Friday, October 2, 2009

Sanity has not prevailed

The National Post reports that:

“The Canadian Human Rights Commission is seeking a judicial review of a controversial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling that found an anti-hate law targeting telephone and Internet messages unconstitutional.”

Seems the “professional” human rights community—you know: the ones who make money from it—is not giving up without a fight. And why should they, none of this costs them a cent, they have access to unlimited taxpayer money to fund their personal interests and to defend their cushy jobs.

Readers may remember that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s adjudicator, Athanasios Hadjis, refused to apply Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to a complaint brought by Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman against Marc Lemire, a webmaster of

Some of us had hoped Hadjis’s decision marked the beginning of the end of using Section 13 to make it illegal to write politically incorrect things on the Internet. We thought we’d be free to hurt each others feeling without fear of prosecution by the state. We were wrong and now we have to wait for a federal court to decide.

Once before, in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the law as a justifiable limit on free expression. It baffles me how a limit on free expression as envisioned in Section 13 can be justified. Free expression is about as basic a human right as one can find.

I grant that calling for violence against a group or individual should be illegal, and we should have laws to defend ourselves against libel and slander. But we already have laws covering these. And I do not believe saying something that is “likely to expose” certain identifiable groups to “hatred or contempt” should be prohibited by law. Let’s hope the Federal Court agrees.

For further reading about abuses by federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals, read Ezra Levant’s excellent book, Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

1 comment:

  1. I believe quite strongly that the only way to kill this once and for all is for the supreme court to kill it.

    Until the supreme court rules that draconian laws like this are unconstitutional, we are always going to be one act of parliament, or one ruling by a "tribunal adjudicator" away from their reinstatement under a different name. The only way the human rights industry can be killed is with a ruling from the supreme court.

    I for one, am confidant that the 1991 ruling won't apply in such a case as it was prior to the 2002 changes to the act, and before the internet.