Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship ...

[RL]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:03:24 -0600
From: "Joe Gingrich"
Subject: Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship ...

... Law *NFR* freedom of speech


http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t852269/

Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law

Is "Like Putting Lipstick on a Pig" -- Kulazska Says


TORONTO. December 13, 2011. The efforts by the Canadian Human Rights
Commission to salvage Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet
censorship) was heard in Federal Court in Toronto today. The case involves
Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite. His lawyer Barbara Kulaszka
opened her submissions by noting: "What I heard this morning was an
attempt to put lipstick on a pig."

She added: "My friends are trying to convince you is that all you have to
do is sever the penalties and all will be well."

On September 2, 2009, Marc Lemire won a landmark decision, indeed, the
only victim ever to win an Internet censorship case. he had challenged the
constitutionality of Sec. 13 and won. Member (Judge) Athanasios Hadjis had
ruled that 1998 amendments to the act -- imposing fines and financial
penalties -- meant the law was no longer "remedial" and, thus, went beyond
what the Supreme Court had upheld as constitutional, in 1990 in the Taylor
case,, when it ruled the old version of Sec. 13 which censored political
messages on telephone answering machines.

"Sec. 13 is a violation of freedom of speech," she argued. The Internet is
a different context from what this law was in 1977, when it was instituted
or 1998 when penalties were added. "Taylor referred to a two minute
message on a telephone. Now the whole world is on the Internet, every
newspaper and all sorts of scholarly publications. If we don't have
freedom of speech, we don't have anything."

Sec. 13 had a 100 per cent conviction record "worthy of the Soviet Union."

The judge, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley, interrupted and told Miss Kulazska
to "avoid hyperbole."

Once a complaint was laid, she argued, there is no defence -- not truth,
not intent.

In arguing to salvage Sec. 13, the Commission's pricey outside counsel
Margot Blight conceded that the penalties and fines were unconstitutional
and would have to go. She as much as admitted there ware abuses and
misdeed by Commission staff -- amply proven during the Lemire hearings.
"Striking down the statute because of the activities of the Commission is
draconian," she pleaded.

"The Tribunal concluded that the Commission didn't act in a sufficiently
conciliatory fashion. The Commission referred the Lemire case to a
Tribunal even though the impugned posts had been removed and it had
declined Mr. Lemire's request for mediation."

She sought the Court to remit the case back to the Tribunal for a decision
on punishment on the sole count on which Mr. Lemire was found guilty -- a
post by Kevin Alfred Strom on the dangers of AIDS and interracial sex.

Doug Christie, representing the Canadian Free Speech League, recalled: "On
December 4, 1989, when I rose to speak in the Supreme Court in the Taylor
case, I was all alone and there were 25 lawyers on the other side. Today,
the sides are equal."

It's dangerous, he argued, to disregard the many constitutional arguments
made before the Tribunal. "We have raised other reasons why Sec. 13 is
unconstitutional.

Testimony before the Tribunal "showed that the Internet is a very
different medium than telephone answering machines, There is the ability
to reply or disregard the message."

John Ross Taylor handed out business cards inviting people to call his
message machine. Marc Lemire did no such thing, Mr. Christie explained.
"There are millions of diverse blogs and websites on the Internet," he
added. Back then there was only Mr. Taylor's voice asserting the truth.
Now, on the Internet, there are many voices of refutation.

Complainant Richard Warman "presents himself as a victim, but he is a Nazi
hunter," the Battling Barrister from Victoria insisted. "The message does
not come to Mr. Warman. He finds it only after research."

In the limited negotiations for a settlement, Mr. Christie explained,
:"Mr. Warman demands and Mr. Lemire was to obey. This is vindictive and
sever."
Testimony had established that Mr. Warman wanted Marc Lemire's
unconditional surrender -- a voluntary agreement to a cease and desist
order and the removal of his entire Freedomsite website, not just the
several impugned passages.

Mr. Christie added that the record shows that the Commission's expert
witness Dr. Thetis and Marc's expert neuropsychologist Dr. Michael
Persinger both agreed that truth should be a defence; that truth is not
hate. "Dr. Persinger said even hateful comments do not lead to violence.

Mr. Christie argued that Member Hadjis's ruling was inadequate. He could
have given better reasons.

Representing the Canadian Association for Free Eexpression, Ottawa lawyer
Gerald Langlois, QC., insisted: "The3 Court should declare Sec. 13
unconstitutional. "There is no effort in Sec. 13 to accommodate the right
to free speech. the effect of Sec. 13 on free speech is dire," he added.

Citing Madame Justice Beverley McLaughlin's dissent in Taylor -- she is
now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- Mr. Langlois argued that
words like "hatred" and "contempt" and sketchy and vague. "I don't think
there's a person in this room who has not felt hate or contempt for
someone. This law has made some groups more equal than others," has made
some minorities privileged.

"Mr. Warman, a victim?" he asked rhetorically. "Mr. Warman worked with
people who hacked into other pe0ole's computer service, and he's a
'victim'?"

Mr. Langlois challenged the judge, "if you're not going to strike down
Sec. 13 give us an overview and explain how Taylor can still stand."

Ed Morgan was the President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 2004-2007 and
is an Honorary Patron of the Canadian Somali Congress. Today he was
representIng the African Canadian Legal Clinic. "Sec. 13," he argued, "is
a necessary part of equality and is a necessary tool to confront
anti-Black
racism."

Joint spokesman for interveners the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith
and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal, Marvin Kurz admitted: I have a
bit of a red face. I failed to file my book of authorities," until this
morning.

He argued: "The problems of hate speech and anti-semitism and the use of
the Internet to spread these ideas is of pressing concern to the
Government of Canada."

The judge interrupted, "but the Government of Canada is not here," as they
had been during the Tribunal. Observers suggest this means the government
does not really stand behind the legislation.

Arch complaint filer Richard Warman was the only lawyer not to be gowned.
He asked for his costs, should Mr. Lemire lose. He supported the
Commission's position and complained that mediation in Sec. 13 cases is
difficult. "The respondents deny their views are hate but insist on
disseminating their White Supremacist and Neo-Nazi beliefs over the
Internet."

Andrew Loken representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association
supported Mr. Lemire and freedom of speech. Professor Richard Moon,
appointed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself, did a study of
Sec. 13 and recommended its repeal in 2008, he pointed out. "The penalties
under Sec. 13 encourage litigiousness."

He too noted the failure of the Attorney General of Canada to intervene to
support Sec. 13.

"The Internet," he explained, "is excellent for counter speech to make
your voice heard. Counter speech persuades more people than the CHRT's
orders," he added.

"The optimistic assumptions in Taylor that Sec. 13 would be conciliatory
did not work out." The record shows that the Commission has been anything
but conciliatory in Sec. 13 cases. "The CHRC has sought penalties in most
Sec. 13 cases."

Also intervening on Marc Lemire's behalf was Jason Gratl representing the
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. "It is not just permitted
but required of the Tribunal to examine the effects of the legislation.
Mr. Hadjis looked at the practical effect of the Act on those subjected to
its decisions."

The Court was filled with supporters of freedom of speech. Many gathered
around and congratulated Marc Lemire, Miss Kulazska, and Mr. Christie as
the Court adjourned.

Mr. Justice Mosley reserved his decision.

------------------------------

--
Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digestATscorpion.bogend.ca
Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomoATscorpion.bogend.ca
Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearmsATscorpion.bogend.ca
List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearmsATscorpion.bogend.ca
FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html
Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca
CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives

[§pamduster]

"RL" <fre...@fighter.info> wrote in message news:tqsie7tlv91pj0d9f...@4ax.com...