-446Private Members Bill to Gut S.13 of the CHRA. Ezra Levant weighs in.

M-446 — January 30, 2008 — Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.

The Section in Question:

Hate messages

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.


First, “send a thank-you note to Keith Martin. — one cannot communicate how important a step is that he has taken here.” as TimeImmortal suggests.

Second, take time to mail your MP & the PM’s Office. Now. “Support & vote Yes on M-446.”

Third: Spread The Word.

National Leaders

Prime Minister (Right Hon.) Stephen Harper:
Liberal (Hon.) Stéphane Dion:
NDP Leader (Hon.) Jack Layton:
BQ Leader (Hon.) Gilles Duceppe:

Members Of Parliament; by postal code; a customizable version

– To contact your Canadian Senators, see: List of Canadian Senators

Word from a comment: “My hubby used to work in an MP’s office – a hand written and addressed letter sent through the post office has far more impact than an email. An MP will assume that a hand written letter represents the opinions of 100 people who didn’t bother to write.

FreeSpeechers! MA-A-ARCH!!

39 thoughts on “Red Alert: Go & Do

  1. This action is a must, not only in support of Steyn and Levant but in support of all right-thinking people who value freedom of thought and action.

  2. Wow!

    Keith Martin is my MP.

    This is the email I sent to him on Dec 24th:

    From: Larry Lloyd
    Sent: December 24, 2007 4:28 PM
    To: Prime Minister’s Office; Martin, Keith – M.P.
    Subject: Canadian Human Rights Commission

    This tribunal, with its recent investigation of journalist Mark Steyn,
    is now a direct threat to our free speech in Canada.

    I ask that you disband this tribunal, which is totally unnecessary – the
    justice system of Canada, with its tradition of presumed innocence and
    burden of proof, is the appropriate venue for any parties that feel

    Larry Lloyd

    Here’s his response – a month later.

    Dear Mr. Lloyd,

    Thank you for your correspondence regarding the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal’s investigation of Mark Steyn.

    I believe that the Human Rights Tribunal serves the needs of many Canadians who make legitimate claims of discrimination in cases of employment, housing, etc. As such, the tribunal is a very valuable institution. However, in the case of Mark Steyn, the tribunal has in my view overstepped its boundaries. The Tribunal has no place restricting the free speech of Canadians except under strict legal circumstance (eg: hate crimes). As such, I believe that it is time for the Tribunal’s role and mandates must be reassessed in order to ensure that it is promoting the respect of the human rights and freedom of speech for all Canadians while preventing discrimination.

    Thank you for writing to me to express your concerns.


    Dr. Keith Martin, M.D., P.C., M.P.
    Member of Parliament for Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca

    Go “wrong way” Keith!

    I can almost forgive you for crossing the floor to the despicable Libranos.

  3. Saith Binks: We are committed to free speech. Period. For Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, Khurrum Awan…. and Mark Lemire. Any complaints?


    Here is my Letter to Members of Parliament.

    Dear Member of Parliament:

    Canadians are sick and tired of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their obsession to restrict Freedom of Speech on the Internet. Editorial and editorial across Canada all say the same thing. Now is the time to abolish Section 13 (internet censorship) and 54 (fines) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

    The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission (CHRC) has become the single largest threat to freedom of expression, religion and personal beliefs in Canada’s History. Just last month, the CHRC trained it sights on the biggest trophy yet – Macleans Magazine. Unfortunately, 2007 was a banner year for the censors, with CHRC targeting Christians, especially the Federally registered Christian Heritage Party and the prestigious Catholic Insight Magazine. “Human Rights” Commission also targeting Ezra Levant and the Western Standard. Alarm bells should be going off for those who deal in words and thoughts!

    Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) makes it an offence to communicate “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred and/or contempt” within a host of privileged categories such as race, sexual orientation, religion, etc

    A recent Access to Information request shows that since the inception of the Human Rights Act, the CHRC has investigated over 100 complaints under Section 13 and accepted over 90% of them. A comprehensive review of all complaints shows the agency only targets “offenders” who are almost exclusively conservative White males.

    In November of 1975, Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General F.W. Callaghan, lobbied the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of speech restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair comment based on public interest. Section 13 was included in order to “get” a man named John Ross Taylor and the Western Guard party. Mr. Taylor used a telephone answering machine to comment on current issues such as race, immigration and foreign aid, which the powers that be didn’t like. Mr. Callaghan bitterly complained that they couldn’t “get” Taylor under any criminal code, since it was perfectly legal what he was doing.
    Only a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan got his wish finally and John Ross Taylor became its first victim.

    The CHRA underwent a major restructuring after the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Under the guise of Bill C-36 – Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act – Section 13 was eagerly expanded to cover “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet”. Specifically, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act now allowed the CHRC the ability to assess hefty fines against written material on computer networks. If a person is found in violation of a Section 13 complaint, a permanent lifetime speech ban (“Cease and Desist” order) will result, along with penalties that can range up to $50,000 per named respondent. If you still don’t shut up, you could be liable for a jail sentence of up to five years. Past victims such as John Ross Taylor and Tomasz Winnicki have indeed been imprisoned for violating the Tribunal order.

    Ironically, Canada’s human rights legislation was envisioned as “remedial” in nature: In a 1990 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Taylor case, the legislation was never meant to assign any “moral blameworthiness” but rather direct its attention to redress and mediation. In practice, it has become the complete opposite. The law is now used by special interests to silence Canadians through a series of impact prosecutions which have a direct and chilling effect on freedom of speech and religion.

    In 2006, Albertan Craig Chandler was taken to the CHRC over comments critical of homosexuality posted on his website, “Concerned Christians Canada”. Mr. Chandler had not authored the comments, but would nevertheless sign a public settlement with the CHRC. In 2007, with the endorsement of the electorate, Mr. Chandler was in the final running for the Alberta PC party’s leadership nomination. Once it became evident that he might actually prevail, the enemies of freedom brought his history with the CHRC to the media. The PC Party of Alberta executive committee revoked his membership and he was drummed out of the race.

    Intimidation works! Potential targets faded away. And soon, the CHRC was in need of, and hence surveying, additional victims with a keen eye. At first, the CHRC had gone after anyone who owned a telephone answering machine with objectionable messages. Next they went after people they considered to be “right-wingers” or “Nazis” – success guaranteed! Then the religious conservatives found themselves to be targets. The Catholic magazine, Insight, was soon under fire, as well as the Western Standard, Freedom Radio Network, FreeDominion and Concerned Christians Canada. Nor have federally registered political parties been spared, with the Christian Heritage Party currently under the gun. Thanks to the targeted impact prosecutions now silencing most conservatives and religious leaders, the CHRC turned its sights on larger prey; Macleans Magazine, Rogers Publishing Ltd, and its dumbfounded editors.

    The investigation process is anything but fair to those accused. CHRC Investigators have no special training or education. Not only do they not have training, they exhibit breathtaking contempt for the very “rights” they are supposed to uphold. In May 2007, Dean Steacy, the head internet investigator for the CHRC sneered during an Ottawa hearing that “freedom of speech is an American concept and therefore I don’t give it any value!” To Canadians such a statement is totally inconsistent with our nation’s values, but at the CHRC, that’s standard operating procedure.

    A snapshot of the CHRC’s odd perspective on human rights issues can be seen in Section 27(h) of the Canadian Human Rights Act which reads: The CHRC shall “…try by persuasion, publicity or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices…” The CHRC believes that Section 27 gives them a remit to censor any material they don’t like. Never mind where in the world that content might be. While the United States is allegedly still a bastion for freedom of speech, that doesn’t stop the CHRC from writing to large American Internet Service Providers like QWest or AOL and demanding they terminate user contracts for those for daring to question politically correct dogma. The head CHRC internet investigator testified that the CHRC has attacked 200-300 websites around the world! Such predatory world-wide censorship would have even made Stalin or North Korea’s Kim Jong Il salivate.

    Canadian antipathy to the CHRC is well known to the censors. In 1994, Harvey Goldberg the most senior policy advisor to the CHRC, undertook an opinion poll to measure Canadian attitudes. In response, an avalanche of Canadians responded with their absolute disgust. What did the CHRC do? Completely ignored them! Not a single word of opposition to the CHRC has ever appeared in any report they have tabled with parliament.

    Over the past few years, the CHRC has tried to bump itself up into a quasi National Security type agency. Shamelessly, this politically motivated outfit operates in almost complete secrecy, with no public oversight and continually deflects Access to Information requests over their activities with absurd claims of “security”. The CHRC has employed some very shady tactics including; infiltration and spying operations on Canadians, the use of private police databases such as CPIC, infiltration of internet message boards, telephone record searches, motor vehicle record searches, search warrants, and even tenancy agreements for rental properties. Because the CHRC is exempt from parliamentary oversight and doesn’t report to a minister, in enjoys carte blanche to do exactly as it pleases. In January 2008, the Federal Court of Canada will hear an appeal to test the CHRC’s questionable investigation practices and spying operations on Canadians.

    Furthermore, to Canada’s great shame, in a Human Rights Commission case, truth is no defence! Its a slap in the face of 200 centuries of jurisprudence, intent, malice, effect, fair comment – none of these factors are weighed by CHRC Tribunals where the defendant is concerned. In fact, if you argue the truth of your statements, it is then used as proof of your guilt! Under the legislation there are no defences available. Is it any wonder not a single person in over 30 years has ever won?

    Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunals

    There are two important but deceiving guide posts in a human rights complaint. The first is an “investigation” by the CHRC. The second step is a “hearing” before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal). Also known to the poor accused as the frying pan and the fire.

    The Tribunal operates as a rubber stamp for whatever actions the CHRC endorses: Of the over 50 cases that have been referred to tribunal, not a single person has ever been found innocent. No court of law boasts such a track record except for Stalin’s show trials or the notorious Chinese Struggle sessions.

    The rules for the hearings are pretty much made up as they go along, and questions of law are interpreted by the Tribunal Judges as they feel fit. During the course of a hearing, the Tribunal can accept any evidence it chooses. Hearsay, double hearsay and even triple hearsay is not a problem. Defendants are not allowed to question the motives or intentions of their attackers – that in itself can lead to additional fines and “special measures”, which could amount to $40,000.

    Throughout the whole CHRT inquisition, the defendants have to pay for everything themselves, while the complainants have their costs covered by the state. As a recent example, during the last 12 CHRT hearings, the state called the complainant, Richard Warman as a witness, meaning all his expenses were paid. Everything from airfare, hotel to his meals.

    Tribunal members (“judges”) are loftily required to have a “sensitivity to human rights”, whatever that means. While most tribunal members are lawyers, a legal background is not a prerequisite. As the typical injustice awaiting victims of the CHRC; a 2006 case in Alberta, a radical lesbian activist was appointed to sit as judge over such a tribunal. She was assigned a case where “sexual orientation” was one of the key grounds of alleged discrimination. Not surprisingly, the respondent was found liable and fined $10,000.

    Even the Bible isn’t safe before the almighty Tribunal. On October 27, 2007, the Tribunal ruled that direct Bible quotes from LEVITICUS were “hate”, and fined an already destitute victim $4,500. The victim testified at the hearing she earned only $10 an hour at her job, but was only given 120 days to pay the fine in full or hefy interest would be applied.

    Consider these statistics:

    • As of December 2007, the Tribunal has ruled on 37 cases. Of those, not a single person has EVER won.

    • Every single respondent suffers a lifetime speech ban (Cease and Desist order) and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.

    • 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents.

    • 90.7% of respondents were not represented by legal counsel and their is no form of legal aid available

    • Almost $100,000 has been awarded in fines and “special compensation” for those who dreamed up a complaint.
    One must wonder what “truth” needs such protection.

    Tribunals and political inquisitions have no place in Canada. Recently, David Warren writing in the Ottawa Citizen called the Tribunal a “Kangaroo court” and “Star Chamber”. Others have compared them to the Communists, the Nazis, and the medieval Inquisition. We need to stop the censorship enforcers and let freedom of speech reign. It’s time to abolish the Canadian Human Rights Commission and pack off this shameful censorship outfit to the “embarrassing lapses” dustbin of history.

    Please REPEAL Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

    Marc Lemire
    Human Rights Activist

  4. While admirable, this is a motion, not a private members bill. This motion will not change the law, it will only require that the government “work towards” changing the law. However, motions such as this are often a way to test the mind of the House to gauge future success of a private members bill.

    That said, please write your MP, in your own words preferably handwritten, in support of the motion. Maybe we can get things done.

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 )

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