Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules Internet Hate Provision Unconstitutional |
| Print | |
|
Wednesday September 02, 2009
|
|||||||||||
|
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that the Internet hate provision found in the Human Rights Act is unconstitutional. In a decision released today, the Tribunal ruled that the restriction on speech imposed by the provision is not a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Comments (8)
Frank
said:
|
|||||||||||
|
I'm confused How can the Human Rights Tribunal rule that things are unconstitutional? Isn't that up to the courts? |
|
Read the act before you post Please read the act and read the charter, you'll see how the act violates the character. Calling an ethnic group a dirty name is allowed. Read the conclusions at least: I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article. However, 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. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7). Then the charter: Fundamental Freedoms FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. read 2(b), freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; Ok, do you understand that? This guy Mr. Lemire communicated something probably nasty in his AIDS Secrets article, but it was a communication. He expressed himself. The officer assigned to this case thought that not allowing Mr. Lemire to communicate freely would violate the charter. Now lets look at 13.(1) 3. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. (2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is commu- nicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, includ- ing the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking. Interpretation 3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter. Did you read that? Did you see how it states I can slander your race/creed/nation to your face, or to my friends, yet I cannot post it on the internet? So let's see here, I'm allowed to communicate but not using open means of communication? So my communication is allowed and limited? How does that comply with the charter? Well Hadjis says it doesn't. It in fact violates the act. Do you see how I bothered to read the linked content before I posted? Do you see how I bothered to look up the related acts and post them here so you could read them? Do you see how logically if we have fundamental freedoms of communication we cannot be limited in such a way? Otherwise we don't have freedoms do we, otherwise what was the point of the act. This is a decision, it doesn't matter what his status was, Hadjis applied the Act to the Charter and found that Charter already said that this was allowed and that it superceded the Act. You don't have to be an honorable member of the HRC to figure this out. A. It is logical that this decision came out this way given the wording of the Charter and the Act B. The HRC is free to make whatever decisions they want regardless of the courts. C. If this went to court or something like it went to court this would be referenced by the defendant's lawyers as a decision which already sides on the side of free speech in Canada. D. Read the bloody article before you post |
|
Good Decision by Unconstitutional Tribunal The Human Rights Tribunal is an unconstitutional organization. The charter gives these authorities to the courts. |
|
... 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. http://www.german777.com/ |
|
... 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.The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has refused to enforce a controversial internet hate speech law, claiming that it's unconstitutional . |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
