timeimmortal

BCF writes in with what I presume is a comment on this article.

They can’t possibly hope to win this case, can they? They aren an affront to society.

I shall answer in reverse order, O Reader: they are, yes, and yes, they can and do.

That the CHRC is an affront to Canadian society is beyond doubt. When an HRC staffer like Dean Steacy can openly opine, in all seriousness, that he doesn’t put much stock in “an American concept” like freedom of speech, it becomes very obvious that human rights commissions openly spit on the rights of the people of Canada in pursuit of a collection of activist agendas. When EGALE member Richard Warman can abuse the system to the point that a) he is the only plaintiff of note in all Section 13 cases heard by the CHRC so far in this century, and that b) he has won all but one* such case, it becomes very obvious that the HRCs aren’t even about human rights at all.

So yes, they are an affront to society. Or, at least, to a free society. They’d be right at home in Soviet Russia, China, or North Korea.

But can they expect to win their case against Marc Lemire? Of course they can…why shouldn’t they? When both the plaintiff against Marc Lemire and one of the lead investigators of the government agency which is supposed to hear the complaint and, in an ideal world, render a non-biased judgement thereupon, are both engaging in acts of online entrapment to make the charge of racism against Marc Lemire seem more solid, what other outcome can there possibly be?

* and in the case he lost, the Canadian Nazi Party, his target, only “won” its case because it did not, in fact, exist

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

In their latest missive to you, Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan and Muneeza Sheikh refer to the excerpt from my book published in , as a “defamatory article”. OK, if it’s defamatory, why don’t you sue me? Cue crickets chirping.

It’s precisely because the article is not defamatory that the “plaintiffs” have had to rig the game by going to (at last count) three of Canada’s many “human rights” pseudo-courts. In none of their plaintive reprises protesting that they’re only looking for a chance to “start a debate” have they or their patrons at the Canadian Islamic Congress questioned the accuracy of a single specific fact, quotation or statistic. If they wanted to “start a debate,” they could start one, via a blog, column or book. Instead, they started a “human rights” complaint, which is what people do when they want to end the debate.

This isn’t merely a “freedom of speech” issue. Canada’s Charter, much to its shame, explicitly abridges freedom of expression. However, it does not abridge the presumption of innocence, which is guaranteed by the Charter, as well as by the UN Declaration on Human Rights and Magna Carta. Yet there is no “presumption of innocence” in Section 13 “hate” cases. Au contraire, there is a presumption of guilt, which is why no one hauled before the CHRC under Section 13 has ever been acquitted — with the exception of the “Canadian Nazi Party,” which got off scot-free on the quaint grounds that it did not, in fact, exist. (The fact that Richard Warman, “human rights activist” and the CHRC’s serial plaintiff, is reduced to suing entirely fictional entities tells you a lot about how necessary Section 13 is to the Queen’s peace.)

Dr. Keith Martin’s private members bill, M-446, is Canada’s last, best hope in stopping the human rights commissions, which have already gone too far. HRCs in Canada are, by virtue of their very existence and by the manner in which they operate, violations of the Charter-ensured rights of every Canadian.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!