Richard Warman on The New Section 13

 Pretty similar to the old Section 13, with a few twists, is the gist of it.  I am just summarizing, so go look at the stuff through the link.  Richard doesn't do much in the way of archiving:

1. It’s basically the same thing as the old s. 13 but explicitly doesn’t apply to social media companies...

2. The Bill provides the Commission with the ability to protect anonymity of a complainant – s. 40(8)...

3. Provides explicit power to dismiss a complaint as vexatious if there is no indication of hate speech in the material complained of...

4. Most of the remedies the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can grant if a complaint relating to online hate is upheld remain the same (a permanent injunction and possible damages if someone is specifically targeted by the online hate). The only change is the potential penalty clause has been increased from $10,000 to $50,000...

5. The Tribunal can now order costs against a party for an abuse of process in relation to the Tribunal inquiry – see s. 53(2)...

I am looking forward this next go round.  Pretty much all of the specific claims against the old Section 13 were proven false and often defamatory of one party or another.  It will be difficult for the CPC or their surrogates to mount any attack against the new version that moves beyond broad, vague claims.  

A Modest Proposal: A Trudeau Government Should Restore Section 13 Of The Canadian Human Rights Act

That's the hate speech provision, which I've written about it at numerous occasions in the past.  The CPC ditched it after a years long smear campaign engineered by white supremacists, Ezra Levant, various scribblers in the press, and a few easily gulled artsy farts.  But the point is--and this should be obvious when you considered the ill-favoured crowd that pushed it--the repeal was never popular. The deed was accomplished via a private member's bill in the dead of night and pundits who had howled for repeal for years suddenly found something else to ruminate over.  And while we may argue over the philosophical underpinnings of any hate-speech law, its worth noting that the concrete misdeeds ascribed to various government agencies in enforcing S13 were fabrications. Furthermore, some of the real weaknesses in the Human Rights Commision/Tribunal system pointed out during the ongoing debate (the possibility of forum shopping among federal and provincial bodies) were fixed at the adiministrative level by the bodies themselves.  So these issues will not likely come up again.

The CPC just ran one of the ugliest campaigns in living memory, and the repeal of S13 gave them a little more rhetorical space to propogate their various hate messages during this campaign.  I would love to watch them try to frame their opposition to a reinstatement; however, I suspect those of those left will cave out of pure embarrassment.  And I would love to watch the punditorcracy shit themselves in blind fury.  Remember, all they've got now are philosophical arguments against, and a few obviously self-serving economic ones like "If we have to live up to standards, we won't be able to publish as much."

Fun times ahead, hopefully.

New Tory Hate Speech Laws? Richard Warman On Government's New Anti-Terror Initiatives

So I read this this morning:

OTTAWA — The Conservatives are understood to be considering new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts online.

There is frustration in government, and among law enforcement agencies, that the authorities can’t detain or arrest people who express sympathy for atrocities committed overseas and who may pose a threat to public safety, one Conservative MP said. “Do we need new offences? If so which?”

Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts are justified online.

I emailed Richard Warman, an expert the legal status of on-line hate-speech, and he was kind enough to offer these brief comments:

Extreme online hate posts that target groups or justify violence based on their religion, race, or nationality were illegal under s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Conservative Party MPs voted unanimously to repeal s. 13 in June of 2012.  The Conservatives destroyed the only effective legal protection against online hate speech.  Conservative MP Brian Storseth described himself as "ecstatic".  Jonathan Kay of the National Post said "good riddance".

It was the Conservatives who dismantled the law that protected Canadians from online terror.

It would be beyond ironic if the Tories were to resurrect, or create something indistinguishable from, the law they spent so many years trying to get rid of.

Section 13 Is Officially Dead...

Long Live Section 13.  But during its death spiral the whole notion of having a hate speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act was judged perfectly constitutional.  And  with a LPC government in power, S13 or something similar could be reinserted without having to sweat the constitutional issues.  It would be a vote getter, and it would be something that could be done on the cheap.

So we shall see.

Free Dominion Is BACK!!! Sort of...

They've gone read-only, for the time being.  Meanwhile, it worth nothing the occasion that brought them out.

 A federal appeals court has put the final nail in the coffin of Mark Lemire's constitutional appeal  of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the hate speech provision). You can read more about it here; I've written extensively on the matter here; and the court doc is here.  I've only glanced at the latter, but its obvious that Marc Lemire has been defeated utterly.  Even the act's penalty provision (section 54.1), severed in a previous ruling, has been judged constitutional.

Why worry about legislation that has already been repealed?  Well, a Trudeau-led government that wanted to re-establish section 13 and 54.1  could do so knowing that they have passed constitutional muster. And remember, the Tories snuck their changes through the system as a private member's bill in the dead of night. Divided and leaderless as they might well be after 2015, they would not want to revisit these measures, especially since Mark Steyn, their strongest advocate on the file, might be playing piano for tips and cigarettes at some  skeezy  U.S. strip club by that time.

Bill C-304: The Final Battle?

LeBreton confirms #SenCA will sit into July if necessary to pass bills on order paper, including C-377. #cdnpoIi
— Jordan Press (@jordan_press) June 18, 2013

The other bill they want to pass is C-304, which would strip section 13 (the hate speech clause) from the Canadian Human Rights Act.  When Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton first suggested the possibility of an extension, James Cowan suggested that the Liberal minority would fight if the Tories brought  in closure or time allocation.  If he's serious, I'm pretty sure the Libs up there can stall this one past the end of session.  Then, assuming parliament gets prorogued (as everyone seems to think), the bill goes back to the back of the Queue. Hey presto!  Stalled for another year or three!   Lets see what kind of resistance our lads and lasses are willing to put up.

Your Daily Nazi: Marc Lemire Throws In The Towel

From Richard Warman's site:

It was only a matter of time after the Supreme Court unanimously upheld civil law controls on hate speech as constitutional in the Whatcott case, but Marc Lemire has finally admitted that his parallel attack on the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibition on Internet hate-speech (s. 13) has been gutted (‘please ignore my legal arguments found at paragraphs 84-115 of my previous Federal Court of Appeal factum’).

[...]

Mr. Lemire caves on the now legally (even more) entrenched facts that civil controls on hate speech are reasonable limits on freedom of expression, are justifiable in a free and democratic society, and are a pressing and substantial objective to avoid the serious damage caused as history has shown. Reading bumps on people’s heads to know what their intent was is still out. Hatred and contempt as narrowly defined by the Supreme Court in Taylor have been properly interpreted by human rights tribunals.

Relevant court docs have been supplied through the link.

I keep writing about this issue because the courts have essentially rejected the various Speechy arguments against S.13 and against hate speech laws in general.  So, even if bill C-304 passes the Senate, a new clause can be inserted into the Canadian Human Rights Act under more favorable circumstances without worrying about constitutional issues.

At the moment, incidentally, C-304 seems pretty thoroughly stalled in the upper house.

Law Repealing Hate Speech Provision Stuck in Senate

This story tallies with what I've been hearing.  A number of senate Tories aren't down with the repeal of S-13,  the hate speech provision in Canada's Human Rights Act.  After 2nd reading, it may disappear for months in committee.  It may never re-emerge.   Just maybe the notion that "limitations on expression should be subject to the built-in protections of real courts through libel and slander laws and hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code" is looking less persuasive after this and this.

Senator Jim Munson On The Repeal CHRA Hate Speech Provisions

Thanks to our colleague Senator Nancy Ruth, many of us have also been made aware of a dangerous discrepancy between those groups protected against discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act and those groups protected under the Criminal Code. Under the Criminal Code, the prohibited groups include only those distinguished by race, religion or ethnic origin. It says nothing about those additional groups protected under section 13, including those distinguished by age, sex, sexual orientation or disability.

This represents a world of legal difference. As inconceivable as it may sound — that our anti-hate provisions could come to exclude protections for groups like women and homosexuals from the language and violence of hate — that is what we are facing. This will be one of the impacts of the passage of Bill C-304.

An argument mentioned briefly here, but not particularly widely circulated.

Arthur Topham Update

The latest update on the saga of Arthur Topham can be found here.  For those unfamiliar with his story, a hate speech complaint (criminal code section 319) was recently  filed against him after the repeal of section 13 made it impossible to deal with his wildly antisemitic writings via the HRC/tribunal process.

While Mr. Topham still cannot post to his Radical Press site he is being allowed to use email.  The most important bit from his email to the gang at FreeD is:

Just prior to the Thanksgiving weekend the local Crown Council Jennifer Johnson sent Doug Christie an email saying that she had recommended the laying of the charge against me but that it still had to go further up the legal ladder before final approval from the BC Assistant Deputy Attorney General. Only then would the indictment be approved. 

So there you have it.  We are now officially in the world post S13.  Hatemongers may enjoy it even less.

Warman On Tremaine

Yesterday, the a Saskatchewan court threw out hate crime charges against National Socialist Party of Canada leader Terry Tremaine because his case took too long to get to trial. Richard Warman, who was instrumental in bringing the charges against Tremaine, commented as follows this morning on his website:

Is criminal law the answer to hate propaganda?

The Case of Terry Tremaine

Human Rights Complaint

In 2004, I filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that Terry Tremaine of Saskatchewan violated the anti-Internet hate messaging provision found in s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Tremaine first denied it was him, then said he was sorry and wouldn’t do it again, then claimed he wasn’t sorry, stood by his hate, and would keep doing it. In February of 2007, the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal upheld the complaintand ordered Tremaine to stop posting hate on the Internet.

Criminal Complaint

Given the expansion of his online hate propaganda activities, in August of 2006, I filed a complaint with the Regina Police that Terry Tremaine had violated s. 319 of the Criminal Code (willful promotion of hatred). The Canadian Jewish Congress filed a companion complaint in October 2006. Tremaine’s hate propaganda attacked largely the Jewish and black communities, but also the Aboriginal community and all non-whites. Material published by Tremaine to his website advocated genocide and ethnic cleansing.

In June of 2007, Regina Police executed a search warrant on Tremaine’s residence and in January of 2008, Tremaine was ultimately charged with what I understand to be 11 counts of willfully promoting hatred against a variety of groups based on religion, race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation.

Today, a judge in Saskatchewan stayed the charge ruling that the four years between Tremaine being charged and now violated his right to trial within a reasonable time.

Contempt of Court

Tremaine felt that he was above the law and deliberately disobeyed the 2007 order from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to stop posting Internet hate. As a result, contempt of court proceedings were commenced against him and in October 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal found Tremaine in contempt.

Tremaine’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for the week of 9 October in Vancouver.

Bottom line?

The anti-hate provisions of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are the only reason Tremaine has been held accountable for his poison calling for ethnic cleansing and publishing material advocating genocide (that continues to this day). The Conservative government is in the process of repealing s. 13 – they can prevaricate all they want, but the Conservatives are soft on hate crime, they betray the religious and minority communities they court, and their actions lend comfort and support to the politics of hate.

I would just note in regards to this last paragraph that the Harper Tories have promised to beef up  criminal code provisions against hate speech to replace powers lost in the repeal of S13.  They have done nothing thus far.

Section 13 (Hate Speech Provision) Of Canadian Human Rights Act Is Repealed

That's not surprising.  Interesting, though, in how Storseth chose to frame the repeal (in part at least) as a "tough on crime" measure:

Acts of hate speech are serious crimes that should be investigated by police officers, not civil servants, he said, and the cases should be handled by “real judges and real lawyers,” instead of a quasi-judicial body like the human rights commission.


We'll see how the usual suspects react to the new, post S.13 regime. It is probably far more unpleasant to have the police on your case than some bureaucrat from the CHRC. I suspect that Arthur Topham, for example, doesn't much like the new way of things.  Although perhaps he is glorying in his new-found martyrdom.

Arthur Topham Update

From Doug Christie's newsletter. Updated from here.  319(2) is, of course, one of the Criminal Code hate speech provisions.

Bill C-304 Up For Debate?

According to this site, Storseth's private member's bill to repeal Section 13 (the hate-speech provision) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was debated again in the HOC yesterday.  Not a single other mention of it in the MSM that I can find.  The gov. and press are sure keeping this on the down-low. I suspect because they realize that legislation that both weakens press accountability and strengthens the hands of hate-groups would prove not-so-popular if given a lot of exposure.

PS.  Indeed it was debated yesterday.

The World Post Section 13

I have confirmed from several sources that this story is basically correct.  Arthur Topham, publisher of The Radical Press, was indeed recently arrested for hate crimes, for among other things publishing material like The Biological Jew and The Protocols of  The Elders of Zion on his website.  So post section 13--assuming parliament finally passes Brian Storseth's private member's bill repealing that part of the Canadian Human Rights Act--all the players remain the same.  B'nai Brith, for example, has said quite clearly that they will continue their efforts to fight anti-Semitic  speech on-line via the  criminal code.

The only  difference is that the police will sub-in for officers from the various human rights commissions and tribunals, and folks like Mr. Topham will wind-up going to the pokey rather than getting a letter in the mail.  Somebody explain to me how this is an improvement.

Bernie Farber At The Kickoff To Ontario Jewish Heritage Month

I was lucky enough to attend the kickoff to Ontario's first Jewish Heritage Month at Beth Torah Synagogue on Monday evening.  Highlights included a choir, the name of which I forget now but they were terrific, Susan Jackman's spirited and funny account of Jewish immigration into T.O., and of course Bernie's speech re the Jewish contribution to the establishment of Ontario's human rights apparatus.

On a related note, B'nai Brith Canada seems to have flipped sides at a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and now apparently are in favor of a straight out repeal of Section 13 (the hate speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act).  Unfortunately, I'm basing this merely on Kady O'Malley's coverage of the meeting.  The transcripts don't appear to be available, and I see nothing on the BB website.  I've emailed them for details, and we'll see if they respond.  In any case, here's a bit I did on the list of  issues re the CHRC and the CHRA that they brought to Richard Moon back in 2008.  Some of these, for example the jurisdiction shopping by complainants among the various  national and provincial commissions, I thought had already been fixed at the administrative level.  So, as I say, I don't know what BB's current set BWCs are.

What Will Replace Section 13 Of The Canadian Human Rights Act

Rob Nicholson responds to my email.  Comments below:

Correspondence from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada‏

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Government’s proposed amendments to strengthen the hate crimes provisions of the Criminal Code. I regret the delay in responding.

As you are aware, on September 30, 2011, Conservative Member of Parliament Mr. Brian Storseth introduced Private Member’s Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), into the House of Commons. The Bill proposes to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which empowers the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints regarding the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet.


Our government supports the repeal of section 13 as it has been found to be subjective and unnecessarily vague when it comes to informing Canadians about what can and cannot be said on the Internet. We firmly believe that the Criminal Code is the best vehicle for combating hate propaganda and we remain committed to the promotion and protection of free speech by all Canadians.

To that end, on February 14, 2012, the Government tabled in the House of Commons Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Among other things, the Bill proposes to expand the definition of “identifiable group” for the crimes of inciting hatred in a public place likely to lead to a breach of the peace and the wilful promotion of hatred, which are found in section 319 of the Criminal Code. The criteria of national origin, age, sex, and mental or physical disability would be added to the current definition of “identifiable group” for these two offences. In addition, the criterion of national origin would be added to the definition of “identifiable group” for the offence of advocating or promoting genocide, contained in subsection 318(1) of the Criminal Code.


Thank you again for writing.
Yours truly,
The Honourable Rob Nicholson

If this is all they plan to do, some obvious problems:

1) The requirement that the AG must approve hate speech charges would appear to remain, which in practice means that such charges will be almost impossible to lay.  There were rumors going about that this requirement might be removed, but apparently no such luck.

2) Any expansion of the criterion can trigger a legal challenge to the criminal code provisions, which might mean section 319 falls and  the country's winds up being without any hate speech legislation.

3) The bill containing these new provisions is the infamous C-30, which the government appears to have already given up on.

So, not a very impressive response.

Section 13 2nd Reading Vote

Went along party lines but for Lib Scott Sims breaking ranks, the prick.

Bill C-304 Up Next Week

That's the one that repeals Section 13, the hate-speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act.  A vote will be held next day.

And still sign of the Tory's plan to beef up the criminal code's hate speech provisions to replace S.13.

Source

CIJA Head On Section 13

Looks like Shimon Fogel has plumped for a repeal:

Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said that he believed that “there has been an acknowledgement that changes to the Criminal Code would be necessary in addition to passage of the (private member’s ) bill.” While Fogel said he supports repealing Section 13, he believed Storseth’s bill was “not entirely adequate as an alternative to Section 13.

This is not eontirely surprising.  The rumour is that the criminal code changes Fogel wants will involve removing the requirement that the AG approve charges.  That has been one of the impediments that have made using the code in such circumstances problematic.

Sorry for the link to Lemire's site, incidentally.  The original piece from the Cold Lake Sun appears to be unreachable.