Canadian Constitution Foundation Seeks Intervener Status

SOURCE: CCF wants an end to the censorship of the Canadian Human Rights Commission

On May 1, 2008, the Calgary based, Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) has applied for Interested Party status to support the constitutional challenge filed by Marc Lemire against Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Mr. Lemire’s motion, written by the brilliant and courageous Barbara Kulaszka – seeks to toss out Section 13 as a violation of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience. A pdf of the constitutional argument can be found here.

The CCF in it’s application written by counsel Desmond P. Burton-Williams, sets out several key arguments which highlight why Section 13 is totally unconstitutional and needs to be removed from Canadian law books. One of their key arguments is that Section 13 is nothing more than a quasi-criminal statute without any of the protections of criminal legislation. As well Section 13 is vague and impossible to apply unless the trier of fact speculates as to the cause and effect of speech.

PDF of the CCF’s Motion available HERE

Key points by the CCF of the motion to intervene are:

‘The Foundation is a citizen-based organization with supporters across Canada . … The Foundation is governed by a board of directors which includes lawyers, a law professor, and other professionals. Our Advisory Board includes Eugene Meehan, Q.C. and other prominent Canadians. The Foundation has been actively involved in supporting public interest litigation being conducted by such distinguished counsel as William McIntyre, Q.C., and D. M .H. Goldie, Q.C.

The Foundation is a credible, trustworthy and objective organization that has expertise and a unique perspective on the application of the Canadian Constitution and the ideals expressed therein, including its essential characteristic: that the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law, government measure or common law principle that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Submissions to be made by the Foundation

This challenge directly involves important constitutional principles, including jurisdiction and the clarity of legislation. Understanding these issues and acting within their prescribe boundaries allows for governance without unnecessarily intruding into the rights of citizens. The resolution of these issues allows government to be effective in what it does by establishing clarity of purpose while eliminating dueling and competing public activities and actors. Generally speaking this leads to efficiency in government while securing the liberty of Canadians.

The Foundation will argue that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act mirrors Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada and thereby places the Tribunal in the unintended position of acting as law enforcement and the court as they relate to criminal matters. Enforcement of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act by the Tribunal has the effect of finding one liable for an indictable offence minus the indictment, as the ability to lay an indictment falls only within the jurisdiction of the Crown. This instance of jurisdictional trespass by the Tribunal leaves law enforcement and the courts confused as to where their respective jurisdictions lie. The application of Section 13 also has the effect of leaving the public in a state of ambiguity with respect to the criminal status of persons charged under it.

The Foundation will argue that the wording of Section 13 as it relates to ‘”persons being exposed to racial hatred” as a result of speech is not only vague, but difficult if not impossible to apply unless the trier decides to speculate as to the issues of cause and effect. The offense dealt with by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is identical to an indictable offense as described in the Criminal Code of Canada. The standard of proof as prescribed in criminal law is very high in keeping with the stigma effect of a criminal conviction. By contrast the standard of proof for the Tribunal is far lower, yet the effect of being found to be a “bigot”, as a finding of Section13 liability does, would inevitably follow.

The Foundation will argue that the Tribunal has not been authorized to usurp the criminal law powers of the state, and that laws that are vague ought to be declared void for being such, in keeping with established precedent.

The Foundation will take the position that, to the extent that any limitations placed on freedom of expression by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act infringes upon constitutional rights, and that due to the aforementioned flaws in its application as well as its composition, the infringement cannot be justified under Section 1 of the Charter.

The Interest of the Foundation in These Proceedings

The Foundation has a legitimate interest in the issues raised by this application. As stated above, the impugned statute allows the Tribunal to act in a manner that violates the constitutional rights of Canadians, and to do so with sweeping powers and dubious authority.

The Foundation is gravely concerned that arguments advanced by Richard Warman, if adopted by this Tribunal, will result in the Canadian Human Rights Commission having the ability to violate the Constitution with impunity and without consequence. The Foundation submits that remedies to the aims sought by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act already exist in the Criminal Code of Canada and can be derived from the realm of public debate, where it constitutionally belongs.

The Foundation’s Unique Perspective

Our Foundation brings a unique perspective and approach to the issues raised in this application, and has a broader interest in these proceedings than the specific interests being pursued by the respondent. We will not duplicate the submissions of Mr. Warman, Mr. Lemire or of the other interveners.

The Foundation is not clouded by personal, social or political agendas in its understanding of the Canadian Constitution. Rather, it brings clarity of purpose to any constitutional debate by promoting the ideals expressed in the Constitution itself without reference to extraneous considerations

[Signed]

Desmond P. Burton-Williams

Counsel

Canadian Constitutional Foundation

__________

This application for Intervener Status by the Canadian Constitutional Foundation has been made to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The next steps are for the parties to make submissions on this application. Finally the Tribunal will decide.

Closing arguments in the Lemire Constitutional Challenge are fast approaching, and even with the CHRC just today ( May 2, 2008) disclosing another 400 pages of highly relevant documents, (which they were *ordered* to disclose back in 2006 – Specially [43] L), the Tribunal seems to be guided by external forces which are dictating that this case will be over no matter what happens within the next few months.

The Tribunal has its marching orders from above, and those orders are to stop the absolute demolishing of the CHRC by Barbara Kulaszka – by any means necessary… Fairness, truth or justice be damned!

Please watch the Freedomsite for updates on the CCF’s application for Interested Party status, and those who are members of the CCF should send in a letter of appreciation.

But the big question still remains.. where is Borovoy and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He has been getting press from coast to coast talking about the CHRC, but where is he? In they won’t intervene at the most important juncture on a serious challenge of the validity of Section 13.. IF NOT NOW…. WHEN? (Source)

_________________

SoCon or Bust Commentary: If I were an employee working for the HRCs, especially the S. 13 Spy Unit, I’d start looking for another job right now.  And I’d leave voluntarily to save some self respect. That looks a lot better than being shut down by the government later on for fraud and totalitarian propensities.

“You worked for whom?  Wasn’t that the criminal organization who spied on Canadians and switched evidence in their kangaroo kourt?  Sorry, I can’t hire someone who would agree to work in that environment. We have ethics in this company.  There’s the door. Please use it.”

3 thoughts on “Canadian Constitution Foundation Seeks Intervener Status

  1. Freedom of Expression and the “Conservative” Government
    By Stephen J. Gray

    “The Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and B’nai Brith Canada will be intervening in the Lemire case in support of Section 13, arguing that it is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech.” ( Canadian Constitution Foundation Letter of April 28, 2008 to Mrs. Carol Gray)

    Freedom of Expression is a right guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, yet, “The Attorney General of Canada” along with others is an intervenor in the Lemire case. Free speech is either FREE or it isn’t. Are politically correct words like, “reasonable restriction on freedom of speech” weapons used to suppress what people can say? ( We already have laws of libel and defamation so is there any need for “reasonable restrictions?”)

    We may not like what people say but in the words of Voltaire: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” In Canada today, we are seeing the death of free speech. Anything you say may be taken down and used against you and reported to unelected, appointed Human Rights Commissars (HRCs). Those dragged before these Stalinist tribunals have to pay for their own lawyers and their own defence. Meanwhile their accusers are given a free ride. Therefore, one has to ask, has freedom in Canada become subject to the approval of certain powerful groups who appear to be able to have their way with governments?

    “What a strange place Canada is in 2008,…where fundamentalist Muslims use hate-speech laws drafted by secular Jews,…”
    (Ezra Levant, Globe and Mail, January 21, 2008.)

    Mr Levant, who is Jewish, went on to say in the Globe and Mail article that the people taking him to the HRCs were, “…using the very precedents set by the Canadian Jewish Congress.”
    Which makes one wonder, why would a powerful organization like “the Canadian Jewish Congress” not realize that the very “laws” that they “pressed Canadian governments to introduce” could also be used against Jewish people. After all, what’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.

    But, not only Jewish people are being dragged before the HRCs. Before they came for the Jews, the HRCs came for Chris Kempling, Scott Brockie, Knights of Columbus, Stephen Boissoin, Bishop Henry and others. Now Catholic Insight magazine, the Christian Heritage Party and MacLean’s magazine are under the guns of the HRCs. Nobody is safe from these appointed interrogators of totalitarian bent. So what can be done to return freedom of speech and freedom of expression to Canadians?

    Governments appointed these HRCs therefore government could disband them. But, will they? Witness, “The Attorney General of Canada” as an intervenor in the Lemire case. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) in its letter of April 28, 2008, had this to say about its own potential intervenor status in Lemire, “ By intervening in support of the application put forward by Marc Lemire, the CCF would not be endorsing the content of his message , but supporting the rights of all Canadians to say and write whatever they believe, without fear of violating a law such as Section 13,of the Canadian Human Rights Act.” Amen to that!

    A Lifesite news article of February 12, 2008, by John-Henry Westen had this to say about the Conservative governments stand on Human Rights Commissions. “Internal Memo Tells Canada’s Conservative MPs to be Noncommittal on Human Rights Commissions”
    “Specifies that Conservative MPs are not to stand up publicly for freedom of speech for Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.”
    The article stated: ‘An internal memo to Conservative MPs sent last week will be sure to disappoint freedom-loving Canadians. The memo, confirmed by LifeSiteNews.com as legitimate, originated from the office of the Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson. The “talking points” memo directs Conservative MPs to remain noncommittal on support for Liberal MP Keith Martin’s motion M-446, which would put an end to the growing and dangerous abuse of human rights commissions….’(see full article at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021212.html )

    These HRCs have become a weapon to suppress and oppress the people of Canada. Yet, a “conservative” government is an intervenor against free speech. Is this why they sent out a memo about being “noncommittal” about, “Liberal MP Keith Martin’s motion M-446 which would put an end to the growing and dangerous abuse of human rights commissions….?” Are they political hypocrites who say one thing and do another?

    “Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is, in fact, totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” [1] (Stephen Harper)

    Stephen J. Gray
    May 2, 2008.
    graysinfo@yahoo.ca website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

    Endnote:
    [1] Stephen Harper quote from Article by Gerry Nicholls at: http://www.theinterim.com/2008/mar/03harper.html

    ——————————————————————————–

  2. This is great news and will open the scandel and nest of vipers for all to see. The CCF brief is fantastic as it states clearly the CHRC and CHRT have violated the Constitution/Charter.

    But as Lemire asks – where are the others we all E Mailed?

    I wonder though if Lynch and Warman will be in attendance?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
18 ⁄ 2 =