Section 13 Finally Repealed!
- Details
- Created on Friday, 28 June 2013 15:50
- Hits: 1261
Stand Up for Freedom Canada salutes MP Brian Storseth for making Canada much more free this Canada Day! He tirelessly worked to reform the Canadian Human Rights Code. Canadians, don't relent. Many more reforms can be made provincially and federally. Freedom must be protected day to day.
Calgary Sun, June 26 2013: OTTAWA - An Alberta MP has succeeded in his bid to repeal a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act long seen by free-speech advocates as a tool to squelch dissenting opinions. Conservative MP Brian Storseth saw the Senate give third and final reading late Wednesday to his Bill C-304 which repeals Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, an act that had been used to, among other things, attack the writings of Sun News Network's Ezra Levant and Maclean's columnist Mark Steyn. Section 13 ostensibly banned hate speech on the Internet and left it up to the quasi-judicial human rights commission to determine what qualified as "hate speech." But, unlike a court, there was no presumption of innocence of those accused of hate speech by the commission. Instead, those accused had to prove their innocence. With elimination of Section 13, producing and disseminating hate speech continues to be a Criminal Code violation but police and the courts will adjudicate rather than human rights tribunals. Keep reading
No discrimination ... but pay up anyway
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 18:17
- Hits: 1366
By Alan Shanoff, Toronto Sun: Herman Miller Canada Inc. distributes and sells amazing furniture. Their futuristic chairs can be seen in many lawyer's offices. Yet for employment lawyers, the company is now more noteworthy for having recently successfully fended off allegations of discrimination yet still ordered by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to pay a complainant 14 months of lost wages ($55,799) plus $15,000 as damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
That's right, all allegations of discrimination were rejected however last month the company was still ordered to pay $70,799 to the complainant, Aldeen Morgan.
What's Up with Bill C-304?
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 18:00
- Hits: 2156
Many of our readers are quite familiar with Bill C-304, that freedom-enhancing bill sponsored by Mr. Brian Storseth that seeks to repeal the censorship powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. It passed through the House of Commons relatively easily and moved on to the Senate. That was (at time of writing) 314 days ago. As we reported back in February, the Bill is still languishing there in the Senate, stuck at the "second reading" stage. So what's going on? As Connie Fournier over at Free Dominion notes, controversial 400+ page omnibus budget bills sail through the Senate in 11 days! The gun registry bill passed in 49 days. What gives? Why is a so-called "Conservative" dominated Senate holding up a free speech bill when 99% of the Conservative membership voted in favour of free speech at the latest policy convention? Is there maybe a link here with the fact that under the Conservative government, funding for the Canadian Human Rights Commission has actually increased? We hope not.
Here are two things you can do:
New: Petition for Free Expression in Canada
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 16:00
- Hits: 1358
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is organizing a petition to repeal sections of the Human Rights Codes in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan that violate our fundamental freedoms. Find the downloadable version (for printing and signing) here. Make copies for your school, work place, church, and beyond.
Whereas the federal government has repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which formerly violated the historic and fundamental freedom of expression of Canadians; and
Whereas British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan are the only three jurisdictions in Canada which use human rights legislation to censor the free expression of citizens; and
Barbarian-phobic
- Details
- Created on Thursday, 04 April 2013 15:36
- Hits: 1536
We couldn't resist posting this one! Check out the editorial cartoon by Brian Gable, from the Globe and Mail:
Human rights commissions have had their day
- Details
- Created on Thursday, 07 March 2013 15:18
- Hits: 1031
National Post, Jonathan Kay - Would any Canadian government, even at the provincial level, ever have the courage to eliminate the human rights commissions (HRCs) whose judgments have become such a national joke in recent years?
If you think the answer is no, consider a precedent: the federal Court Challenges Program (CCP) of Canada. Keep Reading
Whatcott decision leaves much to be desired
- Details
- Created on Monday, 04 March 2013 18:48
- Hits: 1045
Last week the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in the Whatcott case. The Court, in the 98 page ruling, attempted to tighten the reins on the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals but kept the hate speech laws as constitutional.
Mr. Whatcott is a man who describes himself as a born-again Christian. He hands out flyers explaining his views, using strong and even offensive language to make his point. The Supreme Court determined that two of his flyers constituted hate speech and two did not, proving that their test is hardly objective and clear (the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal said none of the four flyers constituted hate speech, and the Court of Queen's Bench said all four flyers did constitute hate speech!)
The commentary in the press has been good; across the spectrum journalists have, for the most part, come out against the ruling. Some commentary includes pieces by National Post editors Rex Murphy, Jonathan Kay, and Andrew Coyne, Ottawa Citizen published an excellent piece by the Canadian Constitution Foundation's Karen Selick, and even the Toronto Star came out with an editorial lamenting the case. South of the border, Bruce Bawer (who indicates he is a member of one of the group's the Court professes to be protecting) lamented the decision's impact on free speech (with a perceptive note about the effect on criticism of religions like Islam), and for those of you who like his style, Ezra Levant had a few choice things to say about the decision as well.
Most noteworthy, for the purposes of this campaign, is that the Court left it wide open for you and me to continue to press our governments to abolish hate speech laws. In fact, when weighing the different alternatives available (strict hate speech laws, free market place of ideas, and criminal hate speech laws), the Court stated, "I do not say that the marketplace of ideas may not be a reasonable alternative, and where a legislature is so minded, it will not enact hate speech legislation."
That's our cue! Let's get to work lobbying the Senate (where Bill C-304 is still languishing) and the legislatures of Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. to abolish the censorship powers of their human rights codes and to adopt the healthier, more reasonable approach to hate speech: the free and open market place of ideas.
Supreme Court Ruling on Free Speech tomorrow!
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 05:03
- Hits: 1030
The Supreme Court of Canada will release the long-awaited decision on the Bill Whatcott case. We reported on that case when it was heard 16 months ago (click here to read up on the case). We will post the results as soon as we know what they are. In the meantime, you are on notice that whatever the decision is, we must work to eliminate the censorship powers of the so-called human rights professionals. More to come!
Pathetic human rights investigation: mayor dared to pray
- Details
- Created on Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:33
- Hits: 1198
Is this complaint really going to investigation? A man who has too much time on his hands has launched another human rights complaint, this time because his mayor prays. News flash: Public office holders are allowed to be religious too!
These kinds of "human rights" complaints are embarrassing. People around the world are being butchered for their religious beliefs, and this man insists on an expensive government investigation because someone else's prayer hurts his religious (or non-religious) sentiments. Grow up! Plug your ears next time or leave the room if it's really that offensive. And what is more offensive is the insistance by this "human rights warrior" that a mayor may no longer practice his religion.
What is even more pathetic is that the government is actually going to accept the complaint and proceed with the investigation. If they insist on continuing to entertain this drivel, then it is time to toss these Human Rights Commissions.
Free Speech on Hold in the Senate
- Details
- Created on Thursday, 21 February 2013 15:45
- Hits: 1067
As reported by Brian Lilley, Brian Storseth's Bill C-304 is being held up in the Senate, and by none other than Conservative appointees! The Hon. Senator Nolin and the Hon. Senator Ruth have reservations about the bill which would see the censorship provisions in Section 13 eliminated. The Senators seem worried that certain people won't be able to prosecute others for hurtful statements (see Nolin's statement here and Ruth's statement here).
Senator Nolin seems convinced that the Supreme Court got it right back in 1990 when it ruled that Section 13 was constitutional. In the R. v. Taylor case, section 13 was indeed ruled constitutional, but only by four of the Supreme Court judges; three others disagreed (one of whom is the current Chief Justice) and two did not participate in the decision. Furthermore, a law deemed constitutional does in no way mean it ought to be deemed necessary. Senator Nolin seems to think otherwise. Moreover, the evidence suggests that the dangers warned about in the dissent (about over-reach) have come true. So, a re-evaluation is in order, and in fact, is pending in the Whatcott decision.
Senator Ruth is concerned that because disability, age and sex are not listed as protected in the Criminal Code hate speech laws, we need the Human Rights Act to protect these groups. This is very misleading for two reasons: first, in fact everyone is protected from criminal hate speech: section 319 of the Criminal Code states, "Every one who... incites hatred against any identifiable group..." Second, we should not use administrative law (the Human Rights Act) with its low burden of proof, its relaxed rules of evidence and its lack of protection for the rights of the accused in order to make up for perceived failures in the Criminal Code. That is manifestly unfair.
The Senate should hurry up with Bill C-304. It's a small bill with huge implications for freedom in Canada. Stand Up for Freedom Senators!
More Articles...
- A Smashing Success: Free Speech Wall Destroyed in Hours
- Kill the human rights commissions (before they kill our freedoms)
- Human right to the barber of your choice?
- Judge: "The citizens of this province are entitled to certainty when it comes to exercise of their fundamental rights."
- But some animals are more equal than others