'Human rights commissions are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society'

[Michael Laudahn eOpposition]

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario , M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-274-3868; FAX: 905-278-2413

January 22, 2008

The Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice,

House of Commons,

Ottawa , ON ,

K1A 9A6

Repeal Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act & Investigate Commission
Spying on Canadians Using the Internet

Dear Mr. Nicholson:

Undoubtedly you are aware of numerous stories, angry editorial
and opinion columns and radio and television commentaries condemning the
Canadian Human Rights Commission after the Canadian Islamic Congress filed a
Sec. 13.1 complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act for publishing over
the Internet a chapter of Mark Steyn's book on the Islamicization of Europe.

You are aware, of course, that what is legal in print may
violate the Human Rights Act. Canada 's "hate law", Sec. 319 of the Criminal
Code makes wilful promotion of hatred against privileged minorities a crime.
However, truth, sincere religious belief or discussion of topics of public
interest are all defences.

Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act lowers the bar. Now,
it's not just hatred but contempt which is outlawed. Contempt, rulings by
the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals have found, is any criticism of
privileged minorities. Sec. 13 outlaws statements "likely to expose"
privileged groups to "hatred or contempt". No evidence has to be led than
anyone actually ever felt "hatred or contempt". Tribunals rule that the mere
posting of views makes hatred of contempt "likely." Under Sec. 13, the
Canadian Islamic Congress has a good case, indeed an unbeatable case Mr.
Steyn questions the effects of large numbers of people following radical
Islam immigrating to Europe and overwhelming the population with their high
birth rate. If these observations are seen as negative,

* truth is no defence

* intent is no defence

* the comments must only be made on the Internet for a guilty
finding

The injustice of this poorly worded piece of political thought
control gets even worse. No one, that's right, no victim has ever been
acquitted in a Sec. 13.1 case since the law came into effect in 1978.
There's a good reason: the Tribunal members judging these cases are
hand-picked for their bias against the victim. That's not an accusation;
that's the law. Sec. 48. 1. (2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act states:
"Persons appointed as members of the Tribunal shall have experience,
expertise, and interest in, and sensitivity to, human rights." That may
sound benign, but it is not. "Human rights" means group rights -- the
prosecution in these Sec. 13.1 cases, as opposed to individual rights
(freedom of speech, freedom of belief freedom of opinion, freedom of
religion, freedom of expression.) No wonder the victim never wins.

Several traditionalist Christian publications are now under
attack. One is Catholic Insight. It's sin -- criticism of same sex marriage
and the homosexual agenda. There's no defence if these views are seen to be
critical of a privileged minority. Sincere religious belief is not. In a
recent ruling Warman v Jessica Beaumont, the Tribunal found that merely
quoting Biblical scriptures form Leviticus, critical of homosexual practice
is an offence.

There is nothing to prevent people this Act for political
purposes. The Canadian Islamic Council is clearly trying to suppress
criticism of Islam. One former Canadian Human Rights Commission
investigator, Richard Warman, has made no fewer than 25 complaints. Speaking
as keynote speaker to Anti-Racist Action, a Toronto group of communists in
2005, he explained that his goal was "shutting down the neo-Nazis by
(almost) any means necessary.

Most victims are lambs led to the slaughter. Most are poor, most
are young. Almost none have lawyers. Cases can go from three to more than 20
days. Legal fees of $1,000 a day for hearing and prep time make an adequate
defence impossible. The Tribunals have rejected calls for legal funding of
impoverished victims, although the Supreme Court of Canada seemed to mandate
just such funding in Province of British Columbia v. Okanagan Indian Band,
where basic Charter rights are at stake.

The Tribunal can impose lifetime "cease and desist" gag orders,
plus crippling fines. Recently a former teacher, now earning just over 50 %
of what is described poverty level income, was fined $4,000 by a Tribunal.
Several people who continued to post material which they thought was not in
violation of the "cease and desist orders" which have the force of Court
Orders have been sentenced to jail. The Supreme Court recognized this Act as
"remedial" in 1990, before fines were added to its repertoire of
punishments.

The Act takes no account of freedom of speech. Indeed, in the
Warman v. Marc Lemire hearing, in May, 2007, lead investigator Dean Steacy
said he gave no weight to freedom of speech in investigating complaints as
it is "an American concept." His views may come as some considerable
surprise to many Canadians who thought this right was guaranteed by our
Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Disclosure revealed under threat of "judicial review" by Federal
Court in the Lemire case, showed that Mr. Steacy had been an active
participant on "Stormfront", a White nationalist website, acting as an agent
provocateur, trying to engage a person already charged by the Commission in
a conversation. These activities go far beyond the passive investigation of
a complaint but suggest a Commission plan of spying on Internet dissidents.
Two complainants supported by the Commission in other cases have adopted
phoney identities posting as Nazis or racists. This subterfuge aided and
abetted by the Commission creates a chill of fear.

The Internet is a phenomenal force for good. It is inexpensive
and democratic. It allows people to learn and post their views and interact
with others across their community, across this country and around the
world.

Sec. 13, whatever its original intentions, has turned into a
piece of thought control that chills free speech and flagrantly violates the
rights of Canadians. It can put a person or publication to many thousands of
dollars of costs. There are no penalties for vexatious or politically
motivated complaints.

Serious promotion of hate is already covered by Sec. 319 of the
Criminal Code. Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is repressive and
costly and unfair. It's an extraordinary curb on what should be a liberating
technology. The time has come to introduce legislation to repeal Sec. 13 of
the Canadian Human Rights Act, a piece of legislation that would not be out
of place in Communist China.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quoted in BC Report (January
11, 1999) warning of the totalitarian power of human rights commissions:
"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our
fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society. It is,
in fact, totalitarianism. I find this very scary stuff."

It was scary then. It's worse now. We have intervened in a
number of these Internet cases and watched the sorry attack on free speech
under this ham handed law. We urge you to stand up for freedom and introduce
legislation to repeal Sec. 13 and launch a full inquiry into the extent of
spying perpetrated or authorized by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions on
Canadians using the Internet.

Paul Fromm
Director

Kilde: canadafirst.net

--
Proudly introducing the free speech concept to german/european politicians &
jurists. >.)

'Freedom of speech - use it or lose it.'