Lemire Decision Released: The Hate Crime Didn't Fit Hadjis Acquits! Cites Section 13(1) Charter Contraventions
V. CONCLUSION
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).
Athanasios D. Hadjis
Decision:
Lemire Decision
Trupeers points out Hadji's thoughts on Section 13 (1):
[290] In my view, it is clear that Taylor's confidence that the human rights process under the Act merely serves to prevent discrimination and compensate victims hinged on the absence of any penal provision akin to the one now found at s. 54(1)(c), as well as on the belief that the process itself was not only structured, but actually functioned in as conciliatory a manner as possible. The evidence before me demonstrates that the situation is not as the Court contemplated in both respects. 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.
...
Updates:
Mark Steyn: This is the beginning of the end for Section 13
National Post: Hate speech law ruled unconstitutional
Rob Breakenridge: Score (A Big) One for Free Speech
Ken Hynek: Marc Lemire Acquitted!
Marginalized Action Dinosaur: SECTION 13 HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN!
FiveFeetOfFury: 'Hate/thought crime' law 'unconstitutional'
Scaramouche: A sudden--and shocking--renunciation of Thought Police-type thinking
Halls of Macadamia - Flea said...
Dr. Roy: The beginning of the end...
Deborah Gyapong: Kathy Shaidle and a blast from the past
Denyse O'Leary : This just in - Infamous Section 13 hits a wall
Big Blue Wave: Celebrate with me! Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal
Xanthippa: Today is a day to celebrate!
Jay Currie: It's the Charter Stupid
The Lynch Mob: Decision’s in
Scary Fundamentalist: We'll let you go this time
Lumpy Grumpy & Frumpy: Excellent News
MooseandSquirrel: Free speech wins a battle
General Brock: Defeat for the Canadian thought police
Socon or Bust: CHRT Throws S.13 Under the Bus
Covenant Zone: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Refuses to Apply the Law
Ferreras J Dissenting: Section 13 inconsistent with Charter
Wintery Knight: Good news for the right to Free Speech
Stubble Jumping Redneck: Whoopee!
Just Right: A big victory for free speech
Small Dead Animals: Hate Speech Law Unconstitutional
HotAir: Free speech wins in Canada
National Post: Section 13 -History and key facts on Canada's hate speech law
Rights Juris: Canadian Hate Speech Law Overturned
Western Standard: Censorship tribunal rules censorship is unconstitutional (or does it?)
Instapundit: A VICTORY FOR ACTUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, instead of just “Human Rights”
Ottawa Citizen: Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal
Globe & Mail: Hate-speech law violates Charter rights, tribunal rules
Terrestrial Musings: Good News On The Free Speech Front
Barrel Strength: Astonishing upset in Warman v Lemire
Toronto Sun: Tribunal: Internet hate provision unconstitutional
GenX at 40: How Did The Human Rights Tribunal Strike Its Own Law?
Ghost of a Flea: Canada's hate speech law ruled unconstitutional
Ace Of Spades: Canadian Hate Speech Law Overturned
Daley Gator: The asinine Canadian hate speech law is DEAD
RightGirl: Human Rights Adjudicator Does Right Thing
Break out the 'bubbly'!
The first step in getting rid of thought crime has happened!
Let's have the lawyers go over this. Before we get drunk;)
To speak in terms of an arguably inappropriate metaphor, can a judge rule his own court illegitimate? If so, by whose authority?
BCF - this early in the morning, the 'bubbly' I'd be breaking out is 'Ale' brewed from ginger...
Flea: it COULD happen...logically. The Court would NOT be deemed 'illegitimate' until AFTER the judge's ruling - therefore, the ruling COULD stand as the last 'valid' ruling of the court. But, I am not a lawyer..
Usually, this is phrased in a slightly different way: the judge would rule that his court is, indeed, a valid court, but that its jurisdiction does not extend to that particular area or case or whatever. Therefore, it cannot rule on it... In other words, it says any decision it WOULD make in this specific case wouldbe illegitimate.
You know Flea he seems to have come as close as he could.
AND now will DND FIRE this person?
One sane act from a normally insane body does not allow for a plea of sanity on a continuing basis. It may be a start though.
Now, we wait to see what happens in Calgary in two weeks when Gerry Chipeur argues the Boissoin case before a real court at Alberta Court of Queens Bench.
Who knows, we might get a twofer.
Well one small step for...but the phone lines and E Mail lines to the PM and DND Minister appear overheating!
First impression: how can he contradict the Supreme Court in Taylor? DOes the "In conjunction with..." provide the way? Or is this just more making it up as we go along "law"?
Hmmm lets see what the lawyers have to say Trupeers. All in all it seems like a cya action.
He says he can't make a "formal declaration" but that he's acting as if he can....???
"I simply refuse"...
it looks like civil disobedience; he's come over to our side... but will he still go for the pay check?
I should read the thing first: [290] In my view, it is clear that Taylor's confidence that the human rights process under the Act merely serves to prevent discrimination and compensate victims hinged on the absence of any penal provision akin to the one now found at s. 54(1)(c), as well as on the belief that the process itself was not only structured, but actually functioned in as conciliatory a manner as possible. The evidence before me demonstrates that the situation is not as the Court contemplated in both respects. 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.
Excellent. None of these persecution can continue . The Tories should ask for a quick decision by referring this to the Supreme Court. It is almost certain that the thought police will ruled unconstitutional.
Please BCF - enlighten us.
Jay is AWOL, Ezra is on vacation and Steyn says the ruling suggests 13.1 is unconstituional.
ARC is silent and BCL says it is seriously Constitutional.
WHOa as just an ordinary prairie stubble jumper/gopher boy to believe as he wants to engage Big Eddie in a mega lawsuit (intervenor) against a group(s) and individual(s) that knowingly and deliberately (Malice aforthought) VIOLATED Canadian human rights?
LS, BCL is for laughing at. But much is afoot that we are not yet privy to.
After 'all Iggy all of the time', this is great news!
About F*cking time, I wonder how may Jenny & Babs have on the burners right now?
Anyone have an idea?
Should we send Fat Barb, & Lynch um up flowers.
Yup. Fantastic news. To everyone who has dedicated time and money to eradicating this infringement on our rights, great job!!! Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, the Freedom Five, et al. This is a welcome distraction from Iggy's election threats.
Does this mean Warman will have to refund his thirty pieces of silver?
I love the way many jump to conclusions. For a more reasonable and cogent discussion on this matter may I urge you to check out Bigcitylib's blog. There you will find that s13 was not struck down though the penalties certainly impinged on the decision...more at BCL
Yariv I would suggest you read the entire decision.
Roy Eappen: "The Tories should ask for a quick decision by referring this to the Supreme Court."
Is that why Harper and crew have been dragging their feet? I wrote several letters to "Harper and crew" about this issue and was highly dissatisfied with the responses. None of them mentioned anything about waiting for this case to be decided, but maybe for some reason they were playing their cards close to their chests.
Oh. And I'm almost too cautious to believe this could be the death of it. But if it is, the next hurdle will be compensation for all its victims.
Thsnks BCF - YES there is more private and other action going on as any of us know.
The DO(injustice)J and DND website are temporalily down.
The NP post is already in the European news.
I now must post on ZMZ (ZeromeansZero) to let them know.
From my reading (Currie concurs) Sec 13 is only struck down because of its possibility for punitive damages, citing its departure from a conciliatory administration. There are many other sections that uphold some of the inquisition-like aspects of 13(1).
I bet if Lucy didn't get greedy and ask for $7500 then we wouldn't be drinking the bubbly right now.
Not AWOL, just not willing to get up at 6:30 AM.
I have stuff up at my place. Bottom line - s. 13 is a dead letter.
I hope so Jay, but as Scary notes I will only be satisfied when I see the Stake thru the Heart;)
Just turned on my computer and saw the news. Hooray!!!!
I predict, before the month is out, another "unsolicited report" from J-Ly outlining the necessary legislative changes to rescue her Section 13 gig from the clutches of the Charter.
Plausible?
Too Scary! But likely.
I agree Scary, Jenny-baby is apoplectic over this, after all it takes from her Jedi powers.
I suspect that there will be a rather disgusting attempt tho save her sacred cow from the chopping block.
Well ladies and gentlemen, I have spent some time ruminating over this document, with the intention of spending more, and frankly, it will take considerable more time to grasp what it in fact has decided, if much of anything.
Methinks it may turn out to be much ado about nothing. By that I mean that it is a decision of a kangaroo court on a trumped up charge, in an instance where there were too many eyes of the faithful of the kindom watching, thanks in part to the work of Messrs. Steyn, Levant, and bloggers of this fair land.
As well, Mr. Lemire did his own homework before trial as well, none of which seems to have made it into the decision near as I can tell on first and second blush (could be out in left field on this part).
An opportunity existed to hoist J Ly up by her jackboots along with her special friends, and it passed in the night - Surprise, surprise!
Alberta S.3(1), ugly step sister to S. 13 goes on trial in Alberta on September 16 in the Boissoin case before a real judge with a real civil rights lawyer Gerry Chipeur, Ezra's old boss, dealing the cards. That case matters.
I am looking forward to seeing what happens in a real court run by someone who does not work for the Queen of Censors.
Thanks for being on top of this, BCF.
(I was told at a workshop years ago -- in a government-funded, unionized workplace, of course -- that the phrase "being on top of" something was sexist, patriarchal, etc. and therefore should never be used.)
Josephine, did you gag?
Those folks at the government-funded unionized workplace must have had very boring sex. What a pity. LOL!!
robins111 - Just about.
Louise - Another example of your tax dollars at work: We were told in a workshop that terms such as "under a dark cloud of doubt" are racist and make dark-skinned people feel bad. We were not supposed to associate darkness with badness in any way. "Black humour" was out, as was "black sheep of the family".
Never mind the fact that being in the pitch black dark was once very dangerous and scary for humans... or that dark clouds mean stormy weather and poor visibility.
Those folks at the government-funded unionized workplace must have had very boring sex. What a pity. LOL!!
To speak in terms of an arguably inappropriate metaphor, can a judge rule his own court illegitimate? If so, by whose authority?
>>