Declaration of Support
A bunch of bloggers took a look at Policy Resolution P-203 and decided we needed to support it. A flyer will be distributed at the CPC Policy Convention. In it is this:
“We strongly support those members of the Conservative Party of Canada who seek to repeal Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not. Vague concepts such as speech or writing “liable to cause hatred or contempt” are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada . Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but are standard operating procedure at the CHRC. Commissioners of the Canadian s Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “truth” is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13. Intent or fair comment are also not defenses. In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence. The CHRA provides for each Tribunal to make up the rules as they go. Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.”I am hoping that the CPC Policy convention delegates do the right thing, pass P-203, and pound another nail into the coffin of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:32 am
The pamphlet would be more persuasive if it wasn’t so sloppy with the facts. Among the errors: – the Tribunal doesn’t “prosecute” anyone; nor does the commission for that matter, although it would be closer to the truth to ascribe this role to the commission. Human rights cases involve a complainant and a respondent, both of whom may be represented by counsel. – while the statute does not define “hate” or “contempt”, the courts have filled that gap. – likewise, it was the courts, specifically the SCC in Taylor, that found that “truth” is not a defence – the rules of evidence are not principles of fundamental justice, as that term is used in s. 7 of the Charter
November 12th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Yes, clean it up and I could well support this.
I would differ on the last point in #1 as the existence and discipline imposed by the rules of evidence make them a clear example of those principles of fundamental justice that are protected by the Charter.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Where the C. have you been truewest? The tribunal claims it doesn’t prosecute but is sure does – just an extension of the CHRC. If you think it is independent ….
..complainant and a respondent, both of whom may be represented by counsel. The complainant’s counsel is paid for by the CHRC. The respondent (defendant) isn’t. In fact look at a number of cases where the complainant was in cahoots with the CHRC.
The courts have not filled the definition of the hate or contempt gap. The CHRC continually pushes the envelope in their ‘emerging jurisprudence” stichk.
Re-read Taylor instead of chirping the CHRC mantra.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Ask any section 13 “defendant?” who has been ground up by the process if they were not “prosecuted”...actually I agree, they were not “prosecuted”...change “prosecuted” to “persecuted” in the declaration and stop being “sloppy” with realities.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
FH,
Repeating misinformation doesn’t make it true.
WLMR,
So we should take whinging Nazis as the final word on human rights procedure?
Alan,
First, the principle of fundamental justices only apply to infringements of life, liberty and security of the person. Second, as the SCC found in Rodriquez, “A mere common law rule does not suffice to constitute a principle of fundamental justice; rather, as the term implies, principles on which there is some consensus that they are vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice are required. ”
November 13th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Oh goody. Well, then, I propose Canada no longer “prosecute” people for selling or using narcotics – instead, simply seek civil damages against them for the pain and humiliation they cause society.
No more tiresome trials. A single-member Drugs Conciliation Tribunal, staffed by an executive govt appointee on a five-year renewable contract.
Come back, Mr Oakes! All forgiven!
November 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
First, the principle of fundamental justices only apply to infringements of life, liberty…
So a permanent ban on (certain) expression is not a restriction on Liberty, then?
November 13th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
A ban on a certain expression is a restriction on liberty, It doesn’t follow from that that a ban imposed relying of evidence that doesn’t conform to common law rules of evidence is contrary to principles of fundamental justice.
For one, the fact of the expression is seldom at issue in these cases.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
tw, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that a failure to follow rules of evidence is not necessarily fatal to an application of principals of fundamental justice. I would disagree, but I think the broader question is whether, given that they have (or have arrogated to themselves) the authority to restrict liberty, HRCs are obligated to apply such principals – whatever they might be.