scaramouche

...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

About me

User: scaramouche
Irreverent, contrarian, delighted to be out of synch with the zeitgeist, I depend on my sense of humour (such as it is) to keep me sane in this wacky world.

  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

Counter

visited *loading* times

« View the previous post.  |  Home  |  View the next post. »
Wednesday, 02 September 2009

A sudden--and shocking--renunciation of Thought Police-type thinking by a card-carrying member of the Lynch mob: What’s the country coming to when  one of the Queen Censor’s commissars favours a purveyor of “hate speech” over a much-honoured “Nazi hunter” who's the most successful CHRC complainant of all time?
Nothing that can’t be reversed by an Iggy victory in the next election.

Update: The complainant and the target of the complaint weren’t the only ones involved here. Mention should be made of the peanut gallery--the “Interested Parties” who were party to the proceedings. They are:
·         The Attorney General of Canada
·         Canadian Association for Free Expression
·         Canadian Free Speech League
·         Canadian Jewish Congress
·         Friends of Simon Wiesenthal for Holocaust Studies
·         League for Human Rights for B’nai Brith
It’s pretty easy to guess which of these outfits is breaking out the bubbly today, and which is singing the blues while clinging e’er tighter to the security blankie (state censorship) which has long afforded a false sense of protection, and which today’s decision renders all but obsolete.

Update: Right on schedule--the Ceej expresses its “regrets”:
TORONTO- Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) said today it believes the decision in the case of Warman v. Lemire is wrong in law and should be appealed. CJC also noted it believes section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) remains constitutional.

The case involves a complaint filed against Marc Lemire, webmaster of freedomsite.org, by Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, for a number of alleged antisemitic postings on Lemire's web site.

"We are pleased that Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Member Athanasios Hadjis found that some of the material posted by Lemire violated s. 13 of the CHRA. However, we strongly disagree with his decision not to impose a cease and desist order because he believed the penalty provisions in the Act render s. 13 unconstitutional," said Joel Richler, CJC National Honourary Legal Counsel.

"Reasonable people can differ regarding the penalty provisions of the Act - that is a matter for the Federal Court of Canada to determine," said Richler.

"The Supreme Court of Canada clearly ruled that s. 13 was constitutional long before the penalty provisions were added to it. As such, Mr. Hadjis should have simply ignored the penalty provisions and applied the appropriate cease and desist order against Mr. Lemire," he added.

"This action is known as the doctrine of 'reading out' - a well-established practice endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada under which the portion of a law that may be unconstitutional is edited out but the remaining constitutional elements are applied. Mr. Hadjis should have 'read out' of section 13(1) the penalty provisions and preserved the rest of the section. Mr. Hadjis failed to consider this option, even though the Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that section 13(1) is perfectly constitutional," Richler explained.

"This was a decision by a single member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. We should recall that there have been two previous decisions by the Tribunal that rejected the constitutional challenges to s. 13. In order to clarify the law, we strongly urge the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Mr. Warman to appeal this decision," CJC CEO Bernie Farber said.
That’s old Bernie for you: never say die to state censorship, even when it’s clear the tide is turning against it, and never, ever muster up the vaguest shadow of a scintilla of a clue.
Update: Here's the National Post's report on the ruling.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:03 | link | comments (10)


Comments:
#1  02 September 2009 - 15:34
 
 Somwhere Babs Hall is shrieking "I'm melting!"
Anonymous
#2  02 September 2009 - 16:13
 
And this free speecher is going to actively campaign for one of Iggy's gang in hopes that the Adscam Party wins: http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/last-of-the-summer/

Disappointing.
Anonymous
#3  02 September 2009 - 16:39
 
Major victory for Levant, Lemire, Steyn, etc.

But only because Lynch sees her sinecure being threatened, so she tosses s. 13 under the bus on "Charter" grounds, something the CHRC, the BCHRC, the AHRC, the OHRC, etc. could have done years ago. Hadjis was merely carrying out Lynch's orders, and saves his own sinecure in the process. This is self-preservation, not thoughtful jurisprudence. 
Anonymous
#4  02 September 2009 - 16:41
 
Or more likely , "My salary is melting"
Anonymous
#5  02 September 2009 - 17:57
 
#4--I don't expect "thoughtful jurisprudence" from the Lynchers--given their ideological predilections and the way the system is set up, it's not something they're capable of. So even if the ruling occured for reason of self-preservation, it's still a great victory for free speech. That said, I can see the apparatchiks reverting to form if and when Iggy and the Stooges return to power. Bob Rae has already stated that our "human rights" system is hunky-dorey just the way it is--lock, stock and Section 13.
User: scaramouche Contact me View user's mediablog scaramouche
#6  02 September 2009 - 20:15
 
Hope springs eternal. s13 has not been repealed. In fact this adjudicator didnt even find it unconstitutional...at least if one can understand what he wrote that is...it was the penalties he bellowed about.

And didnt two other adjudicators in the Fromm case just recently find s13 perfectly constitutional facing the same questions as in Lemire? Naa no victory here...not even close...just more confusion that will end up in Court.
Anonymous
#7  02 September 2009 - 21:33
 
"Naa no victory here...not even close...just more confusion that will end up in Court."

Dawg, is this you.....you little devil.
Anonymous
#8  02 September 2009 - 21:49
 
I read and now re-read the CJC release. Farber smartly called for an appeal. That's it. Their legal counsel, the highly respected Joel Richler made the bulk of the comments. Yet of course with the loony right's preoccupation with everything Farber you jump on him.

Geeze guys if I didnt know better I'd say your scared of the guy!
Anonymous
#9  03 September 2009 - 04:52
 
political correctness is still very powerful in the demented dominion and the liberals remain a viable political party (incredibly). Thus, we have not seen the last of bunny farber or the other bolsheviks eager to destroy free speech in this country. This is a victory, yes, but there remain dark forces on the supreme court, in the "academy" (such as it is in canada) and in the political arena; the fight to protect the right of ordinary canadians to say unpopular things is far from won.

Gawd, its a long-overdue start, but only a start. 
Anonymous
#10  19 September 2009 - 12:54
 
Do you like Nike shoes? Yes ,I like them .They have many kinds of shoes ,such as Nike Air Force 1,Nike Air Max Shoes,Nike Dunk SB Shoes,Nike AF1 and Nike Air Jordan Shoes. May be you love them ,too! We have to admire Nike company is really powerful.Of course Adidas shoes and ugg boots on saleare cool!
User: haiduk Contact me View user's mediablog haiduk
Comments: