Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law Is "Like Putting Li

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 14 December 2011 06:19

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp320.net/zCNTuM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law Is "Like Putting Lipstick on a Pig" -- Kulazska Says TORONTO. December 13, 2011. The efforts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to salvage Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship) was heard in Federal Court in Toronto today. The case involves Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite. His lawyer Barbara Kulaszka opened her submissions by noting: "What I heard this morning was an attempt to put lipstick on a pig." She added: "My friends are trying to convince you is that all you have to do is sever the penalties and all will be well." On September 2, 2009, Marc Lemire won a landmark decision, indeed, the only victim ever to win an Internet censorship case. he had challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 13 and won. Member (Judge) AthanasiosHadjis had ruled that 1998 amendments to the act -- imposing fines and financial penalties -- meant the law was no longer "remedial" and, thus, went beyond what the Supreme Court had upheld as constitutional, in 1990 in the Taylor case,, when it ruled the old version of Sec. 13 which censored political messages on telephone answering machines. "Sec. 13 is a violation of freedom of speech," she argued. The Internet is a different context from what this law was in 1977, when it was instituted or 1998 when penalties were added. "Taylor referred to a two minute message on a telephone. Now the whole world is on the Internet, every newspaper and all sorts of scholarly publications. If we don't have freedom of speech, we don't have anything." Sec. 13 had a 100 per cent conviction record "worthy of the Soviet Union." The judge, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley, interrupted and told Miss Kulazska to "avoid hyperbole." Once a complaint was laid, she argued, there is no defence -- not truth, not intent. In arguing to salvage Sec. 13, the Commission's pricey outside counsel Margot Blight conceded that the penalties and fines were unconstitutional and would have to go. She as much as admitted there ware abuses and misdeed by Commission staff -- amply proven during the Lemire hearings. "Striking down the statute because of the activities of the Commission is draconian," she pleaded. "The Tribunal concluded that the Commission didn't act in a sufficiently conciliatory fashion. The Commission referred the Lemire case to a Tribunal even though the impugned posts had been removed and it had declined Mr. Lemire's request for mediation." She sought the Court to remit the case back to the Tribunal for a decision on punishment on the sole count on which Mr. Lemire was found guilty -- a post by Kevin Alfred Strom on the dangers of AIDS and interracial sex. Doug Christie, representing the Canadian Free Speech League, recalled: "On December 4, 1989, when I rose to speak in the Supreme Court in the Taylor case, I was all alone and there were 25 lawyers on the other side. Today, the sides are equal." It's dangerous, he argued, to disregard the many constitutional arguments made before the Tribunal. "We have raised other reasons why Sec. 13 is unconstitutional. Testimony before the Tribunal "showed that the Internet is a very different medium than telephone answering machines, There is the ability to reply or disregard the message." John Ross Taylor handed out business cards inviting people to call his message machine. Marc Lemire did no such thing, Mr. Christie explained. "There are millions of diverse blogs and websites on the Internet," he added. Back then there was only Mr. Taylor's voice asserting the truth. Now, on the Internet, there are many voices of refutation. Complainant Richard Warman "presents himself as a victim, but he is a Nazi hunter," the Battling Barrister from Victoria insisted. "The message does not come to Mr. Warman. He finds it only after research." In the limited negotiations for a settlement, Mr. Christie explained, :"Mr. Warman demands and Mr. Lemire was to obey. This is vindictive and sever." Testimony had established that Mr. Warman wanted Marc Lemire's unconditional surrender -- a voluntary agreement to a cease and desist order and the removal of his entire Freedomsite website, not just the several impugned passages. Mr. Christie added that the record shows that the Commission's expert witness Dr. Thetis and Marc's expert neuropsychologist Dr. Michael Persinger both agreed that truth should be a defence; that truth is not hate. "Dr. Persinger said even hateful comments do not lead to violence. Mr. Christie argued that Member Hadjis's ruling was inadequate. He could have given better reasons. Representing the Canadian Association for Free Eexpression, Ottawa lawyer Gerald Langlois, QC., insisted: "The3 Court should declare Sec. 13 unconstitutional. "There is no effort in Sec. 13 to accommodate the right to free speech. the effect of Sec. 13 on free speech is dire," he added. Citing Madame Justice Beverley McLaughlin's dissent in Taylor -- she is now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- Mr. Langlois argued that words like "hatred" and "contempt" and sketchy and vague. "I don't think there;s a person in this room who has not felt hate or contempt for someone. This law has made some groups more equal than others," has made some minorities privileged. "Mr. Warman, a victim?" he asked rhetorically. "Mr. Warman worked with people who hacked into other pe0ole's computer service, and he's a 'victim'?" Mr. Langlois challenged the judge, "if you're not going to strike down Sec. 13 give us an overview and explain how Taylor can still stand." Ed Morgan was the President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 2004-2007 and is an Honorary Patron of the Canadian Somali Congress. Today he was representIng the African Canadian Legal Clinic. "Sec. 13," he argued, "is a necessary part of equality and is a necessary tool to confront anti-Black racism." Joint spokesman for interveners the League for Human Rights of B'naiBrith and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal, Marvin Kurz admitted: I have a bit of a red face. I failed to file my book of authorities," until this morning. He argued: "The problems of hate speech and anti-semitism and the use of the Internet to spread these ideas is of pressing concern to the Government of Canada." The judge interrupted, "but the Government of Canada is not here," as they had been during the Tribunal. Observers suggest this means the government does not really stand behind the legislation. Arch complaint filer Richard Warman was the only lawyer not to be gowned. He asked for his costs, should Mr. Lemire lose. He supported the Commission's position and complained that mediation in Sec. 13 cases is difficult. "The respondents deny their views are hate but insist on disseminating their White Supremacist and Neo-Nazi beliefs over the Internet." Andrew Loken representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association supported Mr. Lemire and freedom of speech. Professor Richard Moon, appointed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself, did a study of Sec. 13 and recommended its repeal in 2008, he pointed out. "The penalties under Sec. 13 encourage litigiousness." He too noted the failure of the Attorney General of Canada to intervene to support Sec. 13. "The Internet," he explained, "is excellent for counter speech to make your voice heard. Counter speech persuades more people than the CHRT's orders," he added. "The optimistic assumptions in Taylor that Sec. 13 would be conciliatory did not work out." The record shows that the Commission has been anything but conciliatory in Sec. 13 cases. "The CHRC has sought penalties in most Sec. 13 cases." Also intervening on Marc Lemire's behalf was Jason Gratl representing the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. "It is not just permitted but required of the Tribunal to examine the effects of the legislation. Mr. Hadjis looked at the practical effect of the Act on those subjected to its decisions." The Court was filled with supporters of freedom of speech. Many gathered around and congratulated Marc Lemire, Miss Kulazska, and Mr. Christie as the Court adjourned. Mr. Justice Mosley reserved his decision. _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp320.net/u.php?id=gmjhqsqgsgbbqguwm Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law Is "Like Putting Li

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 14 December 2011 06:11

Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law Is "Like Putting Lipstick on a Pig" -- Kulazska Says *TORONTO. December 13, 2011*. The efforts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to salvage Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship) was heard in Federal Court in Toronto today. The case involves Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite. His lawyer Barbara Kulaszkaopened her submissions by noting: "What I heard this morning was an attempt to put lipstick on a pig." She added: "My friends are trying to convince you is that all you have to do is sever the penalties and all will be well." On September 2, 2009, Marc Lemire won a landmark decision, indeed, the only victim ever to win an Internet censorship case. he had challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 13 and won. Member (Judge) Athanasios Hadjis had ruled that 1998 amendments to the act -- imposing fines and financial penalties -- meant the law was no longer "remedial" and, thus, went beyond what the Supreme Court had upheld as constitutional, in 1990 in the Taylor case,, when it ruled the old version of Sec. 13 which censored political messages on telephone answering machines. "Sec. 13 is a violation of freedom of speech," she argued. The Internet is a different context from what this law was in 1977, when it was instituted or 1998 when penalties were added. "Taylor referred to a two minute message on a telephone. Now the whole world is on the Internet, every newspaper and all sorts of scholarly publications. If we don't have freedom of speech, we don't have anything." Sec. 13 had a 100 per cent conviction record "worthy of the Soviet Union." The judge, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley, interrupted and told Miss Kulazskato "avoid hyperbole." Once a complaint was laid, she argued, there is no defence -- not truth, not intent. In arguing to salvage Sec. 13, the Commission's pricey outside counsel Margot Blight conceded that the penalties and fines were unconstitutional and would have to go. She as much as admitted there ware abuses and misdeed by Commission staff -- amply proven during the Lemire hearings. "Striking down the statute because of the activities of the Commission is draconian," she pleaded. "The Tribunal concluded that the Commission didn't act in a sufficiently conciliatory fashion. The Commission referred the Lemire case to a Tribunal even though the impugned posts had been removed and it had declined Mr. Lemire's request for mediation." She sought the Court to remit the case back to the Tribunal for a decision on punishment on the sole count on which Mr. Lemire was found guilty -- a post by Kevin Alfred Strom on the dangers of AIDS and interracial sex. Doug Christie, representing the Canadian Free Speech League, recalled: "On December 4, 1989, when I rose to speak in the Supreme Court in the Taylor case, I was all alone and there were 25 lawyers on the other side. Today, the sides are equal." It's dangerous, he argued, to disregard the many constitutional arguments made before the Tribunal. "We have raised other reasons why Sec. 13 is unconstitutional. Testimony before the Tribunal "showed that the Internet is a very different medium than telephone answering machines, There is the ability to reply or disregard the message." John Ross Taylor handed out business cards inviting people to call his message machine. Marc Lemire did no such thing, Mr. Christie explained. "There are millions of diverse blogs and websites on the Internet," he added. Back then there was only Mr. Taylor's voice asserting the truth. Now, on the Internet, there are many voices of refutation. Complainant Richard Warman "presents himself as a victim, but he is a Nazi hunter," the Battling Barrister from Victoria insisted. "The message does not come to Mr. Warman. He finds it only after research." In the limited negotiations for a settlement, Mr. Christie explained, :"Mr. Warman demands and Mr. Lemire was to obey. This is vindictive and sever." Testimony had established that Mr. Warman wanted Marc Lemire'sunconditional surrender -- a voluntary agreement to a cease and desist order and the removal of his entire Freedomsite website, not just the several impugned passages. Mr. Christie added that the record shows that the Commission's expert witness Dr. Thetis and Marc's expert neuropsychologist Dr. Michael Persingerboth agreed that truth should be a defence; that truth is not hate. "Dr. Persinger said even hateful comments do not lead to violence. Mr. Christie argued that Member Hadjis's ruling was inadequate. He could have given better reasons. Representing the Canadian Association for Free Eexpression, Ottawa lawyer Gerald Langlois, QC., insisted: "The3 Court should declare Sec. 13 unconstitutional. "There is no effort in Sec. 13 to accommodate the right to free speech. the effect of Sec. 13 on free speech is dire," he added. Citing Madame Justice Beverley McLaughlin's dissent in Taylor -- she is now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- Mr. Langlois argued that words like "hatred" and "contempt" and sketchy and vague. "I don't think there;s a person in this room who has not felt hate or contempt for someone. This law has made some groups more equal than others," has made some minorities privileged. "Mr. Warman, a victim?" he asked rhetorically. "Mr. Warman worked with people who hacked into other pe0ole's computer service, and he's a 'victim'?" Mr. Langlois challenged the judge, "if you're not going to strike down Sec. 13 give us an overview and explain how *Taylor* can still stand." Ed Morgan was the President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 2004-2007 and is an Honorary Patron of the Canadian Somali Congress. Today he was representIng the African Canadian Legal Clinic. "Sec. 13," he argued, "is a necessary part of equality and is a necessary tool to confront anti-Black racism." Joint spokesman for interveners the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brithand the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal, Marvin Kurz admitted: I have a bit of a red face. I failed to file my book of authorities," until this morning. He argued: "The problems of hate speech and anti-semitism and the use of the Internet to spread these ideas is of pressing concern to the Government of Canada." The judge interrupted, "but the Government of Canada is not here," as they had been during the Tribunal. Observers suggest this means the government does not really stand behind the legislation. Arch complaint filer Richard Warman was the only lawyer not to be gowned. He asked for his costs, should Mr. Lemire lose. He supported the Commission's position and complained that mediation in Sec. 13 cases is difficult. "The respondents deny their views are hate but insist on disseminating their White Supremacist and Neo-Nazi beliefs over the Internet." Andrew Loken representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association supported Mr. Lemire and freedom of speech. Professor Richard Moon, appointed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself, did a study of Sec. 13 and recommended its repeal in 2008, he pointed out. "The penalties under Sec. 13 encourage litigiousness." He too noted the failure of the Attorney General of Canada to intervene to support Sec. 13. "The Internet," he explained, "is excellent for counter speech to make your voice heard. Counter speech persuades more people than the CHRT's orders," he added. "The optimistic assumptions in Taylor that Sec. 13 would be conciliatory did not work out." The record shows that the Commission has been anything but conciliatory in Sec. 13 cases. "The CHRC has sought penalties in most Sec. 13 cases." Also intervening on Marc Lemire's behalf was Jason Gratl representing the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. "It is not just permitted but required of the Tribunal to examine the effects of the legislation. Mr. Hadjis looked at the practical effect of the Act on those subjected to its decisions." The Court was filled with supporters of freedom of speech. Many gathered around and congratulated Marc Lemire, Miss Kulazska, and Mr. Christie as the Court adjourned. Mr. Justice Mosley reserved his decision.

 

The Fall of Section 13 Censorship: Information on the Upcoming Lemire Case

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:08

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp281.net/zyCR29 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Fall of Section 13 Censorship: Information on the Upcoming Lemire Case http://blog.freedomsite.org/2011/12/fall-of-section-13-censorship.html Tomorrow is the Federal Court of Canada hearing in the Marc Lemire case ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal ), which will review the constitutionality of Section 13 ( http://www.stopsection13.com/ ) (internet censorship). In 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal acquitted Marc Lemire and threw out the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. After 2 years, the hearing is finally taking place in the Federal Court. This hearing will determine if the Internet will continue to be censored by the out of control fanatics at the CHRC. Here is all the background information on the case and how the follow the hearing on the Internet. The hearing will be live blogged on the Freedomsite and via Twitter. Discussions on the case are going to be hosted on Twitter also. HEARING INFORMATION: December 13 and 14, 2011 Federal Court of Canada 180 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario Starts 9:30am daily. LIVEBLOGGING OF THE HEARING: You can follow the hearing via the internet at the following sites: · TWITTER: Marc_Lemire ( http://twitter.com/marc_lemire ) · Freedomsite: http://www.freedomsite.org · StopSection13: http://www.StopSection13.com Discussions of the hearing at: · TWITTER: #Section13 ( http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23section13 ) · FreeDominion: http://www.freedominion.ca JUDGE OF HEARING: The hearing will be presided over by Mr. Justice Richard Mosley ( http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Mosley ). (Contrary to incorrect information reported in the media) PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF HEARING: The schedule is not written in stone, but it appeals that on Tuesday Dec 13th it will be the CHRC and the Section 13 supports. On Wednesday Dec 14th it will start off with Lemire, and then groups opposed to Section 13 censorship. 1. CHRC Submissions on Appeal 2. Groups supporting the CHRC a. B’nai Brith Canada b. Canadian Jewish Congress (according to the National Post they are not attending) c. Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre d. African Canadian Legal Clinic 3. Richard Warman in support of the CHRC 4. Marc Lemire 5. Groups supporting Lemire a. BC Civil Liberties Association b. Canadian Civil Liberties Association c. Canadian Free Speech League d. Canadian Association for Free Expression 6. Reply submissions of the CHRC (Applicant) SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: These are the Factums of the main parties. They set out the legal arguments of each group and their requests of the Court. · Lemire Memorandum of Fact and Law ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/motions/20100215-FC_Factum.pdf ) [A must read!] · Motion Record of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/federal_court/20100225-BCCLA%20_complete.pdf ) · Motion Record of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/federal_court/CCLA-Written_representations_of_CCLA.pdf ) · Written Representations of the Canadian Free Speech League ( http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/06/canadian-free-speech-league-file-to.html ) · CHRC's Memorandum of Fact and Law ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/motions/20100125-CHRC_Factum.pdf ) · African-Canadian Legal Clinic ( http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/05/lemire-opposes-african-canadian-legal.html ) You can get a professionally printed copy of the Lemire Memorandum of Fact and Law, which is reprinted in the book: Dismantling Tyranny ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/dismantling_tyranny.html ). PARTIES INVOLVED IN CASE: * Marc Lemire: Originally charged in 2003 for allegedly “exposing” privileged minorities to “hatred and/or contempt”. Found innocent in 2009 but the censorship fanatics at the CHRC appealed the decision to the Federal Court. As of Dec 2011, Marc Lemire has been persecuted by the thought control fanatics for over 3,000 days and since 1977 is the only Canadian to ever win a Section 13 case * Barbara Kulaszka: Civil Liberties lawyer who has represented Lemire for over 7 years. She is the only lawyer in Canada to ever win a Section 13 case. Barbara’s legal arguments have been published around the world, and she is very well respected by her peers. Known for her courage and legal skill. * Margot Blight: Represents the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They appealed the decision. * Douglas Christie: Long time barrister for freedom in Canada. Represented the very first victim of Sec. 13. Counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League. * British Columbia Civil Liberties Association: Civil lib association from BC. Tried to intervene in Lemire case during the “human rights” tribunal. * Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Long time supporters for freedom of speech in Canada. * Canadian Association for Free Expression: Also intervened during the Lemire tribunal. * Canadian Jewish Congress, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, B’nai Brith: The Censorship Musketeers · ‘African-Canadian’ Legal Clinic: Their lawyer was the former head of the Can Jewish Congress. MORE INFORMATION: FLYER: Stop Section 13: Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011 ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/FC-Appeal_Dec2011/FLYER-Lemire_Federal_Court_Appeal.pdf ) (Adobe PDF Format) FLYER: Stop Section 13: Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011 ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/FC-Appeal_Dec2011/FLYER-Lemire_Federal_Court_Appeal.doc ) (Microsoft Word Format) FLYER: Stop Section 13: Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011 [Page 1 ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/FC-Appeal_Dec2011/FLYER-FC_Appeal-Pg1.jpg )] [Page 2 ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/FC-Appeal_Dec2011/FLYER-FC_Appeal-Pg2.jpg )] (JPEG Format) HOW YOU CAN HELP OUT: Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has endless money to keep their censorship franchise running. I have beaten the CHRC at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; and with your help, we will beat them once and for all at the Federal Court of Canada as well! I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. This is one of those times! I currently have a large amount of bills and expenses to fight this case, and really need your help to continue. We are on the verge of beating the CHRC for good! Send your cheque or money order to: Marc Lemire 762 Upper James St Suite 384 Hamilton, Ontario L9C 3A2 Or donate online at: http://www.stopsection13.com/support.html BOOK ON THE MARC LEMIRE CASE DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case Dismantling Tyranny: The Marc Lemire Case, details the upcoming battle ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/may2011_FC-sets-date-for-hearing.html ) at the Federal Court of Canada over Canada’s shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act ( http://www.stopsection13.com/ ). After a 6 year legal fight, in September 2009 I was the first person in the history of Canada to win ( http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html ) a Section 13 case at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal found me innocent of allegedly “exposing” privileged minorities “to hatred and/or contempt” and found the law under which I was hauled before the Tribunal as unconstitutional ( http://blog.freedomsite.org/2009/09/statement-by-marc-lemire-on-tribunals.html ) under Canada’s laws. The fanatical censors at the CHRC – caring little about tax-payers money – appealed ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan25-2010_chrc_files_factum_at_fc.html ) the Tribunal decision to the Federal Court of Canada, in a lame attempt to keep their censorship franchise afloat. Dismantling Tyranny details exactly what is wrong with Section 13 and Internet censorship. It is a broad look at how the dirty side of censorship really works, from the suppression of freedom of speech (which the CHRC considers an “American concept”) to spying on Canadians. This 80 page book covers the facts of censorship from both a legal and moral position and is a must read for anyone that has been following the utter fall from grace these disgusting censors so richly deserve. Dismantling Tyranny is available in paperback and Ebook formats. You can order online from one of the mainstream book distributors like Amazon.com or Lulu.com or directly from me. If you want a copy of the book prior to the December 13-14 Federal Court hearing ( http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/may2011_FC-sets-date-for-hearing.html ), order it directly from me via my website ( http://www.freedomsite.org/ ). You can get either a professionally printed paperpack ( https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5FQS5T8P3DYE2 ), or a copy in Adobe PDF format ( https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=KKUST6ZSD4BNJ ). For the paperback version, I send them out nightly, and if you get your order in soon, you should be able to have it prior to the hearing. If you order the Ebook format, it will be emailed to you within a few hours. Order a copy of the book online at: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/dismantling_tyranny.html >> Donate online here to support Freedom ( http://www.stopsection13.com/support.html ) _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp281.net/u.php?id=gmjhqsqgsgbbqguwe Powered by YourMailingListProvider