152 Carlton Street
PO Box 92545
Marc Lemire files at the Federal Court to oppose
Internet censorship from the misnamed Canadian "Human Rights" Commission
On February 15, 2010, Marc Lemire
filed his Memorandum of Fact and Law, which documents the ravenous
censorship and corruption of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Summary of Lemire's submissions to
the Federal Court:
The Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal reached the
proper decision to find Sec. 13 and 54 unconstitutional
The Tribunal made the correct
decision to look at “the real and factual
context in which s. 13 existed”.
The evidence showed beyond doubt
that s. 13(1) is not used in a remedial fashion
CHRC shares information with
Police (and never informs the victims), which is an infringement on
the rights of Canadians
Even the Tribunal don't see Sec.
13 as remedial and routinely makes orders which are “symbolic”
value as a “public denunciation” of the respondent’s actions.
This imports the moral condemnation and stigma which Taylor
believed was absent from human rights legislation.
When the Human Rights Act was
established it was directed to telephone hotlines, and Bell Canada
received "common carrier" status and thus could not be
harassed. Yet in the Internet age, ISPs do not have
"common carrier" status and thus are subjected to on-going
harassment campaigns and threats of legal action to disconnect
Internet is a democratizing medium
which allows public discourse by people who previously had no means
to participate meaningfully in public debates or issues.
Newspapers, radio and TV stations and
magazines are published on the Internet so that any limitation on
freedom of expression on the Internet includes limitations on
freedom of the media and the press
By failing to provide the basic
defences of fair comment, responsible journalism, truth and lack of
intent to s. 13(1), in a communications context where the press and
media publish daily, the provision is no longer a reasonable limit
on freedom of expression including that of the press.
Failure to provide the defence of
Truth makes Section 13 fail meet the proportionality test of section
1 of the Charter.
"hate" is subjective and vague.
It is a subjective human emotion and has no place in law
So-called "hate" speech does not
cause any “psychological distress” or harm in those voluntarily
exposed to it on the Internet.
Canada has a general population that
deals well with expression, values the right to expression and does
not experience the harm that is said to justify s.13(1). Canadians
overwhelmingly prefer open debate, not censorship.
The National Post did a
good summary of Lemire's submissions to the Federal Court.
[Click to enlarge]
In September 2009, the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights
Act was an unconstitutional violation of Canada's Charter of Rights.
The Tribunal ruled that:
 Thus, following the reasoning of
Justice Dickson, at 933,one can no longer say that the absence of intent in s. 13(1) “raises no problem of
minimal impairment” and “does not impinge so deleteriously
upon the s. 2(b) freedom of expression so as to make
intolerable” the provision’s existence in a free and
democratic society. On this basis, I find that the
Oakes minimum impairment test has not been
satisfied, and that s. 13(1) goes beyond what can be
defended as a reasonable limit on free expression under s. 1
of the Charter.
c) Conclusions with respect to the claim
of infringement on the freedom of expression
 For all the above reasons, I find that
s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression
guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and
that this infringement is not demonstrably justified
under s. 1 of the Charter.
 This question, however, is not what is
relevant to the present discussion. The point is that, when
assessed against the characteristics of the penalty
provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that
s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of
whether s. 11 Charter rights are necessarily
triggered). The provision can
no longer be considered exclusively
remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature,
which was at the core of the Court’s finding in
Taylor that s.
13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably
justifiable in a free and democratic society,
and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter.
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),  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
See full decision [here]
On January 25, 2010, using
tax-payers money, the Canadian Human Rights Commission challenged the
Lemire decision, which found that the thought control
legislation of the
Canadian Human Rights Act was unconstitutional and a violation of
the Charter guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and thought.
Canadian "Human Rights" Censors file at the Federal Court of Canada
to keep their precious censorship franchise]
The battle ground for freedom has
now moved to the Federal Court of Canada.
This post can also be found at:
I need your help
for the Appeal!
Donate using a credit card online with PayPal
Send your donation to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Send your donation to: email@example.com
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
152 Carlton Street
PO Box 92545
The Freedom-Site has been constantly
online since 1996
- Your Donations = Our Survival
- 152 Carlton Street,
- PO Box 92545,
- Toronto, Ontario,
- M5A 2K1
- Please send what you can to help keep
our website operational
In Defence of Freedom
48 pages - $10
Books won't stay banned.
They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of
history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The
only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.