A Huge Win No Matter What
I may or may not hit the keyboard at 6:30 my time tomorrow for the Lemire decision. My more Eastern friends will likely steal the beat.
Five years on, Lemire has won. He has stared down the CHRC, exposed its corruption, discredited its investigators, its counsel and its principal complainant. In combination with more mainstream bloggers and, eventually, the MSM, the Lemire case has left the CHRC, as the coward Lynch admits, fighting for its existence. In itself, that is a huge win for freedom of speech (an American concept don’t you know).
If the complaint is dismissed we are going to hear from the Jackal, Dawg, BCL and our own truewest that “this is proof the system works”. Bullshit. Five years on Marc Lemire, or anyone else who posts something the bien pensant don’t like, is out hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of time to defend himself against a complaint brought under legislation which is contrary to s. 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (And, yes, I am aware of Taylor which is a hopeless decision and needs to be, and will be, overturned ASAP.)
If the complaint is upheld the usual suspects will make assorted “the Nazi got what was coming to him remarks” and do the tiny mind high fives which accompany a lead pipe cinch. They will, of course, be whistling past the graveyard because if the complaint is upheld this all goes, eventually, to the SCC for a grand sorting out and, I suspect, the extinction of Taylor.
Things to watch for:
Does the Member deal with the Constitutional issue?
- Do the reasons deal with the misconduct of the Commission, its staff and its counsel?
- What does the Member say about Lucy?
- Does the Member accept Klatt’s testimony?
- Does the Member decide on Taylor grounds or on the basis of administrative malfeasance? Or both?
- If the complaint is upheld are any penalties levied against Lemire?
And so, as Pepys put it, to bed.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 am
“Five years on, Lemire has won. He has stared down the CHRC, exposed its corruption, discredited its investigators, its counsel and its principal complainant.
Ten years on, and 8 years after his death, local BC Journalist Doug Collins, who had the dubious distinction of appearing before the BC Human Rights Tribunal – the first time since Confederation that a newspaper and its columnist have been forced to appear before a government-appointed body to defend an opinion column – remains, in spirit, a testament to the power of the pen against errant ideologies which can take hold even in the most benign society.
Marc Lemire has, to some degree, vindicated the view that the state has no place in the blabrooms of the nation…
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:13 am
Jay; I think you’ve said, in a longish way, that you can’t take yes for an answer.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:39 am
Long story short: Hadjis distinguishes Taylor on the grounds that s. 54 of the Act, which provides for fines of up to $10,000, payable to the state, for breaches of s. 13, was not part of the legislation when Taylor was heard and that, as a result of this penal consequence, s. 13 no longer meets the minimal impairment leg of the Oakes test and is unconstitutional. Since a tribunal does not have the power to issue a formal declaration of constitutional invalidity, Hadjis simply refused to apply s. 13 to Lemire.
Will the CHRC appeal? Unlikely, given that it recommended the repeal of s. 54 in its recent report to Parliament. Will Warman? Probably not. Will Parliament repeal s.13, s.54 or both? My bet would be on the repeal of s.54, but not s.13. But we shall see.
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:59 am
So Jay – AWOL as the most important ruling affecting Canadians was announced?
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 am
Just finished reading the decision, and IMHO Truewest’s observation above sounds right.
Penalties to be imposed only after contempt of a cease and desist order.
I’m good with that.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am
Actually, I now want to revisit my last statement. My Topham case also has a “retaliation” component. There wasn’t apparently one to be considered in Warman V. Lemire. But retaliation is not dealt with in section 54.1 of the CHRA. That’s section 14.1 “.. It is a discriminatory practice for a person against whom a complaint has been filed under Part III, or any person acting on their behalf, to retaliate or threaten retaliation against the individual who filed the complaint or the alleged victim…”
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 am
Given that the presence of s. 54 makes, according to this member at least,
s. 13 unconstitutional, Harper may simply leave it in place so as to effectively repeal s. 13 without having to actually repeal it. My bet is that CRHC or someone worried about that scenario will appeal the decision in hopes that a Court would find s. 54 unconstitutional rather than s. 13.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
Harry, your retaliation clause makes all the difference in the world !
Your case against Arthur Topham is as different as chaulk is to cheese from Warman v. Lemire.
Full speed ahead, that iceberg looming ahead doesn’t have right-of-way…
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 am
Hundreds of lawsuits coming CHRC and CHRT way shortly.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
That was MY position today. BBC pow-wow later this week might or might not alter that course.
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Harry, I sincerely hope you can talk some sense into the BBCanada folks.
One of the difficulties with tight knit organizations is avoiding a ‘group-think’ mentality
where none of the members will seriously challenge a prevailing attitude.
A puh-puh-puh attitude can sidetrack any attempt to raise contrary views until a sudden epiphany shocks the bejeezuz out of everyone who catered to a ‘business-as-usual’ mindset.
You’ve recently and deliberately exposed yourself to contrary views, and now know that clear-headed folks are calling for discontinuance of Section 13 from all angles, even when bickering amongst themselves about other matters.
The tide has turned, and what was once a slam-dunk is now a hail mary from center court.
The opportunity exists to maintain the public perception of BBCanada as a benevolent and moderate-minded organization.
The CJC has already committed to the now radical notion of begging the CHRC and Pogue Mahone to continue fighting a losing battle all the way to the SCC.
I for one will not cease criticizing you for your part in the BCHRT Collins’ hearings, but that issue a far cry from what is coming down the pike if some rational reaction to the Hadjis Decision on Lemire is not evidenced in one of the ‘official’ Jewish orgnizations.