Canada: Warman loses one. Internet hate speech ban unconstitutional
The aptly named Warman has been waging war on free speech in Canada for years and he has claimed quite a few victims. He is by far the most frequent "human rights" litigant in Canada
"A provision in the Human Rights Act that bans hate speech on the internet is unconstitutional, according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In a decision released Wednesday, the commission's tribunal dismissed a complaint filed against Marc Lemire, a webmaster who runs freedomsite.org, a site that bills itself as "Canada's freedom resource center."
The complaint, which alleged that messages posted on the site were discriminatory and exposed minority groups to "hatred and contempt," was filed by Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.
In rejecting the complaint, commissioner vice-chair Athanasios Hadjis ruled that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act violates the Charter of Rights and Freedom, "which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression."
Hadjis said that it is not within the commission's ability to change the rules — that must be done by the courts — so he refused to impose penalties on Lemire or order him to take down his website.
Warman had asked the tribunal for a cease-and-desist order against Lemire, and a $7,500 fine. Warman accused Lemire of posting anti-Semitic and anti-gay material on the web.
Source
It's looking like these Canadian human rights bodies have learnt a lesson from their effective defeats by Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.
5 comments:
Commissioner vice-chair Athanasios Hadjis? Is that french?
Well, a rare victory for sanity in a place where sanity and rational thought are often considered illegal or "un-PC". But don't think for one munite the Left will give up. They never stop trying.
free thought and expression are enemies to liberals
What's even spookier though is this comment - "Hadjis said that it is not within the commission's ability to change the rules — that must be done by the courts"
By the courts? And not by elected legislators?
Anon 9:97PM said, "By the courts? And not by elected legislators?"
Yeah, I was wondering about that one also. Must be a Canadian thing.
Surely the Commission is entitled to determine (probably as a preliminary issue) whether it has jurisdiction to deal with an issue before it?
One would think then that the simplest way to deal with this matter would be to find a want of jurisdiction and dismiss the matter on that basis.
Post a Comment