CHRT Throws S.13 Under the Bus

So today the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal finally ruled in the Warman v. Lemire case.  Here’s the conclusion:

V. Conclusion

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(see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).

“Signed by”

Athanasios D. Hadjis

Source

This is a significant ruling since it represents a clear defeat for the thugs at the CHRC and their clients, but it does raise a number of issues….

1) Mr. Hadjis has called into question the constitutionality of all S. 13(1) cases.  Does this mean that such cases will now be ignored by the CHRT or is this ruling simply going to apply to Mr. Hadjis’ fiefdom only within the Kangaroo Kourt?  In other words, are other “judges” at the CHRT bound by this decision?  Because if they are bound by his decision, S.13(1) becomes a toothless law which Canadians can now safely ignore.  If the CHRT will not rule for the complainants in such cases, then this section of the Act becomes pointlesssince only the CHRT can apply its force, and has expressed its willingness not to do so.

2) Mr. Hadjis has ruled in favour of complainants on previous  S.13(1) cases. Why has he now come to the conclusion that S.13(1) is inconsistent with the Charter? What about all of the respondents in the previous cases?  Will they be able to seek restitution for the fines levied against them by the CHRT, if indeed, as Chairman Hadjis says, the free speech “restriction imposed by these provisions [in the CHRA] is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of S.1 of the Charter?”

3) Marc Lemire has spent years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars defending himself against the action brought against him by Warman and the CHRC.  Who will reimburse him for being forced to hop around in the Kangaroo Kage?  In real courts, the loser pays.  But in the Canadian Human Rights’ Kangaroo Kourts, Christians, conservatives and any other enemy of the Socialist Left pays, whether they win or lose.

4)  Does Hadjis even have the jurisdiction to make this kind of ruling?  The ruling appears to be outside of his jurisdiction. How can a CHRT “judge” make a ruling in reference to the Charter when it is outside of his scope of reference? He can only rule within the scope of the CHRA.  He can’t  “strike down” sections of the CHRA when they conflict with other statutes like the Charter. He has no mandate to do this, as far as I can see.  The Supreme Court can do that, of course, but not the CHRT which has a limited scope. It appears that he is overstepping his jurisdiction and mandate…not that this behaviour is all that surprising since he does work for the Human Right Grievance Industry, after all.

5) In Warman’s defamation case against Free Dominion over the infamous “Cools Post”, Hadjis’ decision might have some bearing as well:

[38] The expert evidence of Mr. Klatt was not contradicted by any other evidence led at the hearing. In fact, neither the Commission nor Mr. Warman called any expert in respect of the Internet or computers to testify. I found Mr. Klatt’s testimony to be very credible. His answers were straightforward. He was frank in stating that he could not provide any information regarding areas in which he lacked any “in-depth knowledge”, including the internal operations of certain Internet Service Providers in respect of which he was questioned.
[45] Finally, an additional reason not to discount the expert evidence of Mr. Klatt is the fact that his testimony was (as I indicated earlier) corroborated in several instances by other witnesses, namely Ms. Rizk (the Commission investigator) and even Mr. Warman himself.
[46] I therefore reject Mr. Warman’s submission that Mr. Klatt’s evidence should not be considered.

Since Klatt’s expert testimony has been upheld in terms of its credibility, the case against the Free Dominion posters will become more difficult  to win, in my opinion.

Socon or Bust became involved with this case back in March 2008 with the famous hearing concerning the CHRC’s illegal use of Nellie Hechme’s internet account.   A log of the postings can be read here.

Socon or Bust wishes to express its sincere thanks to Marc Lemire, Connie and Mark Fournier, and Ezra Levant for their valiant defense of free speech.

Sometimes the little guys can beat the system and change it. We hope that this represents the first big step in tripping up the Human Rights Jackboot that’s been stomping on the fundamental rights of  Canadian citizens for many years.

 

6 thoughts on “CHRT Throws S.13 Under the Bus

  1. This ruling is an attempt by the CHRC to show “the system works”. If not for Steyn and Levant it never would have happened. There are more thing than Sec 13 that are wrong with the CHRC and related bodies. They need to be wound up, permanently, not “fixed”. Their bizarre decision and case they take on show an expensive bureaucracy spending most of its time looking for a problem that doesn’t exist. Sack the lot of them.

  2. How interesting that this ruling came on the slowest news day of the year. Hmmm makes you wonder doesn’t it.

    This was a fake decision by a kangaroo court. But did you notice that Hadjis found Lemire guilty over the Aids article, which contained a great deal of truth by the way. Pity that it apparently subjected gays and blacks to hatred. How do you determine that??? In that case, the Bible subjects people to hatred.

    Jesus said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” i.e. any other way is not such, and therefor the Bible can be said to subject non followers of it to hatred. It ain’t over.

    But, this month there is a real case before a real judge in Calgary when Boissoin v. Lund goes before the Alberta Court of Queens Bench on September 16-17, over S.13’s Alberta ugly sister Alberta HRCM Act S(3)1. This case matters to us all. When a Pastor can’t write a letter to the editor denouncing a homosexual agenda in teaching sex education in the school system, free speech is in great jeopardy.

  3. I was once on the other side of these issues because I was “educated” to be through our education establishments, but thanks to professors like De Lundra who taught me how to do empirical research to be able to prove that the university textbooks are wrong on certain facts. Selectively stupid in other words, because they can’t not know the truth about this. As long as our universities educate people only in godless humanism and living tree evolving society interpretation of Law and Truth, we are going to be persecuted by these so-called Canadian Human Rights Tribunals.

    One has to put down the textbook answers even if they are living tree and evolving society interpretations of science and law and not true in order to pass the exams. In this way of education those who graduate believe they have the “right” answers, but with the living tree and evolving society interpretation of Western law and science now there is no “truth”, because it evolves and changes according to how a society changes, so they teach us.

    How do you suppose we can answer the textbook lies that our society is educated to believe as facts. We learned how to do this in our hostile university environment, because we are taught to by the few professors who are not scared to death of the Darwinian Humanists. Professor’s like De Lundra taught us so well that even the homosexual student in our class agreed with us after looking at the facts, and changed his mind. This enraged most of our Darwinian Humanist professors and proved that the textbooks lie on certain facts, but one has to put in the textbook answer if one is to graduate.

    According to the April 2006 PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA’S HIV and AIDS in Canada Surveillance Report on page sixty,we read that 85 percent of AIDS in Canada is in males who have sex with males. Many of the Darwinian Humanists are trying to put and end to the printing of this hard copy so it can’t be used in research papers to prove the textbooks wrong in this matter. They never want to correct this inaccuracy, and they love to name call when it is proven. Then their is the Gay Related Bowel Syndrom that is ENDemic in the homosexual so-called gay population. Sodomy is legal in Canada and the U.N. is trying to legalize it around the globe. Our age of sex consent is now 16 from 14 and it only passed by 3 votes, and that because of hard work done by Social Conservatives letting the public in on the truth that the popular media is not interested in. Also by putting the names of all the MP’s and how they voted in Parliament on this Bill on this website, and other social conservative websites. Who do you vote for?
    Now truth is not an issue with our politically correct morally relativist Darwinian humanist atheist society, because atheism is institutionalized through our education establishments and thus it is protected by blasphemy laws by our lawcourts. We all go to school. Christianity is replaced with the religion of Darwinian Humanism in Western society and we are reaping the rewards of this and the character of our civilization is now based on Darwinian Humanist logic, because that is what the schools teach.

  4. “Since Klatt’s expert testimony has been upheld in terms of its credibility, the case against the Free Dominion posters will become more difficult to win, in my opinion.”

    Those of us who posted on the Cools matter quoted Klatt. Who may well have been wrong or unable to prove his point; however, in good faith we quoted a person who was vindicated and endorsed by the Tribunal which heard his evidence.

    I am not being sued, (though I am quoted in the Statement of Claim), my friends who are should take great comfort in the finding of Hadjis on Klatt’s credibility.

    And thank you for all your hours of hard work turning the “oral transcript” into a written one without the CHRC induced “errors”.

  5. Thanks Jay.

    If this thing does go to court, then all of the testimony and evidence of the Mar. 28 hearing concerning the internet tapping will be probed vigorously.

    I will be most interested in sharing my findings with the lawyers. People still have not fully appreciated the overwhelming evidence against the CHRC on this point.

    http://www.catholic-legate.com/?p=1493

Leave a Reply

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

Solve : *
14 × 13 =