www.freedomsite.org | Online Store  

Contents

Contact us!

152 Carlton Street

PO Box 92545

Toronto, Ontario

M5A 2K1

Canada

E-mail Us

Canadian Association For Free Expression

CSIS Instigator GRANT BRISTOW Raises his head out of the sewer to support Section 13   Yet Bristow could have been prosecuted under Section 13

 The July 30^th, 2008 edition of the National Post carried an opinion piece by CSIS instigator and hatemonger Grant Bristow.  The piece was also run in the Full Comment section, where readers can comment. Readers to the National Post eviscerated Bristow, and a majority of comments saw right through his lies.

Bristow’s opinion piece was about the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  The thought prime / pre-crime legislation used to silence political dissidents for their non-violent expression of political ideas.

While I won’t waste my time answering many of the clearly bogus claims made by Bristow, I will confine my comments to Section 13 and his support of the law.

Since 2002, Grant Bristow has become active with the Canadian Jewish Congress.  [here and here] Perhaps his CSIS cheques have run out and he needs to find more work?  This might also explain why he is suddenly such a big supporter of Section 13.  The Canadian Jewish Congress have intervened against me to support Section 13, and even have absurdly claimed that Section 13 is needed for Jewish “physical and psychological security”

Canadian Jewish Congress on Grant Bristow

Grant Bristow could have been a Victim of Section 13

During Grant Bristow’s time of financing and setting up the Heritage Front, he was a very prolific speaker at many public events.  M any of the provocative comments made by Grant Bristow would be considered a violation of Section 13 if on a phone message hotline or the Internet.

In fact, Grant Bristow gave so many speeches, that the Heritage Front put together a video tape of his various talks called “The Best of Bristow”

The Canadian Human Rights Act is written so poorly that the speakers intent is totally irrelevant to a finding of liability under the Act.  So, even if Bristow was promoting hate ‘in the name of human rights’, he would still be found liable.

Intent is no Defence!

“The Court specifically held that people don’t have to intend to discriminate to be found guilty of discrimination under section 13”

[Source: CHRC, Legal Milestones]

“Further, the absence of an intent component in s. 13(1) raises no problem of minimal impairment when one considers that the objective of the section requires an emphasis upon discriminatory effects. As in other human rights legislation, an intent to discriminate is not a precondition of a finding of discrimination. To import a subjective intent requirement into human rights provisions, rather than allowing tribunals to focus solely upon effects, would defeat one of the primary goals of anti-discrimination statutes.”

[Source: Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892]

Section 13 makes it clear that the intent of the speaker is not relevant to be “found guilty”, so even if Grant Bristow was a CSIS agent, and government spy, when he gave public speeches denouncing Native Canadians, Jews, Blacks and others, he could well have been found guilty under the insane Canadian Human Rights Act.

Grant Bristow on the Canadian Human Rights Commission

In his own words…

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html

Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge

Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law 

and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

• Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Marc Lemire

152 Carlton Street 

PO Box 92545 

Toronto, Ontario 

M5A 2K1 

Canada