Monday, February 25

Marc Lemire and Pundita continue their discussion of Section 13 issues

Police, forensic experts and Crown prosecutors were so confident -- so smug -- that they built their case backwards, manipulating and creating evidence to prove the guilt of a suspect who could not possibly be innocent. But he was. Immediately after Morin's exoneration, the then-Deputy Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, speaking on behalf of the Attorney General, issued a statement:

"The minister is deeply committed to maintaining the public's faith in the system, and to ensuring that the ministry takes whatever steps are necessary that such a situation does not reoccur. To accomplish this ... a public airing into the justice system's handling of Mr. Morin's case is required."
There are elements to the administration of Section 13 cases that remind me of the most infamous miscarriage of justice in Canadian history, which is the criminal case against Guy Paul Morin.

Before readers familiar with the Morin case send me an outraged letter, I would ask them to study Marc Lemire's attempt to obtain evidence that would clear him of an accusation by the complainant in a Section 13 case, and the court's rejection of his request for a subpoena. Then they can reference Footnote 5 in this post and start following the links.

The Lemire request does not relate to a matter of national security or a protected witness in a criminal case. So on what grounds are Canada's courts and human rights commissions able to hide behind 'the public interest' to prevent Lemire from bringing forth evidence that suggests a human rights commission manufactured evidence against him?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basic principle the same in the Morin and Lemire cases? In both cases, isn't there a willful miscarriage of justice? No? Then explain the difference; I'm all ears.

Now that I have that off my chest, this post continues my email discussions with Marc Lemire, which came in the wake of his criticism of comments I made in an earlier Pundita post, and which was our first contact. For background see Marc Lemire gives Pundita a tour of the Section 13 Maze.

Readers who want to learn the details of Marc's case should visit his Freedom Site website.

"Marc, Is it fair to say that probably no Canadian knows more about Section 13 than you?"

"Pundita, I am not a lawyer. I am a computer professional. I have studied the law [relating to Section 13] and read most of the decisions. Made reports on it. Understand and document how the law has been abused. But there are many others far more knowledgeable than myself. Most notably, my courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka."

"Marc, I recall it was your lawyer whose line of questioning prompted Dean Stacey [lead investigator for the federal Canada Human Rights Commission - "CHRC"] to state in testimony that he considered freedom of speech to be an American concept.

One of the crucial points you bring out is that it's not just Section 13 that's the problem. I noticed this first while studying the Taylor Supreme Court case. But from your discussion it's obvious that one can't understand how Section 13 works out in practice without also studying Section 40(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act. [1]

So my question is whether Section 40(5)(b) is in clear contradiction to other parts of the Human Rights Act."

"Pundita, Section 40 seems to be written for public interest-type suits. Where for instance a union goes after Bell Canada.[2] The union itself is not a vulnerable group. But they are allowed to proceed.

Section 40 is clearly open to abuse, as people with a political agenda can use that in conjunction with Section 13 to attack and silence people even when the material at issue has nothing to do with the person laying the complaint.

Second to Section 13, the worst section is 27:

The CHRC shall “…try by persuasion, publicity or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices” Section 27(h) - Canadian Human Rights Act.

The CHRC has interpreted this to mean they can do anything they choose. This includes sending threatening letters to ISPs in other countries (that didn't even involve Canadians)! At one point we hear the CHRC has written 200-300 letters to ISPs [in the effort] to have websites shut down.

Section 13 is an oddity in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The rest of the Act covers actual actions or perceived actions, such as refusal to hire or rent. A majority of such cases are mediated, and only a tiny percentage go to a tribunal. And of those most are settled prior to a hearing. Keep in mind the CHRA is only remedial legislation. It is not meant to punish or to assign "moral blame-worthiness".

Contrast that with Section 13 cases. Most such cases are sent to a [human rights] tribunal. Hardly any are mediated. Of the 100 cases I reviewed, I think that over 80% of cases were referred to a tribunal.

Section 13 is being used to punish people. Consider that in my case the material under consideration was removed PRIOR to my learning about the complaint. But five years later [the CHRC still] couldn't care less.

There are quite a few Section 13 cases relating to published material that had not been available on the Internet for years, but the writers were still hauled before a tribunal. The material was gone, thus the case should have ended. Punishment, not 'remedy,' can be the ONLY conclusion drawn about the CHRC actions in such cases."

"Marc, Do you make publicly available the testimony of all the experts you've called as witnesses?"

"Pundita, Yes; all my witnesses' expert reports are online. Dr Donald Downs gave great testimony. He is an expert in freedom of speech and widely published. [3]

I am a young father of two and not well off, so I'd like to point out that the expert witnesses I called testified for little to no money. Unlike the two experts called by the government, who each collected at least $25,000 for their testimony."

"Marc, Are you a neo-Nazi, as Wikipedia describes you? [4] Brief reply, please, that I can fit into a post."

"Pundita, I am a free speech and immigration reform activist, so I have nothing to apologize for. As for the lie of calling me a neo-Nazi, it is a smear tactic used by radical 'speech control / anti-racist' elements.

The CHRC, Richard Warman, the police (after Warman complaints) have poured over every word I have written, since at least 1995. They have not been able to come up with ANYTHING Nazi inspired, etc. Which is why magically [hate message] posts started to appear on a message board I had, which would later form the complaint against me. [5]

Once I alleged what Warman did, the CHRC dropped the Anne Cools hate post [from evidence] and fought desperately for the court not to hear anything about it and to block me from calling any evidence on it.

When I term persons a "thought control censor," I quote things they say to support my claim. For example, Dean Steacy's quote about free speech being an American concept. But notice in the Wikipedia articles that there is not a SINGLE quote to support the claim that I'm a Nazi, fascist, racist, etc.

Actually, I do mention Nazis often on my website -- not in any supportive way, but to correctly label what the CHRC has become.

I even made a spreadsheet with examples to point out where the Nazis and the CHRC are the same. A prime example: both used biased and unfair tribunals where the respondent had NO defence. And 'judges' were appointed for their loyalty for the party or doctrine. In Canada it's called "sensitivity to human rights" and it's a requirement for the tribunal judges.

I have been targeted on Wikipedia since I started bringing out my defence at the [human rights] tribunal. My defence is devastating and targets the evidence, the CHRC, the law itself and even the complainant. I allege the complainant [Richard Warman] has posted a highly inflammatory entry on my message board [in the effort to manufacture evidence] that forms part of the case against me.

I have had to get the owner of Wikipedia to intervene numerous times and wipe out what was written but those intent on using Wikipedia to anonymously defame people slither back within a few days.

Just look at the History tab. (Jimbo Wales is a founder of Wiki.)"

1) Section 40(1) of the Human Rights Act:

"Subject to subsections (5) and (7), any individual or group of individuals having reasonable grounds for believing that a person is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice may file with the Commission a complaint in a form acceptable to the Commission."

40(5)(b) "No complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice may be dealt with by the Commission under this Part unless the act or omission that constitutes the practice [...] occurred in Canada and was a discriminatory practice within the meaning of section 8, 10, 12 or 13 in respect of which no particular individual is identifiable as the victim."

2) Bell Canada is Canada's largest telephone and telecommunications company.

3) The link I provided is to Wikipedia. Because some Wikipedia articles have been edited by opponents of Marc Lemire, I'm taking the cautionary step of publishing the entire Wikipedia article on Donald Downs, as I found it on today's date:
Donald Downs is an American political science professor and known for his work on the First Amendment.Downs has political science degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Ph.D. from the University of California - Berkeley. He has taught at the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame and currently teaches political science and legal studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Downs has written many scholary articles and books on the First Amendment and various legally themed books.Downs is a co-founder of the academic freedom centered group, CAFAR. The group's mission is to protect and advance academic freedom rights on campus and beyond. Key Scholarly Works:

Nazis in Skokie: Freedom, Community and the First Amendment
The New Politics of Pornography
More than Victims: Battered Women, the Syndrome Society, and the Law
Cornell `69: Liberalism and the Crisis of the American University
Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus"
4) From Wikipedia article on Matthew Lauder: "Matthew Lauder is currently the subject of a lawsuit brought by neo-Nazi leader Marc Lemire against himself and the Guelph Multicultural Center for alleged factual inaccuracies in his report."

5) See Freedom Site for documentation. Also, for a quick introduction to this part of the case see the PDF that Ezra Levant has made available concerning the Lemire transcript Vol. 4, Page 769, in which Richard Warman admits that on November 15, 2003 he logged onto the Freedom Site message board as "Lucy," which occurred while he was in the employ of the (federal) Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Lemire has also presented evidence that a hate message against Canadian Senator Anne Cools published on September 5, 2003 on his website under the screen name '90sAREover' came from the same computer as the one used by the Lucy poster.

No comments: