Friday, May 9, 2008

URGENT APPEAL! To Canadian Civil Liberty Groups -- Intervene in the Lemire Constitutional Challenge

Source: NFtW:


To Canadian Civil Liberty Groups -- Intervene in the Lemire Constitutional Challenge /legal/april30-08_letter_to _civil_liberties.html

The dates for the final arguments in the Richard Warman case against Marc Lemire under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act have now been set. Written arguments must be filed in M ay and oral arguments will be held before the Tribunal in June.

Marc Lemire has challenged the constitutionality of s. 13 of the CHRA as a violation of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience. A pdf of the written argument can be found > here <.

This case will set a crucial precedent in the fight against section 13! We need support from civil liberties associations!

The dates for the final arguments in the Richard Warman case against Marc Lemire under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act have now been set. Written arguments must be filed in May and oral arguments will be held before the Tribunal in June.

Marc Lemire has challenged the constitutionality of s. 13 of the CHRA as a violation of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience. A pdf of the written argument can be found here.

This case will set a crucial precedent in the fight against section 13! We need support from civil liberties associations!

Message from Marc Lemire:

There is time for the civil liberties and journalist associations in Canada to join this fight and to intervene on the side of freedom in this precedent-setting case. I have written to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association, PEN Canada and the Canadian Association of Journalists urging them to intervene as interested parties in my case so that they can support the constitutional challenge. My letter is copied below.

I need the Internet community and the blogoshere to contact these organizations and let them know that this case is going to be the most important precedent regarding freedom of speech and the Internet for years to come. Will they be there? Will they lend their expertise and weight to the side of free speech NOW? No other person has challenged the constitutionality of section 13.

This is our chance to strike this law down as a law that no democracy can justify.

Please write to the associations and urge them to stand up NOW against the tyranny of section 13. If not now, when?



506 - 360 Bloor Street West

Toronto, ON M5S 1X1

phone: 416-363-0321

fax: 416-861-1291


PEN Canada

24 Ryerson Avenue., Suite 301

Toronto ON M5T 2P3



The Canadian Association of Journalists

Algonquin College

1385 Woodroffe Avenue, B224

Ottawa, ON K2G 1V8

Telephone 613-526-8061

Fax: 613-521-3904

Letter from Marc Lemire to Civil Liberties Associations

April 29, 2008

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

506 - 360 Bloor Street West

Toronto, ON M5S 1X1

Fax: 416-861-1291

Constitutional Challenge – request to intervene in case

Dear Canadian Civil Liberties Association,

My name is Marc Lemire and on 25 November 2005, my legal counsel filed a Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 is the totalitarian provision that gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission the ability to censor material on telephone lines and computer networks (such as the Internet).

Your organization has recently come out publicly against Section 13, and now is the time to join the battle. If not now… when?

The Constitutional Challenge I have filed is questioning the validity, substance and application of the law, and is not about my case. I am asking that you intervene only on the validity of the law, in the context of the Charter challenge that my counsel has filed. As it stands now, that intervention on the charter challenge, would only be written arguments on the constitutionality of Section 13.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal have been given the authority to rule on the constitutionality of it’s own enabling legislation. So that’s where the real fight over the validly of Section 13 of the CHRA has to take place.

Your organizations has decried the use and abuse of Section 13 to attack writers and journalists such as Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant and Macleans Magazine, and now is the only time such a challenge will be heard.

No other case will ever have the factual background as this case. World-renown experts have testified, like Dr. Michael A Persinger from Laurentian University, and Dr. Donald Downs from the University of Wisconsin . As well, through the testimony of three CHRC employees subpoenaed by the respondent, the entire investigative process, lack of training and utter contempt of free speech have been laid bare. In one case, Dean Steacy a senior investigator for the CHRC said that “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”.

CHRC investigators have admitted under oath, that they used fake names and pseudonyms to post on White Nationalist websites such as Stormfront, VNN , BC White Pride, etc. As well as other sites such as the largest conservative chat site in Canada –

The CHRC has also admitted to withholding those crucial facts from every respondent and even the Tribunal, and only recently changed their policy after they were called before the Federal Court of Canada to gave up their Section 37 (Canada Evidence Act) claims to withhold disclosure of the identities they used.

To date their has been 26 hearing days, spanning four cities in Ontario . Including, Toronto , Ottawa , Mississauga and Oakville . Currently, seven groups have received interested party status. This is the biggest challenge Section 13 has ever under gone, and your organizations intervention in this case is paramount.

Interest in Case:

The media has been very interested in this case, and even the National Post’s Editorial Board has publicly declared their support for this constitutional challenge and a repeal of Section 13.

Groups and Writers that Support Repeal of Section 13:

Liberal MP Keith Martin

Liberal MP Dan McTeague

Conservative MP James Rajotte

Ezra Levant

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy)

Catholic Insight Magazine

Catholic Register

Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

Victoria News

PEN Canada

CDN Association of Journalists

Mary Steyn (Macleans Magazine)

Calgary Herald

Western Standard Magazine

London Free Press

B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune

Sask Leader-Post

Deborah Gyapong

Calgary AM770

Globe and Mail

National Post

David Warren (Ottawa Citizen)

Eye Magazine ( Toronto )

Toronto Star

Toronto Sun

Interim Magazine

Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday

Winnipeg Free Press

Oak Bay News

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is drunk with power and wants to limit the freedom of many Canadians. Since the inception of the law, over 100 complaints have been accepted against Canadians. Every single person who has ever been before the Tribunal has lost. That’s a 100% “conviction” rate for respondents. Truth and intent are NO defence!

Recently the Rights Enforcers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission have attacked:

* Maclean Magazine & Mark Steyn (Rogers Publishing Ltd)
* Christian Heritage Party and it’s leader Ron Gray (Federally registered Political Party)
* Freedominion (Conservative website)
* Prometheus Institute (runs the Peace Earth and Justice News website) (Complaint over commentary on Isreal)
* Bruce Allen (Mr. Allen is music talent manager who represents a number of popular Canadian musicians including Bryan Adams and Michael Buble)

The Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

This case is the definitive challenge of the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and cases before the Federal Court of Canada have been stayed pending the decision in my case. The National Post Editorial Board, and editor Johnathan Kay has called me a “principled free-speech martyr” and is supporting a repeal of Section 13.

To date, 7 parties have received interested party status before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These include:

· The Federal Attorney General of Canada

· Canadian Human Rights Commission

· Canadian Free Speech League

· B’nai Brith Canada

· Simon Wiesenthal Centre

· Canadian Association for Free Expression

· Canadian Jewish Congress

In support of freedom of speech and the Constitutional Challenge I have called as expert witnesses:

Dr. Donald Downs: Professor of Political Science, Law and Journalism at the University of Wisconsin , Madison . He has written four previous books, including Nazis in Skokie: Freedom, Community, and the First Amendment, winner of the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award and The New Politics of Pornography, winner of the Gladys M. Kammerer Award of the American Political Science Association. Professor Downs has also published extensively in leading journals, encyclopedias and professional books, lectured throughout the US and in England and Scotland , and made numerous media appearances on radio and television to discuss issues of American politics and law.

Dr. Michael Persinger: Full Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience at Laurentian University. Since 1987 has been a registered Psychologist in Ontario , specializing in: Neuropsychology and Personality Assessments, with secondarily specialization in Psychometric Family Assessments. Dr. Persinger has written seven books and written/contributed to over 200 scientific articles and journals. He is well recognized as an expert the world over. Since 1983 has been the Coordinator of Behavioral Neuroscience Program at Laurentian University. Dr. Persinger has appeared on “NOVA”, ABC's “20/20", ABC’s “NightLine,” “60 Minutes” ( Australia ), “That's Incredible,” “48 Hours” (CBS), Unsolved Mysteries, The Discovery Channel, UltraScience, MTV News Special, The Unexplained, CNN News, NBC News, The Learning Channel, Arts and Entertainment Channel, Japanese T.V. among others.

Bernard Klatt: Internet and computer expert. Has been in the computer industry since 1970. Has worked for multinational corporations like Digital Equipment, General Electric and Philips-Signetics. Owner of Fairview Technology Centre, an Internet Service Provider in British Columbia .

Just to give you an insight into the mentality that permeates the Canadian Human Rights Commission, read the testimony of Dean Steacy. He is the lead investigator at the CHRC on internet cases (Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act)

MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.

Warman v. Lemire Transcripts, Volume 21, Page 4793 (2007/05/10)

During the course of the Constitutional Challenge we called evidence on every single Section 13 case that has ever been heard, to document the systemic bias used to both investigate and accept Section 13 cases.

This is the best chance to overturn Section 13, and remove the censorship provisions of the Act. What I am asking for is for your organization to intervene on the motion submitted on the constitutionality of Section 13. The tribunal has ruled that submissions for this will be in writing. This would be a written motion on how you view Section 13 and it’s chilling effect of silencing people and how it covers personal and private communication on the Internet or a “group of connected computers.” Which could mean intranet, private computer networks, as well as corporate intranets would be subject to censorship at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The process you would need to do is as follows:

1. Contact the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and request to be an Interested Party on the Constitutional Challenge of Section 13.




Richard Warman v. Marc Lemire

2. The tribunal will ask you to submit a motion to grant interested party status.

3. After receiving interested party status, you will file a final submission on the validity of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Stephen Harper (Conservative Party Leader, and Prime Minister of Canada ):

"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

(BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

You need to contact:

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

160 Elgin Street

11th Floor

Telephone: 613 995-1707

Fax: 613 995-3484

Registry Officer from Human Rights Tribunal

Name: Carol Ann Hartung

Relevant law on Interested Parties: /about/download/rules-regles -04.htm

I hope this can answer some of the questions you had on the constitutional challenge and assist you in making a decision on intervening on this very important case for privacy and freedom of speech. With 26 hearing days and numerous expert witnesses, this case is clearly not about me, but rather about Section 13 of the

Canadian Human Right Act , and the decision if the CHRC should indeed be put in charge of making judgment on political and religious material and penalize those who are found guilty.

Full transcripts of this case are in electronic format (Adobe PDF) and I can send them to you on request. The 11 CHRT rulings to date, are available online the CHRT website.

Attached to this letter is a copy of the Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at (416) 709-5140, or my legal counsel – Barbara Kulaszka, at (613) 475-3150.

-Marc Lemire


Canada’s Mainstream media on the CHRC

At times in Canada , it's been the Catholics, the Jehovah's Witnesses, trade unionists, Communists and gays whose views were thought beyond the pale. Today, it's people like Lemire. … The CHRC has censored Canadians long enough. It should be confined to dealing with discrimination. And, if someone must play cops and robbers, let it be the real police, under the criminal code, not some guide to what's politically correct today.

Calgary Herald | Human rights body oversteps by playing undercover game | March 29, 2008

Canada's power-grabbing human rights commissioners evidently have scant regard for the freedoms they suppress or for the original understanding of the codes they are supposed to uphold.

London Free Press | Freedom of the press attacked | December 8, 2007

For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, “the process is the punishment” in these star chambers -- for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.

Ottawa Citizen | Suing for silence | December 9, 2007

Nonetheless, even in this craven environment, Canada 's "human rights commissions" are uniquely inimical to the marketplace of ideas. In its 30 years of existence, no complaint brought to the federal HRC under Section XIII has been settled in favor of the defendant. A court where the rulings only go one way is the very definition of a show trial. These institutions should be a source of shame to Canadians.

Macleans Magazine | Here's what offends this writer | January 3, 2008

“…when Lemire faces off against representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) on Tuesday, I will be rooting for him — and so will thousands of other Canadians…”

National Post | Jonathan Kay | March 24, 2008

Human rights commissions are obsolete bodies whose moment has passed. That they can be exploited by a narrow lobby seeking to impose its doctrine upon other

Canadians is a serious problem.

Calgary Herald | Shut down the human rights commissions | December 20, 2007

The liberticidal monster should have been strangled at birth -- but better late than never. By now Human Rights Commissions are populated with officials who speak disparagingly of "fundamentalist liberals" and describe free speech as an "American idea" with no weight in this country. They're dragging magazine and writer into their rank dragon's den for allegedly suggesting that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada 's liberalized, Western civilization.

George Jonas | Turning out the lights on liberalism | December 20, 2007

“And to say the CHRC's section 13 thought crimes case against Marc Lemire has backfired is an understatement. Not only have his counterattacks blown the lid of the CHRC's corrupt tactics, such as their practise of posting anonymous, bigoted messages online, but their illegal hacking into a private citizen's Internet account has now attracted the scrutiny of Canada 's Privacy Commissioner.”

Ezra Levant |

For years, Canadians have averted their eyes to the sort of shenanigans going on at our nation's human-rights commissions under the theory that any means used toward such a noble end as "human rights" must somehow be justified. What we saw this week turns that conceit into a pathetic joke.

National Post | Jonathan Kay | March 27, 2008

“But even if the CHRC nails Lemire, Tuesday's eight-hour hearing will still be remembered as a landmark disaster for the commission. Despite efforts by Steacy and others to stonewall on specific questions of CHRC procedure, observers were nonetheless able to extract a fairly detailed picture of work practices at the Commission. The impression that emerges is an overstaffed shop in which bored, unionized desk jockeys sit around "investigating" obscure web sites in search of some scrap of actionable hatred. And when they don't find anything actionable, they try to stir things up by logging in and participating under their own house alias — a practice Lemire describes as a form of entrapment.”

National Post | Jonathan Kay | March 27, 2008

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Active and Past cases: 46 | Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37

· NOT A SINGLE respondent have ever won a section 13 case
· 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents

No comments: