Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-274-3868; FAX: 905-278-2413

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

May 6, 2008

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

160 Elgin Street

11th Floor,

Ottawa, ON.,

re: CHRT File: T1073/5405 . Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission v Marc Lemire

 

Attention: Carol Ann Hartung, Registry Officer

Fax: 613 995-3484

I write in response to Barbara Kulaszka’s motion of May 5, seeking:

1. “An order that the Commission disclose the documents in their original form, with no redactions or, in the alternative, claim a specified privilege;

2. An order that the written submissions and final arguments be rescheduled to a later date to allow the respondent to obtain disclosure or documents in their original form and to apply to file the documents as exhibits.”

In her motion on behalf of Respondent/victim Marc Lemire, she suggested a new summer or Autumn deadline.

CAFE adopts Miss Kulaszka’s submissions. However, we would go further:

1. In light of the massive volume of the recent disclosure (400 pages, with much material missing) and the demand that it be resubmitted in an unredacted form, we recommend setting deadlines in the Autumn.

2. The new disclosures, most of them material in the possession of the Commission when the Tribunal made a specific disclosure Order, August 16, 2006, clarifying material that must be produced, raise important questions about Commission spying and deceit in its “investigations” of alleged “hate” on the Internet. As well, they raise serious questions about the co-operation and information exchange between certain police departments and the Commission in regards to respondent/victims.

This information strongly suggests the calling of certain persons as witnesses or the re-call of previous witnesses. CAFE wants the hearings re-opened to accept new evidence.

These hearings are governed by rules. Repeated and calculated failure to follow the rules must have consequences. It is our submission on the constitutional question that these proceedings are already cryingly unfair to respondent/victims because, inter alia, there are virtually no defences.

The very least a respondent/victim should be able to hope for is procedural fairness. There is an obligation of continuous disclosure under Tribunal rules 6(1) and (4). Disclosure by the Commission has been a live issue throughout these proceedings. The Tribunal’s August 16, 2006 ruling clarified the Commission’s obligations and set a deadline.

Read the rest of this entry »

Canadian Jewish organizations claim that Section 13 is needed for their “psychological security”

 

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/may5-08_section13_for_jewish_psychological_security.html

 

On April 18, 2008, Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, wrote a letter to the Toronto Star in which he stated that

  “The [Canadian Human Rights] commission’s investigation of Steyn shows it has lost sight of the legislation’s original purpose and the narrow fence it establishes against truly discriminatory speech. Such speech violates core Canadian values and has been upheld as a reasonable limitation of free expression precisely because of that incompatibility.

So by all means, let’s tweak the law to eliminate some of its discretionary elements. Amendments could call for an ombudsperson to adjudicate objectively if the complaints meet the high threshold for action, or cost consequences for applicants who bring frivolous complaints.”

But the real truth is that Mr. Farber’s organization, the Canadian Jewish Congress is right now an Interested Party in the Marc Lemire constitutional challenge, and they are seeking to uphold the current version of Section 13.  A section they claim is needed for the “psychological security” of the Canadian Jewish community.

 

B’nai Brith, Canadian Jewish Congress and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal desperately want to keep the Internet censorship bonanza going

In written submissions filed by Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, the Canadian Jewish Congress, League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies applied for and received, Interested Party status in the Marc Lemire constitutional challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  They support Section 13 – the notorious censorship provision that has been used to target dozens of Canadians including: Macleans Magazine, The Radical Press and the Christian Heritage Party, just to name a few.

The documents from the self-proclaimed representatives of the “Canadian Jewish community” can be found here: 

• Submissions to Intervene
• Statement of Particulars

 

Some key points:

 

4: The Applicants represent a group that is a frequent target of hate propaganda.  Members of minority groups including the Canadian Jewish community rely heavily on anti hate-speech legislation, such as Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, for their physical and psychological security.

[ Motion to Intervene (emphasis added)]

 

6 (e): The objective of section 13(1) of the CHRA is sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right.

6 (g): The impugned legislative measures are carefully circumscribed to appropriately balance freedom of expression and the societal interest in suppressing hate propaganda

7: The Interested Parties seek an order dismissing the constitutional challenge brought on behalf of the Respondent, Marc Lemire.

[Statement of Particulars]

     

 

  http://www.StopSection13.com

 

 

 

Groups, Writers and MPs that Support a Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

 

 

 

 

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html

Devastating motion filed today with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

———–

Attention: Ms. Carol Ann Hartung, Registry Officer

Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405

To the Tribunal:

Last week, I received from the Commission further disclosure in the amount of some 400 pages. I was served with two CD’s of documents and further faxed information. The last disclosure was made by fax on May 1, 2008. Ms. Blight has indicated that more material might be coming by May 5, 2008.

The disclosure includes many documents relevant to the constitutional challenge which should have been disclosed by the Commission two years ago.

They include correspondence between Dean Steacy and various police agencies across Canada concerning obtaining police evidence on various respondents and information received by the Commission from police about these respondents. It is the very evidence which the respondent was seeking in 2006 when he made his motion for disclosure from the Commission and obtained the ruling of the Tribunal dated August 16, 2006.

On August 16, 2006, the Tribunal ordered the Commission to disclose the following documents:

[43] On the other hand, I accept that the requests in items (j), (l) and (m) are arguably relevant and are not over-reaching or ambiguous:

j) All documents relating to the Commission’s relations with Internet Service Providers, including attempts to pressure ISPs to shut down websites or remove them;

l) All documents relating to meetings, networking and consultation with any group representing one of the groups protected from discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and any police or governmental agencies, relating to hate on the Internet;

m) All documents relating to educative or publicity activities of the Commission with respect to hate.

The documents disclosed fall squarely within the order for disclosure made in that ruling. The disclosure ordered was in relation to the constitutional challenge filed by the respondent under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They have now been disclosed one week before the final arguments are to be filed by the respondent on the constitutional issue. And they are made with highly relevant information being blacked out or whitened out with no specific claim of privilege being made to justify this action.

There are crucial documents included in this disclosure. The failure of the Commission to disclose these documents in 2006 prior to the hearing of any oral testimony has severely prejudiced the respondent in his constitutional challenge as he was prevented from using them during the hearing and the testimony of Richard Warman, Dean Steacy and Harvey Goldberg.

This is not the first time this has happened. Throughout this case, the Commission has consistently dragged its feet and only disclosed evidence after multiple motions by the respondent and orders of the Tribunal. Last year, many documents were disclosed after Harvey Goldberg gave testimony and the respondent was unable to explore them with the witness.

The respondent requests that the Tribunal order the Commission to disclose the documents in an unredacted form. As well, there are documents that appear to have been double-sided but only one side has been copied for disclosure. The Commission appears to claim no privilege for the portions of the documents that are erased and is therefore bound by the August 16, 2006 order to disclose the documents in their original state. The respondent asks that the Tribunal set a date for the Commission to complete this disclosure.

The respondent will be making a motion to file many of these documents into evidence after they are produced in the proper form. There appear to be close to 200 pages of documents which the respondent will be seeking to enter into evidence. They go to the heart of the respondent’s constitutional argument, that section 13 has become in essence a criminal provision and the Commission is using, in an indirect way, the search and seizure powers of the police.

Secondly, the respondent requests an adjournment of written submissions and final arguments until either the summer or fall.

The Tribunal set dates for final arguments on February 11, 2008. These dates are not set in stone. They were set in good faith, giving the parties ample time given the circumstances then prevailing to make their submissions.

That is not the case today.

The respondent has already been severely prejudiced by the Commission’s failure to make timely disclosure of these documents.

If he is not given time to ask for proper disclosure and time to make a motion to admit the unredacted documents into evidence as exhibits, then he will have been denied natural justice and a fair hearing, as required by section 48.9 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and by the common law governing quasi-judicial tribunals.

There is also great prejudice to the public interest.

In Kulbashian v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission), [2007] F.C.J. No. 475, the court stayed the judicial review application challenging the constitutionality of section 13 pending the outcome the constitutional challenge in this case. The Court held:

12 Although the Attorney General recognizes that the Court has the jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges, he argues that there was no evidence before the Tribunal relating to the alleged Charter violation or any potential justification about this violation pursuant to section 1 of the Charter. The Attorney General argues that the appropriate remedy is for the Court to decline to hear the Charter issues now being raised and to wait for the outcome in Lemire, where the parties will have the opportunity to submit evidence in respect of this issue. […]

42 In my opinion, a stay of the present proceedings is appropriate on the grounds that the sole issue raised in the Applicants’ Amended Notice of Application is currently the subject of adjudication before a tribunal in the Lemire matter.

43 In WIC Premium Television Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp., [1999] F.C.J. No. 862 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), the Court addressed the factors to be considered in granting a stay when there are proceedings before another court or in another jurisdiction. These criteria include the risk of inconsistent findings, excessive costs and the capacity of the court to grant the complete or comprehensive remedy.

44 These factors are relevant in the present case. The tribunal hearing the Lemire matter is authorized to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of subsection 13(1) of the Act and that disposition, including any subsequent application for judicial review, will be available for the guidance of the Court when the current matter proceeds. […]

The motion is allowed. The within matter is stayed pending the disposition of Richard Warman v. Mark Lemire, Tribunal File No. T1073/5405 proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal. [emphasis added]

The evidentiary record of this hearing will be used, not only in any judicial review of the decision of this Tribunal, but also in other cases before the Federal Court.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that this case will be the defining decision with respect to section 13’s constitutionality for many years. The record of this proceeding will be the basis for those decisions.

The Tribunal has received recognition of this fact in the application of the Canadian Constitution Foundation for interested party status. This organization can make useful submissions on the constitutional issues and the respondent therefore submits the application should be granted. It should also be allowed time to review the record.

Given the importance to the most basic rights of the respondent, to other respondents and to the Canadian public’s interest in the Charter rights to freedom of expression and conscience, the respondent must be given the opportunity to obtain these documents in an unredacted form and to subsequently apply to enter many into evidence.

I enclose a listing of the documents which accompanied disclosure of the CD’s. The faxed disclosure were emails which are so blacked out it is difficult to know who they are to, but appear to come from the Winnipeg Police Service.

The respondent therefore requests:

1. An order that the Commission disclose the documents in their original form with no redactions or, in the alternative, claim a specified privilege;

2. An order that the written submissions and final arguments be rescheduled to a later date to allow the respondent to obtain disclosure of documents in their original form and to apply to file documents as exhibits in the case.

Yours truly,

Barbara Kulaszka

http://www.StopSection13.com

Groups, Writers and MPs that Support a Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html

Support Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge

Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law

and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

· Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Marc Lemire

152 Carlton Street

PO Box 92545

Toronto, Ontario

M5A 2K1

Canada

Dear Editor:

RE: The Drugging of Children by Schools & Medical System etc. for $$$

The callous disregard for children that are robbed of their souls and their lives by drugging them has to be stopped.

The reason it’s gone on for so long is because people have blind faith in thinking that “the system” has the children’s best interest at heart. Also so many naive people think “they wouldn’t do that” or if it’s not hurting them they don’t want to get involved.

I believe things would be a lot better if parents interacted socially more with each other, sharing what goes on with the children & sticking together.

I don’t believe “confidentiality meetings” & “confidential papers” are for the parents’ benefit. They are only for the schools’ & medical system’s benefit. When we get papers marked “confidential papers” we share them with most other people because the only people we wouldn’t want to see them probably do anyway.

When useless and dangerous drugs are pushed on children for profit for phony disorders & illnesses many souls are destroyed & lives are lost. And when I say a soul is destroyed I mean the value of their life! When all this happens it means the country is controlled by capitalist drug corporations etc. and the children are considered expendable.

Many children would do a whole lot better if they only ate whole wheat bread instead of that white crap. The same for pop adulterated with aspertime and white sugar and chemical dyes, etc.

Neurologists are just as bad when it comes to ignoring extreme chemicals including “mold sensitivity” which caused the loss of our daughter. It seems like all the neurologist “narcs” want to do is push useless & harmful drugs.

For further information on these issues please see http:www.ablechild.org & click on “Discussion Board”.

Also, another great site and article to check out is: http://www.NaturalNews.com/023121.html

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Jack Cutting,

Parksville, B.C.

jcutting@shaw.ca

From Mohawk Nation News

Please take time to read it. Then help us get a criminal

investigation going. Thank you. MNN

CANADIAN AUDIT OF KANEHSATAKE OPERATIONS

IN 2004 “WHITE WASHES” INDIAN AFFAIRS CORRUPTION

MNN. May 2, 2008. Ottawa has just issued a 108-page report on a forensic audit on the Kanehsatake policing incident that began with a vicious attack on the Mohawks on the morning of January 12, 2004. There was nothing impromptu about this event. Indian Affairs, Emergency Preparedness, the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister’s Office planned this set up that cost $34 million of Canadian taxpayer’s money. Kanehsatake’s membership is about 2,000 with only 1,300 living there. What was going on? They said there was “organized crime”, but they did not have enough evidence to lay any criminal charges. Even so, they sent 67 heavily armed mercenaries to invade this otherwise ordinary community.

Minister of Indian Affairs Chuck Strahl says he is mulling over whether further investigative steps should be taken. He says there is a “need for greater accountability, transparency and oversight for Aboriginal People and all Canadians”. You said it, buddy! But why do “Aboriginal” people need to be investigated? This was government corruption, plain and simple. With no justification at all, funds were diverted to conduct an armed attack on Mohawks with the help of the RCMP and the Quebec police! Don’t blame this gratuitous violence and graft on us! We’re the victims. We have nothing to account for. We had no control over any of the misplaced funds.

Read the rest of this entry »