Canadian Bar Association on Section 13

Here is their submission to the Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in regards to Section 13 (the hate speech provision) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. All common-sense stuff, and not particularly surprising; 13 itself is okay, but they recommend removing section 54(1)c and (1.1) (the penalty provisions) from the act, which seems to be the legal consensus as far as one exists.

Don't know if they've already presented this to the committee, but my understanding is that its already moved on to other issues, so maybe they won't get a chance. One interesting bit:

The Special Report recommends that the Act be amended to permit cost awards in cases where the Tribunal is of the opinion that a party has abused the Canadian Human Rights tribunal process. The CBA endorses this recommendation and recent experience suggests it is overdue. In its submission to the Canadian Human Rights Act Review, the CBA advocated that the Act be amended to empower the CHRT “to award costs in exceptional circumstances, which would include claims or defences found to be frivolous.”27 The power to award costs is a discretionary one and would be exercised only after all the circumstances of a particular case are taken into account.

The CHRT already has the "residual power" to award costs under such circumstances--and indeed some of its provincial counterparts have occasionally employed such powers--but the CBA would make it explicit.

Me On The CHRC

Some twerp at Western Standard has been talking trash about the stuff I have written re the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ezra Levant, Nazis...etc. etc.

He writes:

Academic and blogger Marc Bourrie had a good post recently on the Orwellian tactics of Commissar Lynch and the CHRC. Given that he has done doctoral research on the history of state censorship in Canada, his opinions on this matter carry some weight.

But there's another reason why his post is worth reading, for if you take a look at the comments section you will discover everything you need to know about the intellectual bankruptcy of the port side of the Canadian blogosphere. In response to Bourrie's reasoned criticisms of the HRCs, the luminaries of Canada's nutroots - Dawgie and BCL in particular - have nothing to say. They evince no concern about due process, the rule of law, free speech rights, Warman's internet shenanigans, etc. No, for them the real issue is Ezra Levant's honesty (Robert McClelland calls him a "lying douchebag" in the first comment.

Nothing to say?

Well, indeed I have written alot on Ezra's varous allegations. Because most of the ensuing debate hinges on their accuracy. Here's just a few wherein I believe I have managed to establish that one or another of his claims are false, either through original research or by citing the work of others:

On his false allegations re the creation of the Canadian Nazi Party by the CJC: here, here, and here.

On his false allegations (recycled from White Nationalist sources) re the "hacked wifi" controversy: here, here, here, here, here, and here. And that's probably not all of them.

On his false allegations re the Cools post (also recycled from White Nationalist sources): here, here, here, here, here, here. And these are just the more important ones.

On Ezra's tenuous grasp of the complexities of the various provincial and federal human rights codes/laws etc: here, here, here, and esp. here (wherein I realized Ezra didn't understand what section of the B.C. code was actually at issue).

On Ezra's doubts re the existence of Bill White (American Neo-Nazi, now bound for the BigHouse thanks in part to Richard Warmen).

On Ezra's claim that Section 13 has been suspended (due to the brave work of himself, Ezra Levant).

And that's not half the stuff I've written. Anything I have said about Mr. Levant's accuracy has been sourced up the wazoo from multiple places.

But wait! Its not just about Ezra here at BCLSB, not even when it comes to the issues surrounding Canadian HRCs/HRTs (including the "problems" with the way they operate! For example:

On Warman's "shenanigans": here.

And on the Moon reports recommendations: here, here, here, here, and here.

On the Topham case (which is an example of "Left" anti-semitism and therefore, come to think of it, a refutation of Ezra's charge that HRCs/HRTs only target Conservatives).

On B'nai Brith's recommendations re the CHRC/CHRT.

Anyway, that is a small selection. I would just add that whenever I have made an error in writing about any of these matters, I have corrected it as quickly and openly as possible. That is what you do when you are concerned with facts. On the other hand, I doubt Ezra has every acknowledged error in any of the cases above, and others involved in the debate (Mark Steyn) have refused to pull false and in fact defamatory material from their websites when asked.

I would put this up against anything Mr. Yirush has attempted on the issue. Or anything Mr. Bourrie as done, come to think of it, Mr. Bourrie being a generally intelligent person who gets all tribal when he sees real or imaginary threats to the journalistic profession. In fact I would suggest that both men read some of the material before suggesting that I have been conducting an empty smear campaign.

Christie Gets His Say

Doug Christie has been granted "interested party status" in the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith, Abrams, Harry v. Topham, Arthur case now before the CHRT. This one is interesting for two reasons: 1st) it is to my knowledge the last section 13 case on the Tribunal's schedule, and 2nd) Topham, and his Radical Press, are probably good examples of what is called "Left Anti-Semitism" (note picture above from the 1960s/early 70s, I believe), which is to say that it is untrue that the CHRC/CHRT exclusively targets Christians/Conservatives.

The RP itself is a mixture of endless pages of boring drivel, interspersed with some quite barbaric material. Indeed, there is a slight stench of madness about Mr. Topham.

Sheldon Johnston And The CHRC

Sheldon Johnston is the WTBA's Policy Chair. At the end of his CV, Mr. Johnston writes:

2003-2006 – Fought human rights case against the Canadian Forces for refusal of admittance as a Pentecostal Chaplain. I won the case before the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the grounds that the CF refused entrance to members of my church and under-represented other Pentecostal churches based upon discriminatory hiring policies. This groundbreaking case opened the doors for the induction of the first Muslim Chaplain to the CF, and changed the dynamics of chaplaincy in the CF to be more open and inclusive of religious minorities.

This is fascinating and quite encouraging for it, in one fell swoop, refutes the Speech Warrior contention that 1) Conservatives and/or Christians never employ the Canadian Human Rights system and that, 2) HRCs and HRTs are biased towards Conservatives and/or Christians. For more background, there is a good story on the early stages of Johnston's complaint in Christian Week from July 8, 2003.

Except that the only pertinent record that I can find in the CHRT archives would seem to contradict Mr. Johnson's claim to have won his case. From the decision (in which Mr. Johnson is referred to as The Complainant):

[33] The Complainant has thus ignored or failed to comply with numerous time limits set by the Tribunal in the present case. Based on the evidence before me, there is no reasonable excuse to explain the Complainant's late or non-existent compliance with all of these Tribunal directions. I cannot but infer that the Complainant has no interest in following through with his complain

[34] The Tribunal is entitled to protect its process from abuse brought on by this sort of wholesale disregard of time limits, which in this instance has rendered the case completely static for at least two years, an unreasonably long time. I therefore grant the Respondent's motion. The complaint is dismissed.

Furthermore, if you look at this decision, you will note that it is dated 2007/10/17. Even if there is more documentation that I have missed--if, for example, there is another complaint that Mr. Johnston filed and pursued to a successful conclusion--the decision emanating from this successful complaint would almost certainly have to have been issued after October 2007.

But the first Muslim Chaplain to join the CF was Suleyman Demiray, and he was welcomed into the service in late 2003. So it is very difficult to see how Mr. Johnston's complaint could have had any impact on this event.

h/t Buckets.

Rob Breakenridge: His Speech Is Free, His Math Sub-Standard

Here's Rob Breakenridge on Jim Pankiw's Human Rights case before the CHRT:

Some further thoughts on yesterday's post and specifically a point raised by Ezra Levant - one that demands some further attention. Ezra writes:

The CHRC has long ago abandoned the legal limits set out by the Supreme Court in its 1990 Taylor case, that prohibited "hate" prosecutions of political views. They are violating the constitution.

Ezra's specifically referring to the landmark Supreme Court ruling which narrowly upheld Section 13 - under which a John Ross Taylor was charged and under which former MP Jim Pankiw has been charged. You can read the full decision here.


Of the argument which follows, I can only say that I was impressed by it and hope Mr. Breakenridge one day finds a context to which it is appropriate.

However, Mr. Pankiw is not being charged under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. He is being charged under sections 5, 12, and 14. While 12 deals with Publication of discriminatory notices, etc. , 5 and 14 refer to the discrimination and harassment in the provision of services. As householders, Pankiw's pamphlets are a public good/service provided by an MP to his constituents and whoever else receives them. In this case, the publications were used to harass and discriminate against a sub-set of these constituents. That, at least, is the argument.

The fact that the service provided was a pamphlet, a vehicle of communication, is tangential, and therefore so are the implications of this case for the current debate over section 13. Certainly, a repeal of section 13 would not have had any effect of this case going forward whatsoever.

Breakenridge provides a link to the original pamphlets.