16 juin 2009
This is video of the: Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (Parliament of Canada - House of Commons)
Warman, la commission des droits de la personne: quand la chasse à la "haine" dépasse les limites de la loi
Les organisations juives contre la liberté d'expression
La commission canadienne des droits de la personne a dépassé les limites de la loi en piratant une connexion internet et en postant des messages de haine sur Internet
Doug Christie (avocat de Ernst Zündel et David Ahenakew) veut un débat contre le pleutre Richard Warman (lié aux antifa), l'homme derrière la quasi totalité des poursuites de la commission des droits de la personne pour "crimes haineux".
La commission des droits de la personne camoufle ses crimes en censurant la transcription d'un témoignage en cour de justice
Abus de la section 37 permettant de censurer les transcriptions des témoignages faits en cour de justice pour raison de "sécurité nationale"
Pourquoi Warman serait-il le seul citoyen canadien à pouvoir utiliser la justice pour sa propre campagne de vengeance?
Zundel n'a eu aucune chance face à cette parodie de tribunal...
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology (ret.)
Canadian Human Rights CommissionCanadians are engaged in a debate over hate speech
that is 'completely unbalanced,' according to the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human
Rights Commission, Jennifer Lynch.
"We welcome this debate. We want it to be an informed debate in the right forum, a place where people can have an informed dialogue. [That place is] Parliament, and parliamentary committees. This why we did a special report to Parliament [last week]. That's the appropriate forum," she said in an interview.
She criticized Conservative MP Russ Hiebert for relying on "one source that is full of misinformation," in his study of the CHRC in a parliamentary subcommittee. But she placed most of the blame on conservative author Ezra Levant and his blogging allies for spreading "misinformation" about the CHRC's mandate and practices.
"Please, please, look. We have experienced 16 months of invective hurled at us, and at any time when anybody has tried to speak up and correct misinformation, gross distortions, caricaturizations, then the very next day there's been some full-frontal assault through the blogs, through mainstream media. I have a file. I'm sure I have 1,200, certainly several hundred of these things," she said.
"There is an agenda out there, and I'ma public servant responsible for giving effect to the principle that 'individuals should have the right equal to others to make for themselves a life they are able and wish to have,' and I'm going to do it. I'm not going to sit by. Others are afraid to speak out because they know they're going to be attacked. If you Google my name today you'll see how I've been attacked."
Ms. Lynch's report to Parliament is an effort to respond to the hate speech controversy by explaining the CHRC's statutory roles and responsibility, and to lay out proposals for improvement, such as the ability to award costs when a complainant has abused the system, the removal of the ability to levy penalties up to $10,000, and the discretion to dismiss complaints early if they clearly do not meet the legal standards of hate.
She stressed that Canada should continue to take a dual approach to hate speech, with both the punitive criminal code and the remedial human rights act.
"The Criminal Code plays a very valid role. However, when
we look at the statistics, we find that there aren't a lot of specialized [police] hate teams across the country," Ms. Lynch said. "To cede, to remove our jurisdiction, would leave a gap that might persist for years or a lifetime because it would require numerous jurisdictions to step into a gap, and they may or may not be willing to resource that, etcetera, etcetera. So [the hate speech provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act] is an important section. It does serve a purpose," she said.
While rebutting what she calls outright lies, the report makes barely any reference to the more sober criticisms of her hate speech mandate from mainstream critics, such as the Canadian Civil Liberites Association and Jewish advocacy groups, and also almost every newspaper editorial board in Canada. These include the lack of a legal defense of truth or scholarly or journalistic intent; the practice of accepting identical complaints simultaneously in different jurisdictions; controversial online investigative procedures such as joining white supremacist discussion groups to investigate targets; and the potential for human rights tribunals to be hijacked as political platforms.
Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor whose report to the CHRC last year recommended they leave hate speech to the police, agrees that critics are engaged in a "disinformation campaign" of exaggerating failures and making personal smears, rather than addressing the CHRC's real problems. But he also thinks those problems are not only real, but "grave" and fundamental.
"This is my larger concern," he said. "That they [the CHRC] continue to call for what they describe as a dual approach to the regulation of hate speech, that is to say the criminal code and the human rights act. And of course, in order to kind of justify that, they have to define a distinct sphere, and a distinct role for the human rights act and the commission and the tribunal. It's unclear what that is. The only thing that really gets emphasized is that the criminal code prohibitions are about wrongful behaviour and intent is a necessary element, whereas the human rights act is not about whether there was wrongful intent or motive, it's simply about the effects or the impact of this expression on members of the community."
The problem is that, as a matter of actual practice, intent already is a requirement. The hate speech cases that have actually been pursued are "all so extreme in character that it is impossible to imagine that there is not wrongful or hateful intent," Prof. Moon said.
"I think that's actually what's going on in most of these cases anyway. We're not really looking at effects. We're looking at the nature of the speech, and how extreme it is. My concern is if you're not explicit about what you're doing, then who knows how it might be applied in any particular case? I still have grave reservations about the failure to include an intention requirement."
This is an emerging irony of Canada's messy hate speech debate. As Prof. Moon describes it, the more the CHRC emphasizes the seriousness of the hate speech it fights, "the more it looks like that should already be dealt with by criminal law, and not through the kind of process that's designed to deal with human rights complaints."