Tories’ Bill C-51 Would Make Hyperlinks to “Hate” An Offence

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 16 May 2011 05:03

*Tories’ Bill C-51 Would Make Hyperlinks to “Hate” An Offence * A February 3, 2011 press release from the *Library of Parliament* went almost unnoticed before the election and shows the Tories' dislike of free speech as they cast their net ever wider for repressing dissent: "*Bill C-51 *: An Act to amend the *Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (short title: Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act*) was introduced in the *House of Commons* on 1 November 2010 by the *Minister of Justice, the Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson*, together with *Dave MacKenzie, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety* and* Daniel Petit, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. **2.1.1.1 Hate Propaganda (Clauses 4 and 5)* Hate propaganda offences must be committed against an “identifiable group.” Clause 4 of the bill adds “national origin” to the definition of “identifiable group.” Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed by *any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example*." Blogger *Terrence Watson* comments ( *The Volunteer*, May 5, 2011) : "*The point is that Bill C-51 would prohibit expression that is permissible under the status quo, contract the limits of protected speech, and give professional grievance-mongers a new weapon to use against basement Nazis and other ideological opponents*. And it is 100% a product of the *Conservative Party of Canada*. Why? Why did the Conservatives slip this into their crime bill? The legislative summary claims the purpose of the bill is to 'modernize certain offences.' And therein lies part of the explanation; just like *Bill C-36, C-51* expands state power in the guise of modernizing it. To cope with new challenges and new technology, the government needs new powers. Gaps in the law — like permitting someone to link to hateful material without actually reproducing the text — cannot be tolerated." *Mark Fournier* of *Freedomiinion.com* observes: "One of *Prime Minister Stephen Harper's* campaign promises was that he would pass the*Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act * within 100 days of his May 2, 2011 election. This bill contains some of the most dangerous and oppressive sections in Canadian law. One example of the dangers of this bill is Clause 5 of the bill which provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and includes making “hate” material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where “hate“ material is posted. Hyperlinks are at the very core of the *Internet*: they are what enable every *Interne*t user to view any available page on the *Internet* and direct others to view pages. This bill will put the control of all hyperlinks into the hands of government bureaucrats and put all Canadian *Internet* users in legal jeopardy. *This clause essentially makes any Canadian posting a link on the Internetlegally responsible for the content of any web page linked to even though the person posting the link has no control over the content of that page*. If the person who does control the page you've linked to changes the pages content, you are still legally responsible because you posted a link. This will make it unsafe for any Canadian to post a link to any page on the * Internet* that he does not control. This bill will also make it impossible for any Canadian to operate a forum or a blog that allows for public comments. Even if a blogger vets every posted link on his blog with a bevy of lawyers at his side he still will be held legally liable if the content of the outside web pages changes. The only way to safely operate a blog will be to disallow links to other sites and pages. Beyond the dangers of this bill as it is supposed to function lies the massive potential for abuse by government agents and private individuals. A person who dislikes you for political, competitive or personal reasons could easily set you up with legal problems. Using readily available proxy servers and disposable e-mails anyone could set up a simple webpage outside of Canada with a theme of “I hate [enter favoured group here] and then post a link to it on your forum or blog. A screen shot of both the created page and the hyperlink on your page is all the evidence needed to show the new law has been violated. The immediate and potential dangers of this law cannot be overstated. Beware of government censors posing as agents for law and order. ** *Free speech supporters must immediately write their MPs and demand that the Government not introduce this form of Internet censorship. You can reach your MP by mail, postage free, c/o House of Commons, Ottawa, ON., K1A 0A6*

 

Internet Censorship case finally gets Court Date

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 12 May 2011 19:59

*Internet Censorship case finally gets Court Date *Lemire case to be heard December 2011 http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/may2011_FC-sets-date-for-hearing.html December 13 and 14, 2011 Federal Court of Canada 180 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario After a year and a half, the Federal Court of Canada has finally set a date to hear the Canadian Human Rights Commission frantic appeal to save their censorship enforcer status via Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 is the notorious internet censorship provision, which allowed the state to issue a lifetime speech ban and heavy fines against writers, bloggers and commentators on the internet who express opinions which fanatics define as “hatred and/or contempt”. Back in September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) issued a landmark decision in the Lemire case that Section 13 censorship is an affront to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CHRT found that Section 13 was unconstitutional and refused to apply the provisions against freedom activist Marc Lemire. This sent the censors into frantic damage control mode. Because of all the negative publicity the CHRC was receiving, the CHRC hired spin doctor firm Hill and Knowlton to advise them [See Hill and Knowlton CHRC Docs]. The response was two fold, firstly the CHRC hired a hand-picked expert to look at Section 13 and draft a report. That was Dr. Richard Moon, who issued his report in Nov 2008 and called for the repeal of Section 13. That was totally unacceptable to the censorship enforcers, who promptly tossed his report out and proceeded to write their own. While that was going on, the Human Rights Tribunal also threw out Section 13 in the Lemire case. To save face and their censorship empire, the CHRC frantically appealed for judicial review in the Federal Court on the last possible day. [See CHRC appeal documents] Once the Lemire case reached the Federal Court of Canada, a series of parties intervened on both sides of the issue. To support Section 13 and its censorship powers were three self-appointed Jewish groups, including the Canadian Jewish Congress, the B’nai Brith, Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the “African-Canadian Legal Clinic” represented by the former head of the CJC. Supporting freedom of speech, four organizations were granted intervener status, including the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Free Speech League and the Canadian Association of Free Expression. The Lemire case is the definitive challenge to Section 13. Literally all other Section 13 cases in Canada have been stopped pending a final decision, this includes all current cases before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, cases recently decided by the Tribunal (orders deferred until Lemire decision) and other cases at the Federal Court of Canada. [Kulbashian v CHRC/AG - 2007 FC 354] WikiLeaks releases Diplomatic Cables on Section 13 ! This challenge of Internet censorship is making world-wide news. The website WikiLeaks recently released secret diplomatic cables sent from the Canadian Embassy in Ottawa to all Canadian Embassies and to the American Secretary of State. The cable was sent on October 13, 2009 is entitled “CANADA: FREE SPEECH V. HATE SPEECH HEADED TO FEDERAL COURTS” and is shocking at how biased and bad the research is. A majority of the information in the diplomatic cable is incorrect, misleading or outright false. A copy of the Wikileaks diplomatic cable can be seen at: http://www.wikileaks.fi/cable/2009/10/09OTTAWA789.html It is really shocking to see how bad the research in this diplomatic cable was. For instance in the first paragraph, the cable claims that “In 2003, Ontario attorney Richard Warman had filed separate human rights complaints against white supremacist Marc Lemire, journalist Mark Steyn, and Maclean,s magazine with CHRC…”. Of course the smear of “white supremacist” against Lemire is crazy, but the claim that Richard Warman filed a complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine is totally wrong. What idiots are doing research over at the Canadian Embassy? The diplomatic cable later claims that “There is little public debate over or political interest now in overhauling Canada's federal and provincial human rights legislation -- including Parliamentary abrogation of Section 13 language on penalties -- despite the earlier spike of interest in the Maclean's case.” Contrary to the absurd claims in the diplomatic cable, there is a TON of public debate and interest to overhaul Canada’s Kangaroo courts. Just a few days after this cable was sent, Parliaments Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights called a major review of Section 13, and hauled the CHRC’s Chief Commissioner to testify. Since this diplomatic cable was sent out … hundreds of articles have appeared in the mainstream media and blogs, denouncing the Canadian “human rights” commission and their censorship regime. ----------------------------------------- I need your help at the Federal Court Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. In particular, the Federal Court of Canada challenge to defeat Canada’s internet censorship legislation, has consumed an immense amount of time and resources. This has meant sacrificing a lot of cherished things in my life that I used to take for granted such as spending precious time with my wonderful children. It's also very costly and has incurred heavy debts given that I'm facing a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless budget. It has already spent millions and is prepared to spend a lot more of your tax dollars to keep their thought control machine running. My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and myself have demonstrated what two dedicated researchers can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's fanatics. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such a racket. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit if we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books. Every victory we've attained against the "Human Rights" juggernaut has come at great expense. Nothing has come easy. In fact, the “Human Rights” Commission has done everything in their power to stop exposure of their twisted censorship agenda. I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. I wish to thank all those that have donated to this worthy cause. Please donate directly to us so that I can send out a personal thank you. If you have donated to another organization or individual please contact me so I can thank you directly and send you a copy of our special booklet that is for our supporters only. How you can help: DONATE NOW to Marc Lemire’s Challenge: Via PayPal *Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge Be part of the Freedom 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 It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission! Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act *http://www.StopSection13.com <http://www.stopsection13.com/> http://www.freedomsite.org http://blog.freedomsite.org http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

 

Hudak Wimps Out on Promise to Scrap Ontario Human Rights Tribunal

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 10 May 2011 17:15

*Hudak Wimps Out on Promise to Scrap Ontario Human Rights Tribunal* Ontarians head to the polls on October 6. The going wisdom is that people are tired of the even more tired Dalton McGuinty Liberals, his high spending and broken promises, and are likely to elect Tim Hudak's Progressive Conservatives. We were heartened in June, 2009, when Hudak won the Tory leadership with a strong commitment to abolish Ontario's Stalinist and interventionist Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, chaired by the appalling Barbara Hall. In the case of a radical Moslem complaint against *Maclean's Magazine* for publishing an excerpt of Mark Steyn's book about the Islamicization of Europe, Hall scolded *Maclean's* for its discriminatory attitude and bemoaned the fact that written word did not fall within her purview. Thus, she deliverered a condemnation without even giving the defence a hearing. Typical Torquemada thought contro stuff. Yes, his band of censors and meddlers should be abolished. Tim Hudak promised. The election campaign hasn't even started and Hudak has reneged on his promise and jettisoned his liberty-minded supporters." Two years ago, Tim Hudak locked up the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario by promising to do away with the province’s human-rights tribunal. But Mr. Hudak now has his eye on a bigger prize that will require broader support. So last week, while most everyone was distracted by the final days of the federal election campaign, he risked creating a rift within his own party by making his biggest backtrack since becoming leader. Mr. Hudak’s address to the Nepean Chamber of Commerce passed completely under the radar. But in the midst of an otherwise unremarkable stump speech, he jettisoned his past pledge to rely only on the courts system to enforce the province’s human-rights code. In place of that promise, Mr. Hudak offered to 'fix' the quasi-judicial system currently in place. By empowering the tribunal to weed out 'frivolous' complaints and end the backlog of cases, he said, his party would give Ontario 'a fair and balanced system.' In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Hudak did not offer much by way of explanation for his about-face. He’s 'had the chance to travel across the province and speak to various groups, small businesses and individuals about the system,' he said, and decided that making the tribunal more like the courts – including adopting 'more clear rules of evidence' – would restore faith in it. (*Globe and Mail*, May 5, 2011) Reform the human rights tribunal? The whole vile process is an affront to liberty! Abolish it. Just to be complainerd against is punishment and COST enough, even if you win. There is no financial compensaqtion for those who win and no cost for someone to make a complaint. You can put rouge and lipstick on a rotten cadaver. It's still a corpse. Perhaps, it's to the good that Mr. Hudak has shown his regard for his promises and for liberty early. We don't have to wait until the election is over to be betrayed. It gives us time to consider other smaller parties. Freedom minded people now feel a bit like the woman who asks the lounge lizard," Will you still respect me in the morning?" "Yeh, baby, I don't even respect you now," he answers in a burst of honesty. Thanks, Tim, we get it. *Paul Fromm* *Director* *CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION* Hudak Wimps Out on Promise to Scrap Ontario Human Rights TribunalS[image: Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak attends a media briefing in front of a power station on Kennedy Rd., Scarborough where he called for a forensic audit to explain why Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty plans to charge Scarborough families $1 billion a year for six years as part of the Debt Retirement Charge, a debt stretching back to the Peterson era that was scheduled to be paid off by 2012. - Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak attends a media briefing in front of a power station on Kennedy Rd., Scarborough where he called for a forensic audit to explain why Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty plans to charge Scarborough families $1 billion a year for six years as part of the Debt Retirement Charge, a debt stretching back to the Peterson era that was scheduled to be paid off by 2012. | Fernando Morales/The Globe and Mail] Hudak backtracks on pledge to axe human-rights tribunal ADAM RADWANSKI<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/> | Columnist profile<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/> | E-mail <[email protected]> From Friday's Globe and Mail Published Thursday, May. 05, 2011 8:46PM EDT Last updated Friday, May. 06, 2011 10:09AM EDT 67 comments<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/hudak-backtracks-on-pledge-to-axe-human-rights-tribunal/article2012065/comments/> - Email<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/hudak-backtracks-on-pledge-to-axe-human-rights-tribunal/article2012065/email/> - - - Print<http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.8425?icx_id=%2ficopyright%2f%3fartid%3d2012065> /License<http://license.icopyright.net/3.8425?icx_id=%2ficopyright%2f%3fartid%3d2012065> - Decrease text size<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/hudak-backtracks-on-pledge-to-axe-human-rights-tribunal/article2012065/#> Increase text size<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/hudak-backtracks-on-pledge-to-axe-human-rights-tribunal/article2012065/#> Two years ago, Tim Hudak locked up the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario by promising to do away with the province’s human-rights tribunal. But Mr. Hudak now has his eye on a bigger prize that will require broader support. So last week, while most everyone was distracted by the final days of the federal election campaign, he risked creating a rift within his own party by making his biggest backtrack since becoming leader. Mr. Hudak’s address to the Nepean Chamber of Commerce passed completely under the radar. But in the midst of an otherwise unremarkable stump speech, he jettisoned his past pledge to rely only on the courts system to enforce the province’s human-rights code. In place of that promise, Mr. Hudak offered to “fix” the quasi-judicial system currently in place. By empowering the tribunal to weed out “frivolous” complaints and end the backlog of cases, he said, his party would give Ontario “a fair and balanced system.” In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Hudak did not offer much by way of explanation for his about-face. He’s “had the chance to travel across the province and speak to various groups, small businesses and individuals about the system,” he said, and decided that making the tribunal more like the courts – including adopting “more clear rules of evidence” – would restore faith in it. There is no great mystery, however, as to why the Conservatives’ position has softened. Having watched their previous campaign go off the rails because of former leader John Tory’s pledge to expand funding for religious schools, they’re loath to embrace another hot-button social issue that could blow up on them before the Oct. 6 election – particularly when they are riding high in the polls and eager to turn the vote into a referendum on Dalton McGuinty. And the religious schools comparison has already been made by MPPs Christine Elliott and Frank Klees when they ran against Mr. Hudak for the leadership. The danger, for Mr. Hudak, is that he will alienate the growing libertarian wing of his party, with whom he has formed an uneasy alliance. It was to secure the support of the fourth leadership candidate, Eastern Ontario MPP Randy Hillier, that Mr. Hudak promised to scrap the tribunal in the first place. And keeping the outspoken former head of the Ontario Landowners Association happy is important to the Tories’ future prospects. The Landowners, who have strong pockets of support in rural Ontario, have played an increasingly strong role within Mr. Hudak’s party. That recently included knocking off veteran MPP Norm Sterling for the PC nomination in another Eastern Ontario riding, which upset some long-time Tories. But the alternative would be breaking off and forming their own party, which would create major vote-splitting headaches. Since Mr. Hudak has worked hard to create a big tent, the reversal on the tribunal is unlikely to cause an immediate and obvious divide. While Mr. Hillier could not be reached for comment on Thursday, he communicated through his office that he “fully supports Tim’s plan.” But the changing human-rights position, which is likely to upset not just the Landowners but also other members of the Conservative base, speaks to Mr. Hudak’s challenges in building the sort of broad coalition that helped Prime Minister Stephen Harper capture the majority of Ontario’s seats in the federal election. The Tories need to keep motivating their base, which includes not just the Landowners but also other grassroots members who believe human-rights commissions are out of control. But doing that can make their priorities appear skewed to swing voters, including the recent immigrants they need to woo in suburban ridings. In this instance, at least, Mr. Hudak has opted to worry more about the latter. The human-rights tribunal was a good leadership issue. But he’s hoping everyone will have forgotten about it by the time the fall campaign rolls around.