During Steacy’s testimony Tribunal Judge, Athanasios Hadjis, read a section from Steacy’s letter to Lemire where Steacy dismisses Lemire’s complaint against various media outlets for communicating so-called “hateful messages”. Here’s the clip.
In his letter, Steacy states that Lemire’s complaint against Bell Globemedia, CBC, and CTV is not valid because hate crimes do not fall within the provision of S.13 of the CHRA since they represent “fair or accurate reporting”. In fact, Section 13(2) and (3) specifically exempt so-called news organizations from being trapped within Section 13(1) because their facilities constitute an adventure in “broadcasting undertaking” and, furthermore, that no owner can be charged under 13(1) for another’s transmission of so-called “hate messages”.
Here is what the Act says:
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter. (Source)
So, in other words, why are big media companies like the CBC and CTV exempted under the Act but individual “mom and pop” discussion boards are fair game for the CHRC goon squad? Why is it that belonging to a major media corporation somehow gives the reporter a free pass on quoting so-called messages of hate in their news reporting, but discussion boards are evidently more susceptible to being hauled before the Kangaroo Kourt, even though the board owners do not share the same views as the poster?
What’s the damn difference? The Discussion Board is merely another means of faster communication than is normal in the slower, conventional, filtered medium of the MSM. That’s it.
Both S. 13(2) and 13(3) should therefore be interpreted to include Discussion Board owners, especially 13(3) which basically says that no owner can be charged simply because another person communicates an offensive message on the Board. The same thing happened to Free Dominion last year when an independent poster, Bill Whatcott, wrote an article on the dangers of Islam and posted a link to it on Free Dominion. The text of the linked article (which was actually being hosted on another website) became the subject of the complaint — not against Bill Whatcott or even the hosting website, but against the owners of Free Dominion!
In the case of Marc Lemire’s Discussion Board, freedomsite.org, it might indeed be “guilty” of displaying posts that might fall under S.13(1). However, under S. 13(2) and S. 13(3), he should not be under investigation. The CHRC investigators should instead turn their gaze to the ACTUAL posters and not the owners of the websites. Of course, it would be far better still if S. 13 wasn’t there at all. Then again, if the CHRC were to go after the ACTUAL posters instead of the poor SOBs they set up, there wouldn’t be too many investigators around because they would be too busy defending themselves in front of their own damn Tribunal!
If this self-serving criteria is what guides the operatives at the CHRC in doing their job, what hope does any Discussion Board or Blog have against what is quickly being known as the Canadian Inquisition?! At least the real Inquisition did indeed have some sort of due process and handed the guilty party over to a third party for sentencing. In the CHRC’s case, they are the spies, complainants, lawyers, judges, juries, and executioners — all wrapped into one.