"The Supreme Court of Canada clearly ruled that s. 13 was constitutional long before the penalty provisions were added to it. As such, Mr. Hadjis should have simply ignored the penalty provisions and applied the appropriate cease and desist order against Mr. Lemire," [Joel Richler, CJC National Honourary Legal Counsel] added.
"This action is known as the doctrine of 'reading out' - a well-established practice endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada under which the portion of a law that may be unconstitutional is edited out but the remaining constitutional elements are applied. Mr. Hadjis should have 'read out' of section 13(1) the penalty provisions and preserved the rest of the section. Mr. Hadjis failed to consider this option, even though the Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that section 13(1) is perfectly constitutional," Richler explained.
"This was a decision by a single member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. We should recall that there have been two previous decisions by the Tribunal that rejected the constitutional challenges to s. 13. In order to clarify the law, we strongly urge the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Mr. Warman to appeal this decision," CJC CEO Bernie Farber said.
Read the rest through the link.
Thanks BCL, the CJC articualted this much better than my feeble attempt.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with Section 13 being constitutional. The issue was and remains that the CHRC is not competent to adjudicate hate speech.
ReplyDeleteRemoving the penalty provisions simply confirms that the CHRC lacks the appropriate expertise to determine such matters.
The issue was and remains that the CHRC is not competent to adjudicate hate speech.
ReplyDeleteFirst time I've heard you say that.
It seems to me that the Jewish Congress has it right. My research shows that very recently another Tribunal ruled that these very same ammendments were constitutional. That was in the Fromm case.
ReplyDeleteThere is confusion and it needs to be clarified. However I agree that s13 itself has not been found unconstitutional despite waht Steyn and others may want to think.
Well I finally finished reading this long and convoluted decision. Mr. Richler of the CJC makes much sense. I mean you don't throw out everything because you disagree with one small element!!
ReplyDeleteThis will go to Federal Court and maybe even the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile in his decision Hadjis seems to dismiss Lemire's Holocaust denial as almost trivial. Can anyone really take this guy seriously?. Nope my guess is it will be business as usual until the matter of penalties is settled by the Courts.
This is boring. So, who's gone over to Erza's blog to find out what egregious lie or lies Ezra has told over this?
ReplyDeleteThe issue was and remains that the CHRC is not competent to adjudicate hate speech.
ReplyDeleteNice assertion ... on what basis do you make that claim?
The ruling has been made and it was the right one.
ReplyDeleteI hope they appeal and this ends up at SCC, so we can bury it once and for all.
It will be interesting to see how this "ruling" affects Rev.Boissoin as his case goes to court Sept 16.
I hear the Doors in the background.
Ti-Guy,I had to shower before coming here after visiting Ezra's garbage dump. Same ol' same ol' "I hate Farber, I hate Farber sooo much...geez Farber makes me mad...etc etc"
ReplyDeleteRN,
ReplyDeleteThey might throw out his penalty.
They just might. Either way some interesting times ahead.
ReplyDeleteI'll be there, so I'll let you know.
It's been almost 20 years since the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of section 13, and both the section and the behaviour of the CHRC have changed significantly since then.
ReplyDeleteThis deals with an important limitation on our fundamental freedoms. Whether Hadjis' decision was right or not, it does open the door to appeal, and ultimately perhaps to a Supreme Court review. And that would be a good thing.
For that reason alone, the CHRC might not support an appeal, Farber's encouragement notwithstanding.
This deals with an important limitation on our fundamental freedoms.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't. The limitations put on you to prevent you from going around disseminating messages such as "Exterminate all the French Canadians!" is not fundamental. It's actual trivial.
This deals with an important limitation on our fundamental freedoms.
ReplyDeletePerversely, it is the misapplication of Section 13 by ideological bureaucrats that has resulted in the violation of fundamental rights.
Due process, the defense of truth, etc., all get thrown out by the bureaucrats zeal.
Perversely, it is the misapplication of Section 13 by ideological bureaucrats that has resulted in the violation of fundamental rights.
ReplyDeleteDue process, the defense of truth, etc., all get thrown out by the bureaucrats zeal.
This from someone who's abused the liberal commenting policy of this blog for years by clogging it up with useless right wing douchebaggery and mindless trolling.
Freedom of expression warriors who treat that freedom like garbage. It is to laugh.
Ti-Guy:
ReplyDeleteThe CHRC does a lot more than just limit expressions like "Kill all French Canadians". In fact, such a comment may be in violation of the criminal code. Section 13 reads:
"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."
That covers a lot of ground, and the CHRC has shown no hestitation in interpreting the clause loosely.
Regarding "fundamental", that's not my term. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that freedom of expression is a fundamental right.
That covers a lot of ground, and the CHRC has shown no hestitation in interpreting the clause loosely.
ReplyDeleteRemind me again of how many cases that is, per year?
Regarding "fundamental", that's not my term. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that freedom of expression is a fundamental right.
You have to include the context of all those rights being "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Those two issues are inseparable. Otherwise, you're confusing Canada with the US again.
Anyway, on a related note: How come you speechies never counter the "bad speech" with the "more speech" and seem to spend all of you're time harassing the rest of us? As far I can tell, I've never seen any comment from you over at Ezra Levant's to challenge his lies, vilification and defamation. Why is that?
"subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
ReplyDeleteExactly. And ultimately it's the task of the Supreme Court to decide whether legislation and the behaviour of government agencies are consistent with the charter. The above clause is not a license to ignore the rest of the document.
Given the expanded role of the HRCs in the last decade,
it would be a good time for such an evaluation.
Yes, that's interesting. What about my other point? I'm asking because the standard speechy position is that the solution to bad/hate speech is more speech. I rarely see that happen and in the US, I've yet to see when that's ever made a difference, at the time it would have mattered or even afterwards, as bad ideas down there are firmly entrenched and impossible to marginalise.
ReplyDeletePlease. I prefer "Free Speech Warrier (TM)" over "speechy". Although the terms are meant to mock and offend, I find it amazing that some people consider it an insult.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your other point, I don't see any important issue that suffers from a lack of opposing views, either in Canada or the U.S. As an example, this blog regularly critiques Levant's views and comments, as does Dr. Dawg's and likely many others. The various HRCs have also publically denounced his views, and on the taxpayers' dime at that.
And if Levant steps over the line into defamation he can get his ass sued.
As for making a difference, I see it make a difference all the time. Many a public personality has been forced to retire, apologize, or retract on the shear weight of public revulsion over their comments. Generally no official sanction is made or desirable - public opinion is a powerful enough weapon.
So, in other words, if *you* don't see a problem, there is no problem.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ. Whether you agree with their ideas or not, true social democrats have vanished almost completely from general public discourse in the US. And as the experience of the last eight years demonstrated, there were hundreds of examples where important and necessary challenges to bad ideas were not given the time of day.
I don't think you and I come from this from the same perspective. I think it's important for the same audience to be exposed to robust challenges of bad/irrational expression. That some lonely voice, out in the wilderness somewhere is ably refuting some particularly noxious rhetoric that those who've been exposed to it will never hear, is, from the standpoint of the common good, completely irrelevant.