WRITE TO ROB NICHOLSON - DON'T RESURRECT SECTION 13!
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:35
*Write to Rob Nicholson - Don't resurrect Section 13!
*http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1405607



*Marc Lemire and Barbara Kulaszka have done their part and Section 13 has
been declared unconstitutional. Unless the ruling is appealed, Section 13 is
now effectively dead and it will not be enforced by the CHRT. *

*Now it is OUR TURN! *

*Rob Nicholson voted with the rest of the delegates at the last Conservative
Convention in support of a policy amendment to delete Section 13.1 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act. *

*It is time to remind him of his vote and to tell him that we expect him to
NOT appeal the Hadjis ruling in an effort to resurrect this oppressive
legislation. *

*It would be best to send a snail mail letter to this address: *

*The Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0H8 *

*However, if you are pressed for time, please, at least take the time to
send an email: **[email protected].gc.ca* <[email protected]>* *

*Or phone his office: (613) 995-1547 *

*His Constituency Office contact information is as follows: *

*2895 St. Paul Avenue, Unit 11 (Main Office)
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2J 2L3 *

*Telephone: (905) 353-9590
Fax: (905) 353-9588 *


*200 Garrison Road Unit 13
Fort Erie, Ontario
L2A 5F6 *

*Telephone: (905) 871-9991
Fax: (905) 871-5046 *

*If you don't do anything else to help in this battle, PLEASE take the time
to do this!!
*
 
OPEN LETTER TO THE HONOURABLE ROBERT NICHOLSON, MINISTER OF JUSTICE BY FR. ALPHONSE
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:35
*From CatholicInsight.com
Editorials*


*Open letter to the Honourable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice
By Fr. Alphonse de Valk *

**

*September 09, 2009

The Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0H8


Dear Mr. Nicholson,

We believe that you and the staff at the Department of Justice
are now well acquainted with the Wednesday, September 2, 2009 ruling of Mr.
Athanasios Hadjis of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that:

“I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(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.”

The same section of the code has also been used to penalize the expression
of viewpoints based on religious beliefs, including the case against
Catholic Insight Magazine
**http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=4987*<http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=4987>
*.

It is welcome news that an adjudicator of the tribunal has found Section 13
inconsistent with the freedom of speech guarantee in the Charter, but we are
looking forward to action by Parliament to strike down the provision.

Critics of Section 13(1), including many newspapers, regard it “as an
unwarranted chill on our Charter right to freedom of thought, belief,
opinion and expression that imperils spirited public discourse.” (Toronto
Star, Sept. 4)

This ruling strengthens the case for Parliament to get the CHRC out of the
business of policing hate speech to the criminal courts.

As a letter to the editor put it: “In our zeal to become the most virtuous
nation on the planet, we have enshrined a ‘justice system that is anything
but just; that shuns many of the values we hold so dear—truth as a defence,
due process, the presumption of innocence, etc” (National Post, Sept. 4).

The time has come for action. With the rest of the delegates at the last
Conservative Convention you voted in support of a policy amendment to delete
Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, first we expect
you not to appeal the Hadjis ruling in an effort to resurrect this
oppressive legislation. Second, we look forward to new legislation that will
a) define hate literature much more restrictively and b) leave it to federal
Courts to interpret that legislation.

As we pointed out in an earlier letter, in view of its horrendous
anti-Christian bias—self-admitted in its own history published in January
2009—the CHRC and the CHRT should be abolished.


Sincerely,
Rev. Alphonse de Valk,
Editor
*
 
FROMM DEMANDS THAT HADJIS REVERSE THE PENALTIES IMPOSED ON JESSICA BEAUMONT
Written by Paul Fromm
Sunday, 06 September 2009 08:39
FROMM DEMANDS THAT HADJIS REVERSE THE PENALTIES IMPOSED ON JESSICA BEAUMONT

Canadian Association for Free Expression
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3
PH: 905-274-3868; FAX 905-278-2413
September 4, 2009


Mr. Athanasios D. Hadjis, Vice-Chairman.
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4

Dear Mr. Hadjis:



*Re: Richard Warman v. Jessica Beaumont*

Dear Mr. Hadjis:

You were the Member seized of this complaint; that is, *Richard Warman v.
Jessica Beaumont*. Hearings were held in Vancouver in December of 2006. I
was Miss Beaumont's agent throughout these proceedings.

You found her guilty of a discriminatory practice, contrary to the
controversial Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and, in your
decision, delivered October 26, 2007, assessed certain penalties:

[94] In assessing the appropriateness of such an order, the only messages in
issue are those that reference Mr. Warman, and not the entirety of the
material that has been found to be in breach of s. 13. Ms. Beaumont knew or
should have known that the language she was using to attack and ridicule Mr.
Warman was likely to expose him to hatred and contempt in conjunction with
his identification as a Jew. The reference to "Dead Warman Society"
accompanied by images of swastikas is particularly troubling. Words
suggesting that harm should come to another cannot be taken lightly, even if
they were made in jest. Others viewing this material on the Internet may not
see it as such and take the message more seriously. Mr. Warman also points
out that Message 30, for instance, was posted after Ms. Beaumont was served
with the human rights complaint. Thus, rather than halting the hate
messages, she continued them and began to include references to Mr. Warman
by name.
[95] In the circumstances, *I therefore order Ms. Beaumont to pay the sum of
$3,000 in special compensation, pursuant to s. 54(1)(b) of the Act*.
104] *Taking all of these factors into account, I order Ms. Beaumont to pay
a penalty of $1,500*. Payment of the penalty shall be made by certified
cheque or money order payable to the "Receiver General for Canada", and must
be received by the Tribunal within 120 days of the date on which this
decision is served on Ms. Beaumont.

[80] I therefore see no reason to deny the order. *Ms. Beaumont is ordered
to cease and desist from communicating or causing to be communicated, by the
means described in s. 13 of the Act, and particularly the Internet, any
matter of the type contained in the messages at issue in this case that is
likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the
fact that the person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a
prohibited ground of discrimination*.
On September 2, you rendered your decision in *Richard Warman v. Marc Lemire
* and declared Sec. 13 to be unconstitutional:

*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*.

Miss Beaumont complied with your orders and paid her fine in full and the
$3,000 awarded to Richard Warman. Ironically, Mr. Warman obtained a court
order and a further $3,000 was removed from Miss Beaumont's account
*after*she had purchased a draft to pay him. It was some weeks before
this money
was returned to her.

In light of your decision in *Warman v. Lemire*, I seek:

1. *that you rescind the "cease and desist" order*. This is especially
vital, as it is a legal burden hanging over Miss Beaumont for life, an
obligation to silence under a law you hold is a violation of the Charter!
Your "cease and desist" order is doubly onerous, as Miss Beaumont, who is
not a lawyer, is enjoined not to communicate messages of* *|"the type
contained in the messages at issue in this case." Yet, in your ruling, you
found that "many," but not all, the impugned messages in the
complaint violated Sec. 13.

[74] *In sum, I find that in most of the impugned messages*, Ms. Beaumont
engaged in the communication of matter that was likely to expose persons
identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination (namely
race, religion, national or ethnic origin, and sexual orientation), to
hatred or contempt.

Thus, Miss Beaumont has no guidance as to which messages were deemed
acceptable.

2. *that you cancel the $3,000 award to Mr. Warman and order that he return
these monies, plus interest back to the date of the decision, to Miss
Beaumont*.

3. *that you cancel the $1,500 fine imposed on Miss Beaumont and order that
these monies, plus interest back to the date of the decision, be returned to
Miss Beaumont*.


Sincerely yours,


Paul Fromm
Director
 
Page 437 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog