CAFE Calls on ALL MPs to Support Bill C-304 -- Bill to Repeal Sec. 12 of Canadian Hum

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 28 November 2011 04:52

* CAFE Calls on ALL MPs to Support Bill C-304 -- Bill to Repeal Sec. 12 of Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet Censorship) * * Canadian Association for Free Expression* *Box 332,* *Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3* *Ph: 905-274-3868; FAX: 905-278-2413* * * November 26, 2011 I am writing to urge you to support a Private Member’s Bill – Bill C-304 – introduced by Brian Storseth. This bill would repeal Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This involves censorship of the Internet by government bureaucrats. Over the past 14 years, CAFÉ has been actively involved in fighting the totalitarian features of this ill-conceived piece of legislation. We’ve had intervener status at three tribunals and several offshoot “judicial reviews” before the courts. I have also acted as a “representative” for nine people or organizations charged under Sec. 13. It was sad to see well-meaning, opinionated Canadians, most of them ordinary people with modest or no means, dragged through an abuse-by-process, where truth was no defence, intent was no defence, and where, until the *Lemire*decision in 2009, no victim/defendant had ever been found not guilty. That’s the sort of legal record normally found only in tyrannies like North Korea. Perhaps, it’s the fact that truth is no defence that makes this legislation most offensive. The threshold to offend is laughably low: communication over the Internet “likely to expose” certain groups “to hatred or contempt.” The Commission doesn’t have to prove anyone was ever moved or influenced by what was posted. Hatred is hard enough to define, but “contempt” would be any negative feeling that might be created against a privileged group. Thus, certain groups become almost immune to criticism. This is not healthy in a democracy. The unhealthy and repressive mindset of the Canadian Human Rights Commission became shockingly clear in 2007, when a senior “hate case” investigator testified, when asked what weight he gave to free speech when investigating Internet postings: *“None. Free speech is an American concept.”* I know you and I beg to differ with Dean Steacy. *Free speech is very much a Canadian concept and precious value*. It’s time for Sec. 13 to be repealed and for expression on the Internet in Canada to be a bit safer from would be censors with a politically correct agenda they’d like to impose. During evidence presented during the Marc Lemire case, we learned that the “scientific” justification for repressing free speech is junk science. It all goes back to a paper prepared by an obscure University of Toronto professor of psychology Frederick Kaufman. He argued that “hate propaganda” had a deleterious effect on minorities. It scared them, made them feel afraid, made them not want to be themselves, and led them to withdraw from society and, at the extreme, hit the booze or the pills. You, as a politician, may have problems with this scenario as did I for years. How do you react to hateful comments made about you in the heat of a campaign? Likely, in one of two ways: you dismiss them as crazy or laughable; or, you react and fight back with the truth. I doubt you start to doubt yourself (and go over to the opposition), feel fearful and withdraw from public life and, then, hit the booze and the pills. Sadly, the Kaufman account is very serious as it has been used to justify both Sec. 13 and Canada’s so-called “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code). If your common sense tells you Kaufman’s account is flawed, that’s exactly what modern science has found. In *Warman v Lemire*, Marc Lemire led as expert evidence a report by Dr. Michael Persinger, a professor of neuropsychology at Laurentian University. Dr. Persinger termed the Kaufman report as “highly theoretical” even for its time; in other words, it was not backed by empirical evidence. With the capability of modern science of neuropsychology, he testified, we now know that’s not the way the human mind responds to “aversive language” – language in opposition or hostile to one’s group. As in the political scenario I’ve outlined to you, the normal reaction to “aversive language” (“hate speech”) is either to dismiss it as crazy or laughable or to be spurred to get into the debate and provide a rebuttal. So, the “science” that once offered an excuse for censorship, lies discredited. The time has come to wipe Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code off the books. Internet censorship is unworthy of Canada – the sort of sorry practice we abhor in Communist China or Egypt in the dying days of the Mubarak regime. Support for freedom of speech is a non-partisan matter. In the last Parliament, then MP Dr. Keith Martin introduced a private member's bill to repeal Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I urge you to stand up for freedom and support Bill C-304. I look forward to your response. Sincerely yours, Paul Fromm Director

 

Paul Fromm’s decades of fighting Section 13 ignored -- Jeff Goodall

Written by Paul Fromm

Sunday, 27 November 2011 05:29

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp241.net/zGpHgF -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL FROMM’S DECADES OF FIGHTING SECTION 13 IGNORED -- JEFF GOODALL As I see it, there are two problems in the otherwise excellent article below by Peter Worthington about the hopefully-impending demise of Canada’s notorious “Section 13″ censorship law. Firstly, I quote: “Initially it was Jewish groups that supported Section 13, probably because they felt they were the favoured targets of hate. What wasn’t anticipated was that the legislation would be used to limit free speech– and in a draconian way that can’t be justified in a court of law.” Jewish people and their organisations are anything but stupid, and I don’t believe for one second that they were unaware of the potential abuses to which this Orwellian piece of legislation could be put. And in any event, as it became clear that Section 13 was being used as a ‘no-defence-allowed’ expedient to close down ‘politically incorrect’ free speech, and long before Section 13′s serial plaintiff Richard Warman received the Saul Hayes Human Rights Award from the Canadian Jewish Congress in June 2007 for “distinguished service to the cause of human rights”, one would think that horrified Jewish organisations would have acknowledged their mistake and petitioned the government to change or eliminate this travesty of justice. But they did not do that. There is no doubt in my mind that Jewish organisations fought for the passing and retention of Section 13 as a foolproof method of silencing those who would in any way criticize Jewish interests, specifically including the ‘Jewish State’ of Israel and its brutal military occupation of Palestine. Equally annoying is Peter Worthington’s praise of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn: “By fighting back, both these guys gutted the Human Rights zealots.” Section 13 has been opposed for decades by Paul Fromm, who together with lawyer Doug Christie, fought on behalf of a variety of individuals who found themselves caught up in the Section 13 snare, often at the instigation of the afore-mentioned Richard Warman. And, the hopefully-fatal blow to Section 13 was delivered in 2009 by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member Athenasios Hadjis, who found Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act to be unconstitutional in the case of Warman v. Lemire. Lemire was being assisted by both Paul Fromm and Doug Christie in this landmark case. And while Athanasios Hadjis’ decision is not binding, the Tribunal has largely suspended its actions in prosecuting those charged under Section 13 ever since. The difference between Paul Fromm and Doug Christie on the one hand, and Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn on the other, is that the latter are both ‘mainstream’ and Jewish. Thus they get the praise, and Paul Fromm’s decades of service to fighting the fundamental injustice of Section 13 and the ‘human rights’ tribunals that enforce it, are not considered worthy of mention. I used to know Paul Fromm when we were both prominent in Toronto’s anti-Communist, street-fighting Edmund Burke Society, and he was still a student at the University of Toronto. Since those days, some forty-odd years ago, we have drifted apart, and we each have our own separate viewpoints and our own ways of doing things. On occasion, I have literally cringed at the language and demeanour of many of the people he has represented, but he never allowed such things to interfere with his pursuit of justice and the preservation of free speech. And while I acknowledge the personal sacrifices, stress, and substantial expense that Levant and Steyn have been put through, I think it is disgraceful that Fromm’s decades of dedicated effort have been completely ignored in favour of the mainstream’s Johnny-come-lately human rights ‘heroes’. For shame. Jeff Goodall. [This unsolicited blog from my old friend and ally Jeff Goodall is too flattering by half. Yes, the Canadian Association for Free Expression and I have been battling Sec. 13 for over 20 years, back to the days when it covered only telephone answering machine messages. (Yes, with the revolution in Internet technology, it all seems to quaint. However, the Cotton Mathers of censorship only got more ambitious with the Internet.) In 1996, the ambitious censors at the CHRC investigated a complaint against the Zundelsite. They were now trying to stretch "telephonic" to apply to the Internet. We fought this for four years as an active intervener. I agree that Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are Johnnies-come-lately. Ezra has always been a supporter of free speech, back to his college days. However, Richard Warman's victimization of dissent on the Internet didn't catch his attention, until he, himself, became a victim of the Alberta Human Rights censors. Since then, he has been a fearless fighter and has hammered Richard Warman. He, too, like many of us who have criticized Warman, has paid the price and has been sued for libel. Much of his material has come from Marc Lemire. It would be honourable if he freely acknowledged Marc's tremendous research and stamina. A long list of young, virtually penniless people (and a few older ones) who refused to plead guilty but who fought the tyrannical CHRT kangaroo courts -- no legal aid, truth is no defence -- deserve a lot of credit in bringing down Sec. 13. Yes, they were convicted and had their lives blighted and their reputations sullied by a lazy press who did not probe into the working of the commission or tribunal. I was honoured to help a number of these people in their battles. Doug Christie, in 1990, was the first to challenge Sec. 13 when he appealed John Ross Taylor's conviction under the old Sec. 13 (telephone answering machines) to the Supreme Court and came within one vote of getting this disgraceful law declared unconstitutional. Also, deserving huge credit are Marc Lemire and his stalwart lawyer Barbara Kulazska. Marc's courage and tireless research allowed him to fight an amazing case at the Tribunal. He exposed outrageous CHRC dirty tricks. He got the CHRC's chief "hate" investigator to blurt out that in investigating postings, he gives no weight to freedom of expression: "Freedom of speech is an American concept." Well, it would certainly not be a Canadian concept if the forces of censorship continue to have their way. The public revulsion over this censorship mentality did much to mobilize press and public opinion against Sec. 13. Like Jeff Goodall, I too am disappointed by Peter Worthington's distortion of history. He knows better or out to know better. He knows me. He did several book talks for our Alternative Forum in the 1980s in Toronto and was on the mailing list for our newsletters for years. The press, too, are latecomers to the fight against Sec. 13, with the occasional exception of the Globe and Mail. As long as the victims were obscure youth, like a Jessica Beaumont, or cranky de-taxers like Eldon Warman, the press didn't care, that these people were saddled with lifetime gag orders and fined. So, much for "principle." One of the witnesses CAFE paid for and led during the Zundelsite hearing was journalist Kevin Michael Grace. He testified that, as most publications were then (2000) also on the Internet, they could be prosecuted. What would be legal in print, could be illegal on the Internet, as truth and intent were no defences. The threshold -- material "likely to expose" privileged minorities to "contempt" -- was so low that criticizing any privileged group could be problematic. That "aahhh" sound was the collective yawn of the smug media, even though detailed reports of Mr. Grace's testimony were sent to over 1,000 journalists in Canada. It was only when the censors came after them -- journalists like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant -- that they paid attention and became instant converts to a principle they should have jealously fought for -- freedom of speech. There was a feeling of "how dare they?" For the past few years, almost every newspaper and journalist in the country who has offered an opinion, has hammered the CHRC and called for the demise of Sec. 13. Shame on them that their conversion occurred only when they saw themselves on the firing line. I suspect the editorial board of Maclean's must have been near apoplectic when their lawyers told them that there was virtually no defence to a Sec. 13 charge. Indeed, no victim, un til Marc Lemire some months had ever won, in this fine piece of North Korea-type tyranny. The Moslem complainers need only prove that a privileged group -- in this case Moslems -- had been criticized and, therefore, likely exposed to "contempt" for them to be found guilty. In the end, likely because of political pressure, the CHRC chose not to proceed, but Maclean's had gotten a taste of the Stalinist world of "human" rights commissions. Just beginning a legal defence had already cost them tens of thousands of dollars. Similarly, under the abuse-BY-process of Sec. 13, Catholic Insight Magazine which had the temerity to print an editorial outlining the Catholic Church's stand on homosexuality, spent over $20,000 in legal fees preparing to face a complaint. In the end, the CHRC perhaps under some political pressure, did not send the complaint to a tribunal. CAFE has been proud to raise money to help Marc and to actively intervene to support him in his fight which heads to the Federal Court, Dec. 13-14. This intervention is extremely costly. We head to Federal Court, December 13-14, and we still have substantial legal bills to pay. Can you help us? Yes, I want to help CAFE put the legal nail in the monster of Internet censorship, Sec. 13. Here is my donation of $_______ by cheque or VISA #___________________________________________, Expiry date: _______ NAME: ____________________________________________________________________________________ ADDRESS: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ e-mail: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Paul Fromm The right to be obnoxious National Post Peter Worthington: Nov. 23rd, 2011 A virtue of minority governments is that the ruling party has got to pay attention to its Parliamentary opposition, and must negotiate compromises. A negative is that legislation can get mired in debate and nothing happens. A virtue of majority governments is that worthwhile legislation that couldn’t be passed in minority days, can get whistled through with neither fuss not fanfare. A case in appoint is the ending of long gun registration (rifles and shotguns) which has been a costly boondoggle with few positive effects, but which got tangled in politics during minority days, and made criminals out off farmers who ignored it. More significant, is the present government’s apparent determination to scrap or revise Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which was intended to punish manifestations of “hate” in Canada, but has been misused to effectively curb free speech. Alberta MP Brian Storseth has a private member’s bill to scrap Section 13 and leave the Criminal Code as the means to counter hate propaganda. Enacted in 1977 (by the Trudeau government, of course), the guts of Section 13 says: “It is a discriminatory practice (by an individual or a group) … to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable…” At the time, Justice Minister Ron Basford said Section 13 applied mostly to Toronto where extreme groups used recorded telephone messages to attack others. Basford said the key was that the same messages were used repeatedly: “I underline the word ‘repeatedly’ that it has to be part of a pattern … (which) serve no social purpose.” Hate propaganda is one thing, crushing free speech is another. Initially it was Jewish groups that supported Section 13, probably because they felt they were the favoured targets of hate. What wasn’t anticipated was that the legislation would be used to limit free speech– and in a draconian way that can’t be justified in a court of law. If (when) Section 13 is put to rest, much credit must go to Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, who stood tall and fought back when Human Rights Commissars went after them. When Levant ran the magazine Western Standard (now deceased) he published the Danish cartoons that were a spoof on political aspects of Mohammed, but which every publication in North America shied from, for fear of Islamic violence that left people dead in other areas of the world. By no stretch of any imagination was Levant indulging in “hate.” It was news and comment which other publications avoided by pretending their cowardice was acting on “principle.” Steyn wrote a book that basically said their high birthrate indicated that Muslims would eventually be majorities in European countries. He thinks multiculturalism is a fraud – combining then worst of Muslim culture with the worst of Western culture. By fighting back, both these guys gutted the Human Rights zealots. The Criminal Code is quite adequate to deal with “hate,” and extends beyond free speech– our most precious democratic “right.” Free speech is the right to be obnoxious; on occasion to be offensive; often to be wrong and to say rude or unkind things, but not necessarily untruthful things. Unlike Human Rights tribunals, those who go to court must prove they’ve been damaged by free speech. Peter Worthington is the founding editor of the Toronto Sun and a regular contributor to FrumForum.com ( http://www.frumforum.com/ ), where this originally appeared. _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp241.net/u.php?id=gmjhqsqgsgbbqguby Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

Paul Fromm’s decades of fighting Section 13 ignored -- Jeff Goodall

Written by Paul Fromm

Sunday, 27 November 2011 05:06

Paul Fromm’s decades of fighting Section 13 ignored -- Jeff Goodall As I see it, there are two problems in the otherwise excellent article below by Peter Worthington about the hopefully-impending demise of Canada’s notorious “Section 13″ censorship law. Firstly, I quote: “Initially it was Jewish groups that supported Section 13, probably because they felt they were the favoured targets of hate. What wasn’t anticipated was that the legislation would be used to limit free speech– and in a draconian way that can’t be justified in a court of law.” Jewish people and their organisations are anything but stupid, and I don’t believe for one second that they were unaware of the potential abuses to which this Orwellian piece of legislation could be put. And in any event, as it became clear that Section 13 was being used as a ‘no-defence-allowed’ expedient to close down ‘politically incorrect’ free speech, and long before Section 13′s serial plaintiff Richard Warman received the Saul Hayes Human Rights Award from the Canadian Jewish Congress in June 2007 for “distinguished service to the cause of human rights”, one would think that horrified Jewish organisations would have acknowledged their mistake and petitioned the government to change or eliminate this travesty of justice. But they did not do that. There is no doubt in my mind that Jewish organisations fought for the passing and retention of Section 13 as a foolproof method of silencing those who would in any way criticize Jewish interests, specifically including the ‘Jewish State’ of Israel and its brutal military occupation of Palestine. Equally annoying is Peter Worthington’s praise of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn: “By fighting back, both these guys gutted the Human Rights zealots.” Section 13 has been opposed for decades by Paul Fromm, who together with lawyer Doug Christie, fought on behalf of a variety of individuals who found themselves caught up in the Section 13 snare, often at the instigation of the afore-mentioned Richard Warman. And, the hopefully-fatal blow to Section 13 was delivered in 2009 by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member Athenasios Hadjis, who found Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act to be unconstitutional in the case of *Warman v. Lemire*. Lemire was being assisted by both Paul Fromm and Doug Christie in this landmark case. And while Athanasios Hadjis’ decision is not binding, the Tribunal has largely suspended its actions in prosecuting those charged under Section 13 ever since. The difference between Paul Fromm and Doug Christie on the one hand, and Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn on the other, is that the latter are both ‘mainstream’ and Jewish. Thus they get the praise, and Paul Fromm’s decades of service to fighting the fundamental injustice of Section 13 and the ‘human rights’ tribunals that enforce it, are not considered worthy of mention. I used to know Paul Fromm when we were both prominent in Toronto’s anti-Communist, street-fighting Edmund Burk Society, and he was still a student at the University of Toronto. Since those days, some forty-odd years ago, we have drifted apart, and we each have our own separate viewpoints and our own ways of doing things. On occasion, I have literally cringed at the language and demeanour of many of the people he has represented, but he never allowed such things to interfere with his pursuit of justice and the preservation of free speech. And while I acknowledge the personal sacrifices, stress, and substantial expense that Levant and Steyn have been put through, I think it is disgraceful that Fromm’s decades of dedicated effort have been completely ignored in favour of the mainstream’s Johnny-come-lately human rights ‘heroes’. For shame. *Jeff Goodall.* ** [This unsolicited blog from my old friend and ally Jeff Goodall is too flattering by half. Yes, the Canadian Association for Free Expression and I have been battling Sec. 13 for over 20 years, back to the days when it covered only telephone answering machine messages. (Yes, with the revolution in Internet technology, it all seems to quaint. However, the Cotton Mathers of censorship only got more ambitious with the Internet.) In 1996, the ambitious censors at the CHRC investigated a complaint against the Zundelsite. They were now trying to stretch "telephonic" to apply to the Internet. We fought this for four years as an active intervener. I agree that Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are Johnnies-come-lately. Ezra has always been a supporter of free speech, back to his college days. However, Richard Warman's victimization of dissent on the Internet didn't catch his attention, until he, himself, became a victim of the Alberta Human Rights censors. Since then, he has been a fearless fighter and has hammered Richard Warman. He, too, like many of us who have criticized Warman, has paid the price and has been sued for libel. Much of his material has come from Marc Lemire. It would be honourable if he freely acknowledged Marc's tremendous research and stamina. A long list of young, virtually penniless people (and a few older ones) who refused to plead guilty but who fought the tyrannical CHRT kangaroo courts -- no legal aid, truth is no defence -- deserve a lot of credit in bringing down Sec. 13. Yes, they were convicted and had their lives blighted and their reputations sullied by a lazy press who did not probe into the working of the commission or tribunal. I was honoured to help a number of these people in their battles. Doug Christie, in 1990, was the first to challenge Sec. 13 when he appealed John Ross Taylor's conviction under the old Sec. 13 (telephone answering machines) to the Supreme Court and came within one vote of getting this disgraceful law declared unconstitutional. Also, deserving huge credit are Marc Lemire and his stalwart lawyer Barbara Kulazska. Marc's courage and tireless research allowed him to fight an amazing case at the Tribunal. He exposed outrageous CHRC dirty tricks. He got the CHRC's chief "hate" investigator to blurt out that in investigating postings, he gives no weight to freedom of expression: "Freedom of speech is an American concept." Well, it would certainly not be a Canadian concept if the forces of censorship continue to have their way. The public revulsion over this censorship mentality did much to mobilize press and public opinion against Sec. 13. Like Jeff Goodall, I too am disappointed by Peter Worthington's distortion of history. He knows better or out to know better. He knows me. He did several book talks for our Alternative Forum in the 1980s in Toronto and was on the mailing list for our newsletters for years. The press, too, are latecomers to the fight against Sec. 13, with the occasional exception of the *Globe and Mail*. As long as the victims were obscure youth, like a Jessica Beaumont, or cranky de-taxers like Eldon Warman, the press didn't care, that these people were saddled with lifetime gag orders and fined. So, much for "principle." One of the witnesses CAFE paid for and led during the Zundelsite hearing was journalist Kevin Michael Grace. He testified that, as most publications were then (2000) also on the Internet, they could be prosecuted. What would be legal in print, could be illegal on the Internet, as truth and intent were no defences. The threshold -- material "likely to expose" privileged minorities to "contempt" -- was so low that criticizing any privileged group could be problematic. That "aahhh" sound was the collective yawn of the smug media, even though detailed reports of Mr. Grace's testimony were sent to over 1,000 journalists in Canada. It was only when the censors came after them -- journalists like Mark Steynand Ezra Levant -- that they paid attention and became instant converts to a principle they should have jealously fought for -- freedom of speech. There was a feeling of "how dare they?" For the past few years, almost every newspaper and journalist in the country who has offered an opinion, has hammered the CHRC and called for the demise of Sec. 13. Shame on them that their conversion occurred only when they saw themselves on the firing line. I suspect the editorial board of *Maclean's* must have been near apoplectic when their lawyers told them that there was virtually no defence to a Sec. 13 charge. Indeed, no victim, un til Marc Lemire some months had ever won, in this fine piece of North Korea-type tyranny. The Moslemcomplainers need only prove that a privileged group -- in this case Moslems -- had been criticized and, therefore, likely exposed to "contempt" for them to be found guilty. In the end, likely because of political pressure, the CHRC chose not to proceed, but *Maclean's* had gotten a taste of the Stalinist world of "human" rights commissions. Just beginning a legal defence had already cost them tens of thousands of dollars. Similarly, under the abuse-BY-process of Sec. 13, *Catholic Insight Magazine* which had the temerity to print an editorial outlining the Catholic Church's stand on homosexuality, spent over $20,000 in legal fees preparing to face a complaint. In the end, the CHRC perhaps under some political pressure, did not send the complaint to a tribunal. ** ** *CAFE has been proud to raise money to help Marc and to actively intervene to support him in his fight which heads to the Federal Court, Dec. 13-14. This intervention is extremely costly. We head to Federal Court, December 13-14, and we still have substantial legal bills to pay.* ** ** *Can you help us?* ** *Yes, I want to help CAFE put the legal nail in the monster of Internet censorship, Sec. 13.* ** *Here is my donation of $_______ by cheque or VISA #___________________________________________,* ** *Expiry date: _______* ** *NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________ * ** *ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________________________________ * ** * ______________________________________________________________________________________________ * ** *e-mail: _______________________________________________________________________________________ * ** ** ** *Paul Fromm* ** *The right to be obnoxious* *National Post *Peter Worthington: Nov. 23rd, 2011 A virtue of minority governments is that the ruling party has got to pay attention to its Parliamentary opposition, and must negotiate compromises. A negative is that legislation can get mired in debate and nothing happens. A virtue of majority governments is that worthwhile legislation that couldn’t be passed in minority days, can get whistled through with neither fuss not fanfare. A case in appoint is the ending of long gun registration (rifles and shotguns) which has been a costly boondoggle with few positive effects, but which got tangled in politics during minority days, and made criminals out off farmers who ignored it. More significant, is the present government’s apparent determination to scrap or revise Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which was intended to punish manifestations of “hate” in Canada, but has been misused to effectively curb free speech. Alberta MP Brian Storseth has a private member’s bill to scrap Section 13 and leave the Criminal Code as the means to counter hate propaganda. Enacted in 1977 (by the Trudeau government, of course), the guts of Section 13 says: “It is a discriminatory practice (by an individual or a group) … to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable…” At the time, Justice Minister Ron Basford said Section 13 applied mostly to Toronto where extreme groups used recorded telephone messages to attack others. Basford said the key was that the same messages were used repeatedly: “I underline the word ‘repeatedly’ that it has to be part of a pattern … (which) serve no social purpose.” Hate propaganda is one thing, crushing free speech is another. Initially it was Jewish groups that supported Section 13, probably because they felt they were the favoured targets of hate. What wasn’t anticipated was that the legislation would be used to limit free speech– and in a draconian way that can’t be justified in a court of law. If (when) Section 13 is put to rest, much credit must go to Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, who stood tall and fought back when Human Rights Commissars went after them. When Levant ran the magazine *Western Standard* (now deceased) he published the Danish cartoons that were a spoof on political aspects of Mohammed, but which every publication in North America shied from, for fear of Islamic violence that left people dead in other areas of the world. By no stretch of any imagination was Levant indulging in “hate.” It was news and comment which other publications avoided by pretending their cowardice was acting on “principle.” Steyn wrote a book that basically said their high birthrate indicated that Muslims would eventually be majorities in European countries. He thinks multiculturalism is a fraud – combining then worst of Muslim culture with the worst of Western culture. By fighting back, both these guys gutted the Human Rights zealots. The Criminal Code is quite adequate to deal with “hate,” and extends beyond free speech– our most precious democratic “right.” Free speech is the right to be obnoxious; on occasion to be offensive; often to be wrong and to say rude or unkind things, but not necessarily untruthful things. Unlike Human Rights tribunals, those who go to court must prove they’ve been damaged by free speech. *Peter Worthington is the founding editor of the Toronto Sun and a regular contributor to FrumForum.com <http://www.frumforum.com/>, where this originally appeared.*