Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules Internet Hate Provision Unconstitutional

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
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)add comment

Frank said:

I'm confused
How can the Human Rights Tribunal rule that things are unconstitutional? Isn't that up to the courts?
September 02, 2009

Dwight Williams said:

Puzzlement
A fair question, that.
September 02, 2009

Usah Yoor Brayn said:

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
September 02, 2009

D. said:

Good Decision by Unconstitutional Tribunal
The Human Rights Tribunal is an unconstitutional organization. The charter gives these authorities to the courts.
September 02, 2009

Gregg said:

One Step To Making Political Correctness Illegal
And about damn time!
September 04, 2009

aa said:

sir
the Human Rights Tribunal is a joke
September 28, 2009

http://www.german777.com/ said:

...
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/
April 05, 2010

http://www.german777.com/ said:

...
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 .
April 05, 2010

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , , , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: