Thursday, February 21

Marc Lemire gives Pundita a tour of the Section 13 Maze

My Jurassic Park post sparked two great responses, both from highly informed readers. The first was from Canadian journalist Deborah Gyapong, which she published on her blog under the title Keith Martin's motion not enough. Scroll past the quotes she provides to my post to arrive at her points, which contain an excellent suggestion about forming a commission to study Section 13.

The second response came from Canadian Marc Lemire, who wrote to refute the numbered points I listed in the Jurassic Park post. Lemire's rebuttal is based on the 'real-world' experience of someone who tries to fall back on the law as a defense in a Section 13 case. That's when you learn about the trap doors and dead ends in the law, and realize you've entered a maze from which there is no exit other than accepting state-inflicted punishment.

Lemire is the "... only person to constitutionally challenge the 'new' version of section 13, which came into effect in 2002 under the anti-terrorism act." A copy of his brief is posted to his Freedomsite website.

To date Lemire has gone through "25 hearing days, spanning 3 cities, and has called 3 experts and 4 fact witnesses. Spanning 5 years of litigation. And the case is far from over. Still more witnesses and then 3 days of closing arguments. A decision in 2009 or 2010."

Lemire's rebuttal was unable to budge me from the points I enumerated in the Jurassic Park post. That's because I contend that in effect I'm correct -- although I should exclude #6, which is not so much a point as Pundita being sarcastic.

For example, Lemire states that a person who is not in a protected group can file a Section 13. That's true but the complaint has to relate to an allegation of hatred directed against a protected group. In other words, everyone has legal sanction to act as a vigilante for the Human Rights Act.

I could argue on in this nit-picking fashion but it's more important at this stage to give the floor to Marc Lemire. Canadians who are contemplating a "patch" to Section 13; i.e., some way to amend it, will realize after reading Lemire's letter that there can be no compromise. The section has to be removed.

The second installment of this post (which will be published on Monday) will feature email exchanges with Lemire after I received his first letter. I ask him questions including, "Are you a neo-Nazi?" and he details more of the Section 13 maze and its devastating effect on those trapped inside.

I was reading your recent post about the Canadian Human Rights Act, where you claim Keith Martin is wrong [to assert that one can file a Section 13 on the basis of being "offended" by speech]. In fact you are wrong. [My points shown in boldface.]

I've already covered this ground in earlier posts but to review, in order for the HRC to investigate a Section 13 complaint:

1) You must be a member of a group considered vulnerable or 'protected' by the Human Rights Act.

Under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, you do NOT need to be a member of any affected group. Just look at Richard Warman, who has filed close to 50% of all Section 13 cases, and he has testified that he is a white Anglo. He is not a member of any “vulnerable” or “protected” groups. In the ruling by the CHRC [Canadian Human Rights Commission] in my own case, they ruled on April 15, 2005 the following:

[35] Marc Lemire objects to the complaint because he believes that Richard Warman filed in bad faith and that he is not a victim of the alleged discrimination. However, section 40 (5)(b) of the Canadian Human rights Act does not require that the complainant be the intended target of the alleged discrimination for section 13 complaints.

[36] … section 40(5)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act does not require that the complainant be the intended target of the alleged discrimination for section 13 complaints.

See the attached investigators report in PDF format to read it yourself.[*]

2) You must claim or clearly imply that you believe that a public message(s) exposes you to the likelihood of hatred and contempt.

Again the Canadian Human Rights Act does NOT require you to prove that any messages expose anyone to the “likelihood” of hatred or contempt. The mere fact it is on the internet, the CHRC has interpreted that to mean it is “repeated” and therefore NO evidence is required to prove it actually did cause any hatred or contempt. Read the Winnicki or Kouba decisions.

4) The words "hatred and contempt" have a precise and profound meaning in the HRC and Human Rights Act lexicon. The meaning, which has nothing to do with the sense of being offended, has been upheld all the way up to Canada's Supreme Court.

This was true perhaps 20 years ago. The Tribunal has now twisted that definition to be the “hallmarks of hate”. These “hallmarks” include such things as “quoting true news stories, etc.,” as Mark Steyn has commented.

See the Tribunal's ruling in Kouba and Beaumont, which talk about these new “hallmarks of hate.”

5) The words "hatred and contempt," when used in the context of Section 13, indicate that the person who meets the criteria for making a Section complaint is particularly vulnerable to psychological trauma due to fear of being exposed to hatred and contempt.

This is not true also. Read the Winnicki decision. In that ruling by the Tribunal, where they rule that Warman gets into arguments with people like Winnicki. He is the complainant, and he never once claimed to be personally vulnerable to hatred or contempt.

In my own case, I challenged the claim that hatred or contempt cause any trauma. See the transcripts of my case online at In the modern age, words on the internet do not cause any trauma, and there is no cause-effect studies that can prove this. It's all novel science that has NEVER been proven.

6) If you are not in a vulnerable group, you are expected to live with whatever mental trauma you experience, if you find yourself the object of "likely" hatred and contempt due to a particular public message.

This is perhaps your opinion, but has never been ruled in any Tribunal hearing… EVER. And it certainly cannot be claimed that Section 13 has anything to do with that.

7) If you are in a vulnerable group and find yourself such an object, then under law you are a special case, and so you have a right to file a Section 13 complaint. Moreover, if you can present reasonable grounds for your fear, you are virtually guaranteed of a HRC Section 13 tribunal finding in your favor.

You need not prove you are in a “vulnerable group” to get a finding in your favour. Every single case has been favorable in the complainant's favour -- EVERY SINGLE ONE, since the 1970s. See the spreadsheet I have on my website, which shows that no case on its merits has EVER been ruled in the respondent's favor.

You go on to mention the Cohen [Commission] report. During my CHRC hearing I directly challenged the Cohen report [by providing] a serious expert witness. (Unlike the one Cohen relied on, who was a junior professor with little to no actual experiments to make the claims he did.)

See the attached CV and report by expert Dr. Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist from Laurentian University. This should open your eyes to the alleged claims in the Cohen report.

Marc Lemire "

* The files Lemire mentions are at his site; they are available there in PDF.

No comments: