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]* <[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