762 Upper James St
Documents referred to by Marc Lemire during the Ezra
Levant’s ‘The Source’ Interview
On June 2, 2011, I appeared on Ezra
Levant’s ‘The Source’ TV show on the Sun network. You can see the
interview repost on Youtube. [http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/june3-2011_lemire-on-suntv.html]
During the course of the show a
large amount of information was discussed. I promised in my
posting yesterday, that I would provide links to everything I
discussed, and second to correct any mistakes I might have made.
Here are the source documents which
I referred to during the interview, and some additional information.
The following links follow the timeline of the interview.
is Marc Lemire?
During the interview, I mentioned
that my opponents called no information that I am somehow racist or a
leader in the nazi movement and instead just spewed filth and innuendo
Here is what the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said on this:
… Mr. Warman did not
present any additional evidence other than to suggest that Mr. Lemire
must be the communicator given his alleged "lengthy overall involvement
of the neo-Nazi movement". Mr. Warman also argued that the website's
material is consistent with the hate messages found on the Freedomsite
website, which Mr. Lemire readily admits owning and operating.
 It is arguable if
I have any evidence before me actually documenting Mr. Lemire's
"lengthy overall involvement" in the "neo-Nazi movement", but even
if I had such evidence, and even if the Freedomsite website were shown
to be "consistent" with JRBooksonline, I do not see how these factors
would help establish prima facie that Mr. Lemire was the person
responsible for the posting of the material on the JRBooksonline was Mr.
I wrote an article a while back on
this topic also:
Marc Lemire: Not a Nazi or White Supremacist. After a 6
year investigation the CHRC could not find SINGLE word I have written
which violates Section 13.
CSIS Agent Grant
(Yes he is speaking in front of a
Nazi Swastika flag, this is not a modified picture)
Ezra Levant mentioned that Grant
Bristow was a CSIS agent who started the Heritage Front. I made some
comments about how Bristow funded the Heritage Front and turned it
towards violence. Here is a
posting I made about Grant Bristow, and included five speeches that
Bristow gave, where he screamed “White Power” and raised money for the
Heritage Front to fight a Section 13 complaint made against them.
Criminal Complaint against
Levant asked me if I was a criminal
and I pointed out that of course I am not a criminal, and further that
my opponents have went to the police about me, and the police did
nothing. Here is the exchange between my lawyer and the person who laid
the complaint with the Toronto Police about me.
2007/02/01 - Pg 616
7 MS KULASKZA: Did you
ask the police
8 to conduct an
investigation? [ABOUT LEMIRE]
9 MR. WARMAN: Yes, I
10 MS KULASKZA: What
police force did
11 you approach?
12 MR. WARMAN: The
14 MS KULASKZA: Metro
15 MR. WARMAN: Well, I
16 called the Toronto
2007/02/01 - Pg 619
4 MR. WARMAN: No, I
had already done
5 that, not -- well, I
--- it was simply further material
6 related to the
original complaint that had already been
8 MS KULASKZA:
10 MR. WARMAN: Yes.
11 Mr. Lemire in
general, but regarding the Freedomsite
It’s clear that Warman filed a
complaint with the Toronto Police, who did nothing with the complaint
and didn’t even contact me.
Warman on Message Board for one year.
During the interview, I stated that
Richard Warman was hanging around my website for up to a year before
filing the complaint. Here is the source, from the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the decision in my case:
Warman testified that he visited the Freedomsite website and its message
board, beginning as early as December 2002. He viewed material
that he believed violated s. 13 of the Act,
and decided to draft a human rights complaint, which he signed on
November 23, 2003.
During the interview I mentioned
that I tried to mediate the complaint constantly.
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal made mention of my mediation attempts
Mr. Lemire repeatedly asked formally through his legal counsel for an
opportunity to mediate or conciliate a settlement to the complaint, to
no avail. Mr. Warman testified that he refused to participate in any
settlement discussions because the JRBooksonline.com website (which, as
I mentioned earlier, had not even been mentioned in the human rights
complaint) continued to be available on the Internet, and he was
convinced that Mr. Lemire was responsible for its content. Of course,
Mr. Warman was not obliged to participate in a mediation session, but
the Commission still had the authority to appoint a conciliator,
pursuant to s. 47 of the Act.
I have pointed out several times in this decision, Mr. Lemire had not
only "amended" his conduct by removing the impugned material, but
sought conciliation and mediation as soon as he learned of the complaint
against him. The process understood by the Supreme Court was not
what Mr. Lemire experienced.
Number of Hearing Days
During the interview, I mentioned
that I thought that my hearing went for 35 hearing days. The actual
number is 29 hearing days at the Tribunal.
Here are the actual dates (as
counted by the Tribunal and referenced at the bottom of the decision)
29 to February 2, 2007
5 to 9, 2007
19 to 23, 2007
26 to 28, 2009
May 9 to
to 27, 2007
15 to 17, 2008
The total Tribunal hearing
days was: 29
When I mentioned around 35, that
also included the Federal Court appeal I did, along with days the
CHRC demanded cross-examination on my witnesses (meaning we had to
go down to an examiners office, and have the CHRC grill my
Lawyers against me:
interview I mentioned there were about 7 lawyers opposed to me. I was
way off the actual number of lawyers opposed to me through out the
hearings. The real numbers of lawyers against me was actually 16.
Here are their names:
Fothergill For the Attorney General of Canada
Davies For the Attorney General of Canada
Kanya-Forstner For the Canadian Jewish Congress
Kurz For the League of Human Rights of B'Nai Brith
Mosten For the B’nai Brith Canada
For the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre
Skurka, a lawyer for the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies
and the Canadian Jewish Congress
Richler for the Canadian Jewish Congress
Gilliland for the Canadian Jewish Congress
Victims – no legal representation
1979, a full 90% of respondents under Section 13 have not been
represented by legal counsel. Most of the people dragged before
Tribunals can be classed as poor to extremely poor.
shows that the case law and precedents that now make up the history of
Section 13 were done on the backs of poor people and those that could
not even afford to be represented by a lawyer. Because the system is
very legal and complicated, many respondents who could not afford a
lawyer, chose not to even bother to appear.
precedents determine how a law is used and what it becomes.
precedents are now being used against respondents like Macleans
Magazine, Catholic Insight and many others. The chill on freedom of
expression by these repulsive precedents is completely unacceptable.
Link to a
copy of the immigrant poem on CHRT site
Yes you won’t find the “Immigrant
Poem” on my website, but you can find it here, on the website of the
Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Scroll down to paragraph 50.
of warman/chrc on the immigrant poem.
You heard the poem on Ezra Levant's
TV show! Now here are the wacky submissions of the CHRC!
(read the poem and make up your own mind)
I referred to the submissions of the
CHRC as fanatical on the Immigrant poem. Here is what they actually
said (from the Tribunals decision):
 Mr. Warman testified
that the message he took from the poem was that non-white
immigrants, and perhaps specifically non-white immigrants
from Pakistan, are presented as "denigrating stereotypical
examples" of persons abusing the welfare system, who end up
bringing their extended families to Canada and further drain
the system. The word "trash" is used to describe the
families of immigrants. These immigrants are shown as people
who make a "hobby" of "breeding". They bring down property
values in neighbourhoods where they end up "driving out"
white residents. White Canadians are branded as fools who
allow this to happen, and if they do not like the situation,
they are exhorted to "get lost".
 The Commission argues
that the poem develops a "gross caricature of Pakistani and
other East Asian immigrants to Canada" that amounts to
extreme ill will and utter contempt, and which exposes
persons from these groups to hatred or contempt within the
meaning of s. 13.
 Mr. Lemire counters, in
response, that the poem is a "biting and satirical
commentary on how immigrants are treated in Canada at the
expense of the Canadian taxpayer". He submits that the poem
constitutes "core political commentary regarding Canadian
immigration policies". Mr. Klatt testified that through a
search using the "Google" search engine, he was able to find
the Canadian Immigrant Poem, posted presumably by persons
other than Mr. Lemire, on at least 397 other websites
including the "Discover Vancouver" and "Country Living,
Country Skills" websites. Mr. Lemire argues that this
demonstrates that many Canadians find that the poem
expresses something about Canada's immigration policies with
which they agree - policies that are subject to criticism. I
am not convinced, however, that merely because a text
appears on numerous web pages, it necessarily reflects a
commonly held view or that it does not constitute a hate
message within the meaning of s. 13.
 Mr. Warman believes that
the poem does, in fact, constitute a hate message. He claims
that it bears some of the hallmarks of hate messages
identified in the body of s. 13 jurisprudence over the years
(see Warman v. Kouba, 2006 CHRT 50 ("Kouba"),
at paras. 22-81, for a summary of these hallmarks). In
particular, Mr. Warman contends that the poem treats
immigrants as a powerful menace that will deprive white
Canadians of their livelihood. This hallmark, however, is
derived from decisions like Citron. The respondent in
that case was found to have expounded theories of secret
conspiracies by Jews designed to extort money and tremendous
power and control on a global scale. The Tribunal found that
the tone and extreme denigration and vilification of Jews
found in the documents in evidence separated that material
from material that might be permissible under the Act.
I do not find a similar tone or an extreme denigration of
person(s) to be present in the poem that was posted by Mr.
Lemire on Stormfront.org.
 Mr. Warman submits that
the poem also bears the hallmark of "highly inflammatory and
derogatory language", which creates a tone of extreme hatred
or contempt (Kouba at para. 67). He points to words
such as "trash" and "breeding", as well as "dummies"
(although that term appears to be ascribed to "white
Canadians"). He also points to the suggestion in the poem
that non-white immigrants defraud the welfare system and
that they cannot speak English properly. These expressions
are certainly provocative, as well as insulting, but they do
not come close to the sort of extreme language that has been
identified in s. 13 jurisprudence as being likely to expose
persons to hatred or contempt. The poem does not contain any
of the ugly racial and ethnic epithets that have so often
been present in the material adduced in other s. 13 cases.
Here is what my actual submissions
were on the “Immigrant Poem”
The “Immigrant Poem” does not
expose any group to hatred. It is a biting and satirical
commentary on how immigrants are treated in Canada at the
expense of the Canadian taxpayer. It constitutes core
political commentary regarding Canadian immigration
policies. While the poem refers to Pakistan, there is no
indication that the speaker is Pakistani. The poem speaks of
“Canadian dummy” and “Canadian crazy” and “too damn good for
the white man race.” No such references appear regarding the
ethnic groups listed in the complaint. The poem is a
commentary on the alleged stupidity of Canadians regarding
its immigration and welfare policies. Criticism of
immigration policies, are not covered by the CHRA.
The poem does not expose any
groups to hatred and/or contempt. The Taylor decision
requires that messages be “intended or likely to
circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against
a racial or religious group". This poem does not
circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium or enmity against
any protected group under the Act.
It is telling that Rizk
testified that she included the poem in her report simply to
show what Warman had given her.
Bernard Klatt produced the
searches for the “Immigrant Poem” he did on Google which
were filed at Exhibit R-2, Tab 22; Vol. 8, p. 1585-1590] As
of December, 2006, The “immigrant poem” was available on at
least 397 websites. Those websites included: Phade.Ca,
VivelaCanada.ca, Free Dominion, Camera Country F-Body Group,
DodgeDakotas.com, CompuServe.com and Warp Reality. (Exhibit
R-2, Tab 22, Pages 1-4)
Specific printouts of the
“Immigrant Poem” were included from the websites “Discover
Vancouver” and “Country Living, Country Skills” (Exhibit
R-2, Tab 22, Pages 5-13) Many Canadians obviously find the
poem expresses something about Canada’s immigration policies
that they agree with. Immigration is determined by the
policy of Canada’s elected governments in a democratic
system. These policies are subject to criticism. The
inclusion of this poem in the complaint shows the slippery
slope to totalitarianism.
It is submitted that the
immigrant poem has not been proven to be posted by the
respondent on a balance of probabilities. Moreover, the poem
could not be found by anyone other than the complainant on
the day it was allegedly posted. There is no evidence it was
accessed by anyone other than two alleged posters and the
complainant. There was no likelihood it would expose anyone
to hatred. Lastly, the poem does not meet the test set out
in Taylor for “hatred and contempt.” This test sets a
very high bar which this poem does not meet.
Even titles are
racist according to CHRC (immigrants get
free limo service)
I mentioned that the CHRC went after
me for posting “racist titles” one of the racist titles was called
“immigrants get free limo service”. I had forgotten, but the CHRC
actually wanted to hold me liable for posting the Canadian Human Rights
Canadian Human Rights
- November 8, 2006
English-language word guru - Giacomo Vigna
7. The titles in themself of the literature
announced in the website, it is respectfully submitted,
indicate prima facie, that the literature announced and
found can be considered to be a violation of section 13.
Here are a series of but some examples from the said
See schedule "A" annexed hereto
Yes this is no joke. Check this
I know this sounds unbelievable, but
here are the actual submissions from the CHRC.
Harassment of ISPs
Here are the submissions I made on
the harassment of Internet Service Providers by the CHRC.
Once section 13 was enacted, the common
carrier status of telephone companies forced those wishing
to shut down telephone hotlines to complain to the CHRC and
undergo the procedure set out in the statute which included
a public hearing and an opportunity for the respondent to
make submissions and tender evidence.
This situation has now changed with the
extension of section 13 to computer communications,
including the Internet. As ISPs do not have any common
carrier protection, they were quickly targeted by the CHRC
and by NGOs such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai
Brith and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (SWC), the intervenors
in this case.
The first public controversy which arose
concerning the liability of ISPs for alleged hate messages
involved Bernard Klatt , the Internet expert called by the
In the 1990’s Klatt had an ISP business which
hosted a number of websites. Klatt received a telephone call
from Sol Littman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre who asked
him to remove certain websites he was hosting. Before Klatt
had a chance to too look at the material, the SWC held a
press conference. Klatt’s hometown of Oliver was painted as
Canada ’s “Hate Capital.” B’nai Brith’s lawyers contacted
B.C. Telecom in an attempt to pressure it to disconnect
Klatt’s service. Newspapers portrayed Klatt as being an
enabler of white supremacists and the SWC subsequently
attempted to have him charged criminally under s. 319 of the
Klatt’s position was that he had no legal
expertise to determine whether something was hate or not and
neither did the SWC. He therefore refused to take down the
websites. His position was in line with that of Electronic
Frontier Canada which had a policy supporting common
carriage requirements for all network providers. [Facts, p.
When Klatt shut down his ISP business,
another ISP took over his dialup clients but refused the
controversial websites as it was a “community business” and
didn’t want to get into controversy. [Facts, p. 180-181]
Klatt’s experience was the first shot in what
has become a concerted effort by the CHRC and its
“stakeholder” groups such as the Canadian Jewish Congress,
to pressure or coerce ISPs into removing websites
unilaterally without need for a hearing before the CHRT.
In the mid-1990’s, the CHRC began approaching
ISPs even though section 13 at that time was limited to
telephone messages. It had announced in public speeches by
the Deputy Chief Commissioner that it considered it had
jurisdiction over the Internet and would accept complaints
about material transmitted over it. [Facts, p. 108-109]
In 1994 and 1995, officials of the CHRC wrote
to and met with the administrators of the National Capital
FreeNet “to discuss how to deal with the use of the NCF for
the posting of messages which may contravene section 13...”
A protocol was suggested to NCF for dealing with hate
messages whereby the CHRC would notify NCF of messages
considered to be hate messages and NCF would take
appropriate action. This could include warning the offending
member or terminating or suspending membership. Suggestions
were made that user agreements contain a clause prohibiting
the use of the NCF to communicate hate on the prohibited
grounds and that this would “limit your liability.” [Facts,
The CHRC has continued this pressure on ISPs
and expanded it to include foreign websites having no
relation to Canada and over which they have no jurisdiction.
Letters written to foreign websites and ISPs asked to take
“appropriate” action. [Facts, p. 116-117]
A letter was written to an American ISP
hosting the Zundelsite with the result the website was
removed as being contrary to the ISPs acceptable use policy.
[Facts, p. 117] This was done even though the Zundelsite is
legal in the United States .
CHRC senior policy analyst Harvey Goldberg
testified there were no policies with respect to the sending
of letters to ISPs and no policies regarding the method of
approaching ISPs. He saw no problem with the letters since
the CHRC was simply asking corporate ISPs to be aware of the
laws of Canada and abide by them as good corporate citizens.
[Facts, p. 117]
Goldberg justified all contacts with ISPs
under section 27(h) of the CHRA. It was part of the
persuasive part of their mandate. As a policy analyst, he
believed it was appropriate for the CHRC to seek to censor
material before a hearing. ISPs, represented by the industry
organization, Canadian Association of Internet Providers,
had taken a “constructive and collaborative” approach with
the CHRC. [Facts, p. 117-120]
As part of this work, justified under s.
27(h), Goldberg and other members of the CHRC discussed the
use of filters by ISPs (to filter out certain words), the
terms of acceptable use policies and complaints procedure
models having the goal of avoiding litigation.
Goldberg clearly admitted that the CHRC
wanted to work “proactively” using the powers under section
27(h) and that meant hate messages being dealt with before
the problem reached the stage of a complaint being laid. The
goal of the CHRC meeting with CAIP was to set up systems to
avoid complaints and avoid the CHRT. [Facts, p. 121]
The CHRC expected ISPs to know what material
constituted hate under section 13. The ISPs were advised
that the standard to apply was set out in Taylor . Goldberg
testified the ISPs all had the resources to hire legal
counsel should they need assistance in knowing what
constituted hate on their services. [Facts, p. 121] When a
small ISP was held liable in the Kulbashian case, a member
of CAIP expressed relief to Goldberg when he informed them
by email that this was limited exception to section 13
because the ISP was not acting simply as a common carrier
but had involved itself in the discriminatory practices.
[Facts, p. 122]
It is clear from the testimony of Goldberg
and the extensive emails and other correspondence going back
and forth between ISPs and the CHRC that the guarantee to
freedom of speech has been gravely damaged by the extension
of section 13 to the Internet.
The CHRC’s goal under section 27 is to ensure
ISPs quickly deal with troublesome websites and the ISPs
goal is to avoid a Klatt-like controversy which smears and
defames them as “enablers” of “hate” and exposes them to
liability under section 13. Without the protection of
common carrier status, ISPs are extremely vulnerable to this
type of public tar and feathering and extremely vulnerable
to complaints under section 13 unless they quickly remove
material complained of.
The CHRC is not the only actor in the drive
to use ISPs as the enforcers of section 13 where censorship
actions are unseen and unknown to the public and where the
website owner had no recourse but to find another ISP.
Richard Warman testified that he had
complained to Bell Sympatico about material posted by Tomasz
Winnicki. When Bell took no action, Warman took the matter
to the media. Bell quickly removed Winnicki’s material as a
result. Another complaint to Bell Sympatico about a website
in British Columbia resulted in the rapid shutdown of
another website. [Facts, p. 85]
He admitted to contacting a number of ISPs
over the years in order to pressure them to shut down
websites, including the ISP hosting the website of Fred
Kyburz against whom he filed a complaint under section 13.
[Facts, p. 85] The Kyburz decision found:
“Richard Warman testified that in March of
2001, he became aware of the Patriots on Guard website,
through his involvement in human rights work. He contacted
Mr. Kyburz’ Internet service provider, alerting it to the
nature of the content on the site. As a result, service to
the site was cut off, and the site was shut down. According
to Mr. Warman, the Patriots on Guard web site was not
accessible for several days in April of 2001, although it
was back up within a couple of days, through a different
service provider.” [Decision, para. 35]
Warman advised his audience in a 2003 speech
that it was possible to “shut down hate mongers via
corporate pressures” on ISPs by explaining to them that they
were responsible for their subscriber’s content. [Facts, p.
85] His own experience obviously proved the truth of his
The threat of section 13 to ISPs is not
theoretical. Dean Steacy testified concerning the complaint
filed against AOL Canada about messages posted on its
message boards on the same-sex marriage debate. The
complaint against AOL was dismissed because it took
“appropriate” actions: it removed the messages, changed its
acceptable use policies, put keyword filters on and
simplified the process for an individual to complain. The
filter prevented certain language from being posted. The
changes in the user policies made it clear that violators
would be cut off from their AOL account in the event of a
violation. [Facts, p. 143-145]
The Lemire case itself is another example of
the determination of the CHRC and complainant Warman to hold
a small provider of a forum for people to chat and
communicate, liable for anonymous posts made to that forum.
Section 13 will not shut down very large ISPs but it has the
power to shut down the Lemire’s and bloggers who host
message boards and comment boxes. The remedial steps Lemire
took did not stop the proceedings as they did for CAERS and
AOL. He was treated differently and there was a political
and punitive purpose in continuing the proceedings.
A major player in pressuring ISPs to control
content is the Canadian Jewish Congress and its efforts show
perhaps most chillingly where section 13 will take
Canadians’ rights to freedom of speech on the Internet.
A letter from the CJC to the CHRC set out
what it wanted:
“Broadly speaking, the recommendation is for
a partnership between Canadian police services and the
Canadian Human Rights Commission to analyze foreign-based
website to make a determination as to whether a particular
site would, if it or its owner was located in Canada , be
deemed sufficiently problematic to be referred to tribunal.
Such a determination could then be passed to Canadian
Internet Service Providers who would then block access.”
The CHRC refused this offer as it felt such a
role was inconsistent with its mandate and could subject it
to accusations of conflict of interest if it was making
determinations that certain material came within section 13
outside the complaints process and then the same material
was complained about. Farber met with ISPs and urged them to
devise a protocol based on existing law that would allow
them to remove hateful material at their own discretion.
[Facts, pp. 125-128]
The effect of section 13 is devastating
because ISPs cannot and will not resist pressure on them to
remove websites alleged to be hate. These pressures are
coming from the CHRC, a body with the legislative ability to
lay complaints against them, and from powerful special
interest groups such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and the
Simon Wiesenthal Centre which have access to the media and
the ability to cause public controversy. The Klatt case
provides the classic take-down protocol consisting of
defamation, smears, calls for criminal prosecution and the
ending of an ISP business, in the instance of a stubborn ISP
refusing to take material down unless ordered to by a
ISPs do not have the expertise or interest to
determine what is “hate” under section 13 and what is not.
Klatt made this point during the attack on him by the SWC in
the 1990s. If material is to be censored as “hate” it must
be done in a judicial setting with due process and the right
to be heard and a right to judicial review.
This backdoor to censorship did not exist in
the case of telephone messages. It exists with respect to
the Internet, which has become essential in today’s
information society, and which contains information on a
scale not envisioned when section 13 was passed.
Those who have the power to cause public
controversy in the media can cause business loss to the ISP.
And the threat of a section 13 complaint remains if the
pressure does not initially work.
What else is the
CHRC doing behind the scenes?
These are excerpts from
my closing arguments at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Under s. 43 of the CHRA, the CHRC has the
power on an ex parte application to the Federal Court
to obtain a warrant to enter and search any premises “that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is... any
evidence relevant to the investigation of a complaint...”
Investigators are entitled to use force if the warrant so
specified and a peace officer is present.
The investigator is entitled to carry out
such inquires as are reasonable necessary for the
investigation of a complaint, including inspecting and
obtaining copies of books or any other documents. There is
no doubt this would include an inspection of computers and
This means that simply upon the filing of a
complaint under section 13, perhaps for posting on a message
board, a person can be subject without notice to a search of
his home and copies of his computer or hard drive taken by a
CHRC investigator. Once documents are in the possession of
the CHRC, they are disclosed to the complainant and all
other parties if the matter goes to a hearing, pursuant to
the Rules of Procedure of the CHRT.
This is not conjecture as a copy of the hard
drive of respondent James Richardson was provided to Richard
Warman under the disclosure rules of the CHRT after the CHRC
had obtained it from London police. . [Facts, p. 167, 172]
It is submitted that the extension of section
13 to the Internet and all computer communications has given
the complainant and the CHRC almost unrestricted access to
information which is a violation of respondent’s right to
privacy and security, contrary to section 7 of the Charter.
It will chill free expression by Canadians when they decide
it is no longer worth risking all loss of privacy.
During the hearing, the CHRC announced that
it had had a policy of not disclosing to respondents the
fact that it was using false identities on message boards
and emails to contact respondents and engage them in
conversation on message boards and in emails. [Facts, p.
This was in violation of the rules of the
CHRT which require disclosure of all relevant documents or
an identification of documents for which privilege is
The evidence showed that the CHRC had at
least two false identities which its investigators in
section 13 cases used. One was “Jadewarr” and one was “Odensrevenge.”
Using the Jadewarr account, investigator Dean Steacy signed
on to several message boards, including the Freedomsite
message board. There is no evidence he posted any racist
material, but he did attempt to engage Lemire in
conversation about a complaint Lemire had laid under section
13. He admitted that if Lemire had replied, depending on
what he said, Steacy could have used it to dismiss Lemire’s
complaint as vexatious. [Facts, p. 156-158]
Steacy also testified that he had signed up
on the Freedomsite when the complaint initially came in but
he couldn’t remember if he posted anything. [Facts, p. 159]
None of this was disclosed to Lemire.
There was no control on the use of the
accounts which were used by several investigators. No check
was made on what posts were being made by the investigators
on message boards or whether respondents were being engaged
on message boards. [Facts, p. 162] There were no CHRC
guidelines for investigators about what kind of posts they
could make using aliases. [Facts, p. 166] There was no
central registry to know the various false identities used
not only by investigators on message boards, but also police
[Facts, p. 171]
In the Bahr case, police witness Sgt.
Stephen Camp admitted that a poster on Stormfront named
“Estate” was in fact an Edmonton police officer. Estate was
a prolific and vicious poster.. [Facts, p. 79] Steacy didn’t
know how or if other investigators used the “Jadewarr”
account. [Facts, p. 166]
Steacy did not think the policy or legal
members of the Hate Team knew about the use of these
accounts. [Facts, p. 159] Goldberg, the policy member,
denied knowing anything about “Jadewarr.” [Facts, p. 114]
The CHRC had never made a study if any of the messages that
were subjects of complaints were in fact incited by
investigators or police or complainants. [Facts, p. 166]
The decision by the CHRC not to follow its
legal obligations of disclosure to the CHRT resulted in
evidence being given to the tribunal which was misleading
and deceptive. This occurred in the Beaumont case
when a posting from Stormfront was printed off by Steacy
using the “Jadewarr” account and was inadvertently disclosed
to Beaumont . The CHRC forced Lemire to go to judicial
review at the Federal Court to obtain the answers to the
questions about who “Jadewarr” was. It has followed a policy
of deception with the tribunals in section 13 cases which is
appalling in its implications. Respondents were denied
disclosure of the case against them and the CHRTs were
misled about material facts.
The culture of anonymity on message boards,
which encourages free expression of honest and controversial
views, was used and exploited to the detriment of
respondents and tribunals hearing these cases.
It raises the question of how many other
anonymous posters on the message boards which have been and
are the subject of section 13 complaints were in fact
police, CHRC investigators or other anti-racist activists.
There is no way of knowing. In this case, the Tribunal is
being asked to find Lemire liable as webmaster for anonymous
postings on a message board. How many of those postings were
planted in order to support this complaint or to entice
others to post messages.
The extension of section 13 to the Internet
has opened up avenues for abuse of process which were
unavailable when it was limited to telephone lines. The
failure to disclose documents and information has resulted
in tribunal proceedings which were unfair and where
respondents were denied natural justice. The effect on the
freedom of speech by this type of deceit, made possible by
the extension of section 13 to the Internet, is one which
means section 13 and 54 cannot meet the test of
Both section 13 and section 319 of the
Criminal Code deal with the restriction of “hate”. As a
result, both the CHRC and police have pursued the same
people under both provisions. This has been accelerated by
the fact that Warman has laid criminal complaints against
respondents after first laying complaints against them under
section 13 about the same material. [Facts, p. 78-79]
Documents disclosed after the March 25, 2008
hearing show that the CHRC regularly communicated with
police forces about respondents, exchanged information and
obtained evidence from police that had been seized in raids
pursuant to warrants under the Criminal Code. [Facts,
p. 173-177] Evidence obtained from police included Crown
briefs setting out the most personal information about
respondents, information obtained from motor vehicle
databases, and CDs of personal hard drives seized from the
home of James Richardson and, apparently, Alex Kulbashian.
The CD copy of Richardson ’s hard drive was given to Warman
as part of the CHRC’s disclosure obligations and he
testified in the Kulbashian case that he studied it
extensively. [Facts, p. 167] Steacy testified he had gone to
police officers and requested information about dozen times
and had given police information for their purposes about
twice. [Facts, 171]
In this case, Warman laid criminal complaints
against Lemire and Harrison after laying the section 13
complaint. Police contacted the CHRC to get copies of
evidence but didn’t follow up after being requested to put
it in writing. This information was not disclosed to Lemire
for over three years. [Facts, p. 31-32] Respondents to human
rights proceedings, a civil procedure, are given no warnings
that anything they might say or provide to the CHRC will be
given to police, for use in possible criminal proceedings.
The notification letter they are sent when they are
initially informed of the complaint asks them for
information which police could use in criminal charges on
the same material. The rights of respondents under s. 7 of
the Charter are thereby violated when this
information flows from the CHRC to police.
Police information flowing to the CHRC means
that the CHRC is gaining access to information from sources
such as surveillance, motor vehicle databases, and CPIC that
only police have access to. This could be a violation of the
warrants issued under the Criminal Code for search
and seizure purposes.
Section 13 has in fact become two provisions:
It deals solely with effects when no
penalty is requested under section 54. But what will
cause someone to be “exposed” to hatred or contempt
cannot be predicted or known. The offense which one
person might feel will not be felt by another. It will
be totally dependent on the person’s personality, life
experiences, strength of group self-identity and so on.
There is no universal “psychological distress” that
warrants the violation of the free speech of Canadians.
Instead of teaching people to be “victims”, people
should be taught that free speech is their right and
they have the power to “talk back.” Today, with the
Internet, that power to “talk back” has been brought to
everyone in a meaningful and extraordinary way.
The other section 13 is the one where a
penalty is demanded by the complainant and the CHRC as
in this case. This is the section 13 that has now been
used in every single case decided since the provision
was extended to the Internet (except for Eldon Warman as
noted above). It brings penal consequences, stigma, and
moral blameworthiness. It transforms the provision into
a quasi-criminal offence with none of the procedural or
substantive protections accorded a person charged under
the Criminal Code. Parallel criminal proceedings
under s. 319 of the Criminal Code have been
instituted in several cases, subjecting the respondent
to double jeopardy and seizure of his computer and other
material by police.
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.