|
|
|
 Posted
9/3/2009 8:02:00 PM
UPDATE #2 (AND BUMPED) We spoke with Len Rudner from the Canadian Jewish Congress about this case - you can download that interview at our podcast page or directly by clicking here (MP3)
UPDATE: Marc Lemire ended up calling into our show - you can listen to that call via the player at right
ORGINAL POST: After five long years, the case against Marc Lemire has ended with a stunning rebuke of Canada's censorship laws from none other than the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. From the ruling:
I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article. However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him.
It will be very interesting to see what the impact and fallout from this verdict is, but it is a watershed moment. As Mark Steyn puts it: This is the beginning of the end for Section 13 and its provincial equivalents, and a major defeat for Canada's thought police. It's not just a personal triumph for Marc Lemire, but a critical victory in the campaign by Ezra Levant, Maclean's, yours truly and others to rid the Canadian state of this hideous affront to justice.
Speaking of Ezra Levant, he'll be joining us on the show at 8pm (MT) (UPDATE: Audio at our podcast page) to discuss this case, and what the ruling means. Marc Lemire may still be a relatively obscure figure, but this case has revealed much about the nature of the tribunal process, and has exposed that process - and those involve in it - in many ways.
The state has no reason and no business hounding Marc Lemire as it did. While he is vindicated today, it hardly takes back everything he's gone through over the past five years. If the state had just left him alone, none of us would even know who he is. Is he a racist or a bigot? Perhaps he truly is. As Deborah Gyapong observes: I don't really know one way or the other about Marc Lemire. I don't like some of his associations but in our society we are not supposed to use state power to condemn someone through guilt by association. I may not personally choose to hang out with someone like him and I detest white supremacy, if he is in fact a white supremacist, but I do not want to see the state crushing him, unless he is actually directly inciting violence against people of other races or sexual orientations. But these days anyone who defends our fundamental freedoms risks getting called one, or a Nazi or a racist.
Some insight into Lemire's views may be gleamed from this ruling, at least in terms of the nature of material he was posting on his site - oddly enough, this entire case seems to have nothing to do with anything Lemire himself has said or written. The ruling finds Lemire contravened Section 13(1) on one occasion - the posting of an article headlined "AIDS Secrets" From the ruling:
For all the above reasons, I find that the AIDS Secrets article contains material that is likely to expose homosexuals and Blacks to hatred or contempt, and that Mr. Lemire communicated the matter within the meaning of s. 13 of the Act. The complaint in this respect has been substantiated.
In this we find the strange irony and double-standard of Section 13(1) - Lemire posted an article that is deemed to be deeply offensive to homosexuals and blacks. It appears to irrelevant as to why Lemire posted the article, merely that he did. By that standard, the CHRT itself is guilty, since many of the offensive words from that article are included in their ruling. In other words, the CHRT has caused these hateful words to be transmitted over the internet. Guilty!
The National Post has more, including this important passage on what happens next: Mr. Hadjis' decision to reject the law as unconstitutional, in light of its penalty provisions, leaves a central area Canada's human rights in limbo, and kicks a political hot potato over to the government and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which can appeal the ruling to Federal Court
UPDATE: More from Jay Currie here and here:
In her unsolicited Report to Parliament the coward Lynch stated that the Commission would cease to ask for s. 54 penalties citing the constitutional concerns which have driven the Lemire decision. Which is lovely but insufficient. That the statute contains the penalty clause at all renders s. 13 constitutionally inoperative. So the coward Lynch and her merry band of “investigators” are now out of the censorship business.
This drops the Harper government squarely in the middle. To, perhaps, restore s. 13’s constitutionality, Parliament would have to repeal s. 54. But would Harper be able to convince his strongly anti-s.13 caucus and Party to do anything to help the censors? I don’t think so.
The practical result being that Harper’s policy of total inaction has switched from a pro-censorship position to an anti-censorship position.
Also, the Western Standard has more here. |
|
Rob Breakenridge
|
|
|
|
One thing is for certain - Paul Fromm wil never appear on my program. Free speech means supporting the freedom of speech of those you detest - the racist Paul Fromm, he who walks alongside the Ayran Guerd on the streets of Calgary, would meet that definition. If you think my commitment to freedom of speech is contingent on whether I invite racists and neo-nazis on my radio program, then clearly you do no have a clue as to what the concept means.
|
|
Posted By
Rob
On
9/5/2009 9:37:15 PM
|
|
If you are calling me and/or Paul Fromm a phony, those complaints will fall on deaf ears. Not just with me, but with any sentient being who is reading this exchange.
I have never called for the jailing of Len Rudner, or Bernie Farber, or David Matas, or Sabina Citron, or Irwin Cotler, or any number of the Jewish thugs you consider polite company. The same Jewish thugs who have been responsible for these laws and who have called for and succeeded in jailing their opponents.
As to your commitment to free speech, prove me wrong. Ask Paul Fromm to appear on your show. Fromm, without any question, has been the person most deeply involved with opposing these tyrannical laws, along with Barb Kalushka and Doug Christie.
Prediction- The most widely listened to show you will ever have would be the show where you invited Paul Fromm, Barb Kalushka, Doug Christie, and Marc Lemire to participate.
But you won't do that. Instead, the great free speech advocate Rob Breakinridge will invite Levant and Rudner to talk about why people who offend Jews should be jailed, or why not.
If Fromm is a "nazi" for standing his ground with 30 people protesting the jailing of Canada's citizens for the words they speak, what is Rudner, who has the ear of the Canadian government, and access to a seemingly endless amount of lawyers? Not to mention a thoroughly cowed media, including yours truly?
Just who are the Supremacists here?
Who would a real free speech advocate have on their radio program?
|
|
Posted By
John Ross Taylor II
On
9/5/2009 4:20:51 PM
|
|
I don't think I called Paul Fromm a neo-nazi - although I wonder what one would call someone who takes part in marches alongside neo-nazis. It's pretty clear who the phonies are here.
|
|
Posted By
Rob
On
9/5/2009 3:27:04 PM
|
|
One last thing--I notice you didn't mind interviewing Len Rudner, one of the villians that is responsible for jailing, yes jailing, Canadians for offending him.
You don't mind interviewing a Jewish thug like Rudner, but you will slander Paul Fromm with howls of "nazi".
You are as phony as they come.
|
|
Posted By
John Ross Taylor II
On
9/5/2009 12:18:36 PM
|
|
When was the last time Paul Fromm fought for freedom of speech for someone who is not a "neo-nazi"? How about Arthur Topman, left leaning writer who is married to a Jewish woman? How about Jessica Beaumont, a gentle 19 year old girl? How about Malcolm Ross, a deeply Christian man? I'm sure he would stand up for a Jew, as would I, but oddly enough, Jews never get charged under this tyrannical system. (Warman even named a Jewish in his complaint against FD, and dropped Eds from his complaint after he discovered Eds was a Jew)
Paul Fromm is clearly not an anti-semite, unless you consider that term to have the modern meaning of "someone who is hated by Jews". Paul is a gentleman, measured in his speech and in his mannerisms. He has stood up against the Jewish created tyranny of the HRC's before you or Levant had any idea they existed. And for that, he was stripped of his job, his pension, and sued for calling Warman a censor, when Warman clearly is a censor.
As I stated, only someone who is a phony and a coward would continue to slander people like Paul Fromm with words like "neon-nazi". This victory is Paul Fromm's, Marc Lemire, Barb Kalushka's and all the other people who were fighting against this tyranny, a system perpetuated to this day by loudmouthed phonies like you who holler about free speech and then slander the people who are actually making a difference.
|
|
Posted By
John Ross Taylor II
On
9/5/2009 11:51:25 AM
|
|
I may support the free speech rights of bigots - I have no desire to provide them a platform (although perhaps I'm doing so by allowing certain comments to stand). I have interviewed both Marc Lemire and Doug Christie - and while I'm unconvinced whether either of them truly are racists or anti-semites it would certainly seem as though they've kept company with both. Paul Fromm, I think, clearly meets that standard. I'll take those who actually believe in free speech, not those who use the free speech cause as a vehicle to advance their bigotry. When have people like Mr. Fromm - or you Mr. "Taylor" - ever fought for the freedom of speech of someone who was not a neo-nazi?
|
|
Posted By
Rob
On
9/5/2009 9:47:27 AM
|
|
"Chris" accuses me of cloudy thinking, and then claims that I would call Rob a nazi for associating with Marc Lemire. That's rich. Do you not know who John Ross Taylor is?
In fact, I called Rob a phony because he is one. Rob distances himself from Lemire based not on anything Marc has said or has written, but because of the Jewish smears against Marc. Those villians even had a photo of a man they claimed was Marc acting as Zundel's bodyguard, and posted this photo on message boards all over the net.
Why not Doug Christie or Barb Kalushka, or Paul Fromm on to discuss the case? Rob, the great free speech warrior, won't have any of the people who have actually fought the battles, because Rob is such a phony that he cowers in fear of having a "nazi" like Paul or Doug on his show.
As I stated before, Rob is just as guilty as the rest of them for perpetuating this system. If Breakenrisge had any guts at all, or any interest in Free Speech, he'd be begging for an interview with Christie, Kalushka, or Fromm. That Rob asks Levant, who is apparently sufficiently Kosher enough to come on his program speaks volumes as to who and what Rob is.
|
|
Posted By
John Ross Taylor II
On
9/5/2009 9:00:41 AM
|
|
Mr. "Taylor II", Rob has been careful to distance himself from Lemire (a) because he does not necessarily agree with his views, and (b) because if he does not distance himself, those of your ilk will accuse him of being a nazi, given that name-calling is the quickest way for people like you to avoid substantive discussion. As I'm sure you've heard, the mantra of free speechers is along the lines of "I deplore what you're saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it". The many Canadians who applaud yesterday's decision do so not because they agree with Mark Lemire in every respect, but because they understand that in a free society, letting odious views see the light of day without government crack-down is far better than the alternative. I'm at a loss to see how you could possibly label Rob as a "phony". Cloudy (or very disingenuous) thinking at best.
|
|
Posted By
Chris
On
9/3/2009 11:54:31 AM
|
|
Good ruling. The real danger to society is not individual hate declarations (although this is often put forward by contemporary media), but rather bias in media itself. A thousand hate-filled blogs or books will do less damage in a year than one biased cover story in a national media. As an example, many Americans still believe the Trade Tower bombers arrived via Canada despite CNN's "correction" of the facts, and recall how the media destroyed Richard Jewell's life by falsely presenting him as the bomber at the Atlanta Olympic Games. Canada does not need censorship but rather its opposite: transparency in government activities and media publication.
|
|
Posted By
miss yoka
On
9/3/2009 8:55:49 AM
|
|
Hi, Rob
If Marc Lemire was really a racist, don't you think that, after SIX YEARS of having his every word examined by the CHRC, they would have found more than one article (written by someone else) that violated Section 13 of the Human Rights Act?
This ruling shows clearly that the racist smear is a lie. We don't do our side any favours by helping our opponents smear our allies.
Thanks for continuing to talk about this issue, though.
|
|
Posted By
Connie Fournier
On
9/3/2009 4:52:52 AM
|
|
I am way more racistist than anyone and Rob linked to me John;)
|
|
Posted By
Blazingcatfur
On
9/2/2009 11:49:22 PM
|
|
Rob, you need to have Lemire on your show, and not get bogged down with all the nonsence about him being a "nazi" or whatever his detractors call him. Interview him about Section 13. Just listening to his call, the guy is clearly an expert on Section 13 and the CHRC. To be honest I could care less what Lemire thinks. But the information he has on the CHRC is far more detailed than Levant or anyone else has. Just read his legal motions.
|
|
Posted By
Tony S
On
9/2/2009 11:21:12 PM
|
|
"Marc Lemire is a figure in the Canadian white supremacist movement. He works closely with neo-Nazi leader Paul Fromm, and is the webmaster of the Toronto-based Freedom-Site which he began in 1996.[1][2][3] He is alleged to be a neo-Nazi himself, and has been called a "bigot" by Jonathan Kay of the National Post.[4] Formerly of Toronto and now living in Hamilton, Lemire was the last president of the often violent Heritage Front organization from January 1, 2001 until the organization folded around 2005" thank god the white supremeicists are finally getting the right to push their venom on society. suddenly, the fact that anyone stands up for the neo-nazi movement is a HERO in alberta??? well, i suppose it makes sense, what with Stephen Harper's involvement with the 'evolutionary nazi party' knows as the National Front. Good job pointing out a mazi as a hero, Rob. can 't wait until you decry the persecution of those muslim terrorists.
|
|
Posted By
Robert
On
9/2/2009 10:44:48 PM
|
|
thank god China has agreed to stop executing people for speaking out against the communist party...oh, wait...i thought that this was about people who live in nations where the punishment for speaking freely is either torture, life imprisonment, execution or becoming 'disappeared.' finally being given the right to talk without fear. oh well, this is a good thing too, especially for those whose feelings are easily hurt.(and every canadian wonders why we live in a nanny state. we have to.)
|
|
Posted By
Ed
On
9/2/2009 10:39:21 PM
|
|
Rob; don't sweat the creepy crawlies coming out of the woodwork on the Lemire case. Court evidence shows a good portion of them are likely government workers ;-)
|
|
Posted By
Jim
On
9/2/2009 6:55:06 PM
|
|
I am listening from Brisbane, Australia today. This is bigger than the big prawn. Much larger than the big pinapple. Ha. I have been following Ezra for about 15 months now. Grab it and growl. Congratulations to Marc Lemire. I am anti Muslim and would like the freedom to say exactly what I think. Maybe the Aussies will look at their Canadian mates and take some note.
|
|
Posted By
Thumbnail
On
9/2/2009 5:57:28 PM
|
|
Interesting who (and what) comes out of the woodwork. I wonder who's linking to this entry. Look, I've interviewed Marc before, I've asked him about this case, and so other than his reaction to the ruling today I'd probably be asking him the same questions all over again. Marc's free (or should be free) to have his say on his own site and to whomever else wishes to ask him about it. I'm glad he was acquitted, as it were - that doesn't mean I suddenly think he's a wonderful guy (his friends and supporters seem to say a lot about him, I fear)
|
|
Posted By
Rob
On
9/2/2009 5:19:54 PM
|
|
Rob Breakenridge is a phony. The reason he won't have Marc Lemire on to discuss his case, or Barb Kalushka, or Doug Christie, is because they are "racists", or might be likely to be thought to be "racists" or expose people to racists at some point in the future.
I suppose that is a step up from "nazi", but not much of one. And after all, the pursuit of "nazis" was what permitted the CJC and B'nai Brith to get away with this for 30 years.
People like Breakenridge are as much cowards and enablers as anyone else who perpetuated this system. It was only when the properly vetted Jew Levant was involved was this suddenly an issue affecting the people of Canada.
I hope you ask any of them, and although I know they are too polite to do so, I hope they tell you to go pound sand.
|
|
Posted By
John Ross Taylor II.
On
9/2/2009 4:53:25 PM
|
|
This is excellent news for all Canadians , our right of Freedom of Expression is upheld. I am very glad to see that Marc is now finally done with all of this nonsence and that the corrupt government employees who tried to stir the pot with their idiotic postings on his site were exposed in the process. Great victory here!
|
|
Posted By
Adam Guerbuez
On
9/2/2009 4:21:54 PM
|
|
yes, why not have Doug Christie, Barbara Kulaszka or Marc Lemire on to discuss this ruling? What's Ezra Levant have to do with it? If he can't bother to update his blog, how can he find time to chat about someone elses case?
|
|
Posted By
BKlatt
On
9/2/2009 2:06:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|