So today the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal finally ruled in the Warman v. Lemire case. Here’s the 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),  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).
Athanasios D. Hadjis
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:
 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.… 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.
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.