Francis Chartrand for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

1. Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated" that sodomites should be "beheaded".
2. Infidels (non Muslims) "live like animals" they are evil people, who worship the evil "they are our enemies" and "that their children are the most perverse." Infidels want to "sexually exploit women" and "one of the worst injustices or ignorance" for Muslims is to consider the infidels as equals.
3. Christianity is a religion of lies "responsible" for the evil, corruption and adultery "in the Western world.
4. Jews "spreading corruption and chaos on earth.
5. Men are "superior" to women "because of their intelligence and memory are more complete [sic]."
6. In Muslim countries, Muslims have to "humiliate and punish Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and should force them to convert to Islam or be killed", etc..

The editor of Point de bascule, a website that denounces the excesses of Islamist ideology, is simply do not. According to him, the decision of the CHRC demonstrates the failure of federal and provincial punish hate speech. "If you are a minority, you can take with impunity hate speech and derogatory to the majority. Standards of tolerance, respect and civility for the majority do not apply to you. If you are a religious minority, you can spread with impunity Suprematist ideology and advocate the extermination of other minorities, and even the majority, if the doctrine of your religion, "says Marc Lebuis.

But no offensive speech from the majority

It all went differently in the case of drinks and the Reverend Father de Valk. In February 2007, Father de Valk Catholic Insight editor (3 500 subscribers) received a letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). The investigator Sandy Kozak informed that his magazine "was placed under investigation for hate texts" against homosexuals. The Crime of Father de Valk: defending Church teaching on marriage during the debate on gay marriage in Canada, quoting the Bible extensively, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. In other articles, Father de Valk opposition activists in the gay social matter, but according to the Catholic priest, "without addressing the people."

A year later, Catholic Insight had already paid $ 6 000 in legal fees to prepare his defense against the complaint of "hate texts" without even knowing the date of his appearance before the Commission. But there are not fees. De Valk said the Catholic League for Human Rights that his colleague, Tony Gosnach, and himself spent a great time "in this case since the filing of the complaint. "We spend probably three days a week, to two, we keep abreast of what happens on this file".

If Salafi Imam was not prosecuted for his strong against homosexuals, it was not the case of a Council of Knights of Columbus, which in 2005 was fined more than 1 $ 000 by the Commission for Human Rights in British Columbia for their refusal to rent their hall for a couple of lesbians for their wedding.

Five years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission had imposed a fine of $ 5 000 to the Protestant printer Scott Brooks for refusing to print letterhead on the theme of homosexuality. The Court of Human Rights condemned Saskatchewan Hugh Owans to thousands of dollars in fines for citing verses from the Bible in a letter to the local newspaper. And Mayor Diane Haskett in London, Ontario, was fined $ 10 000 plus interest for failing to declare a day of Gay Pride.

In 2002, the Commission of human rights in Saskatchewan have had the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $ 1 500 for three complainants have issued three advertisements that cited biblical verses condemning homosexuality. This decision was reversed by an appellate court, but four years later.

A few months ago, a Christian pastor, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin was sentenced to life can not express anything "offensive" against homosexuals. Nothing "hateful", or even something defined by law as "incitement to hatred". Simply a negative review. A pastor can no longer preach sermons on sexuality.

Commissions of human rights: a travesty of justice

Not only the criteria for selection of committees for human rights are variable according to the group of plaintiffs and the targeted group, but the rules of procedure and structure of commissions for human rights do not traditional rules of procedural fairness:

1. third parties to the alleged offenses can still join in the request and complaint.
2. The commissions have sometimes allowed the plaintiffs access to records of them and leading the investigation.
3. Truth is not a defense.
4. The accused can not always confront their accusers.
5. Norms to ensure the validity of evidence do not apply.
6. The hearsay evidence is allowed.
7. The government funds the accusers, the accused must defend himself at his own expense.
8. The accusers can not be condemned to pay the costs if they lose.

(Reviews presented by the National Post article "A bit late for introspection" on 19 June 2008.)

Not surprisingly with such rules of procedure that the CHRC is very effective: in 32 years of existence, not an accused person has been found innocent. Even Mark Steyn and Maclean's were not innocent. After a big hype in Canada around this case, the Canadian Commission dismissed the complaint after ruling that there was no need to ask the Tribunal to investigate the case.

Maclean's and Steyn were brought before two other committees, for the same articles by the same students, those from British Columbia and Ontario, whose intervention framework is modeled on their federal cousins. These two appeals were also rejected after a very costly mobilization of a battery of lawyers and officials. All this for an article that was not hateful, but rigorous and factual, while certainly controversial and undoubtedly offensive to some.

Not guilty, but acquitted because famous?

The Ontario Commission stated that it refused to accept the request because the code of personal law of Ontario "does not to the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles by the complaints process." In its statement, the Committee took the opportunity to condemn morally Maclean's and Mark Steyn because "it has a more extensive right to express their views on issues that are brought to its attention and which have implications in perspective of human rights."

The Ontario commission after saying it regretted not being able to continue and restrict freedom of expression of Maclean's and Mark Steyn claimed a sacrosanct "dialogue" now made all the sauces: "This will include d 'take [the Commission] a leadership that will foster discussion and dialogue between individuals and organizations interested in the issues raised by Islamophobia in the media and the means by which the Commission, the media and of others can begin to solve them. "It is likely that, as is often the case when a government talks about" dialogue ", it is unidirectional and is more akin to a series of sermons that an exchange of ideas that can change their ideas bureaucrats.

The Commission continued by saying "concerned by the fact that since September 2001, Islamophobic attitudes are becoming more prevalent in society and that Muslims are increasingly the target of intolerance, including a lack of desire 'look for some accommodation of their religious beliefs and practices.

Unfortunately, the Maclean's article and others like it illustrate that. In describing Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to "the West", this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice towards Muslims and other groups. An extreme example of this is a discussion on a blog on the item that was brought to the attention of the Commission which, among other things, required the killing, deportation or conversion of Muslim Canadians."

And now, the extreme example is the interpretation made by a blog that has no connection with Maclean's and Mark Steyn and he was charged last two. Can we complain to the Canadian Commission for logic?

At the end of the rejection of appeals against him and Maclean's, Steyn has criticized human rights commissions in Canada in these terms "They did not like the pressure that accompanied the case. The lives of these commissions was quiet: they cheerfully punishing people insignificant that no one had ever heard, while accumulating a bizarre case that reversed the principles of our traditional law and nobody worried. When these commissions were under the spotlight in the case of Maclean's, their mock judge rushed to the exit."

Ezra Levant - The process is the punishment

On 11 January 2008, Ezra Levant, publisher of a conservative news magazine, the Western Standard, was interrogated for 90 minutes by a representative of the Alberta government. His crime? Have reproduced the Danish cartoons of Mohammed to illustrate a news article. He was accused of "discrimination" and called before the Commission des droits de l'homme "of Alberta to be interviewed.

Alberta taxpayers have paid more than 500 000% for this survey, which mobilized for up to 900 days almost fifteen (15) bureaucrats on the Commission for Human Rights in Alberta then qu'Ezra Levant and his magazine paid 100 000%.

As Ezra Levant said, the process is the punishment of the system: it is long, very expensive, the defendant always pays his pocket even if he is innocent, the accuser does not pay a penny, the rules of Traditional law does not apply, even if what the defendant said is true, it can still be convicted.

Mr. Levant, including the magazine went bankrupt in the wake of the publication of the cartoons, says its misadventures - and those of companions in misfortune - in the hands of the commission on human rights in his new book Shakedown.

Richard Warman, professional accuser and former employee of the CHRC

It should be here still talk about Richard Warman, the accuser professional CHRC.

Favorite tactic of Richard Warman: to pass on the Internet for a racist and then accuse the site that displays his comments as racist.

In early 2008, this former employee of the CHRC has gone in search of open wireless connections in Ottawa so that he could post racist comments under different pseudonyms on sites allegedly racist and then complain to acknowledge the CHRC and the owner of these sites to be a racist! Whenever Warman spoke to the CHRC, he has won and cashed in a tidy sum for damages. Nice scam. Meanwhile, poor pear which left her open connection saw his name mentioned in the open court, then in the newspapers, as the author of the racist comments.

To learn more about Richard Warman, read the site devoted to it.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission says it will reform itself

Commissions of human rights seem to be gone too far. They have faced them as talented journalists Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn and the largest news magazine in Canada. Since then, the criticisms against them are constantly in English Canada (Quebec, a haven of political complacency correctivas is not interested in this issue).

In 2008, the CHRC has asked a law professor at the University of Windsor Richard Moon to prepare a report on the mandate of the CHRC and section 13 of the Law on Human Rights. In November 2008, Moon has released its report which recommends that section 13 be repealed so that prosecutions for hate speech are no longer clear that the criminal law where the rules of law are guaranteed.

According to Moon, "the use of censorship by the government must be limited to a very narrow category of extremist views that threaten, recommend or justify violence against members of an identifiable group."

Following the tabling of the report Moon, Commissioner (Mark Steyn writes, "Commissar" on Soviet) Chief of the Canadian Human Rights, Jennifer Lynch, was prepared to modify the application of the Article 13.1, but opposed its repeal and submitted its own report in which it recommends specifying what legally constitutes a hate on the Internet and not always condemn the accused (even innocent) to pay the costs.

In an article in the Globe and Mail June 12, Ms. Lynch said it had tabled its report in order to feed a "balanced debate". The same day, the television channel CTV had been invited to debate with Ezra Levant on the human rights commissions out Powerplay, an issue very well attended. Ms. Lynch that fit? She refused to talk with Mr. Levant, then tried to do désinviter. When it does not work, she sent one of his cute (a Mr. Dufresne) with strict instructions: to talk to the same issue before Mr. Levant, and not to discuss with him. This is a balanced dialogue.

Kathy Shaidle summarizes this "debate" in this way: "The Official Censor of Canada is trying to censor a televised debate on censorship."

(See Issue Powerplay in question here.)

As we saw at the beginning of this money, a federal parliamentary committee is currently working on Article 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Should we abolish as many recommend?

This is obviously not agree with Jennifer Lynch. It reacted violently to this criticism at the conference (15 June 2009) CASHRA, the Association of defense of human rights.

The National Post published an article about a page that reproduces excerpts from his speech and dissects.

Ms. Lynch accuses "Critics of the system of human rights to manipulate and represent information in a false light work of committees to promote their point of view, ie that the commissions and courts human rights are no longer anything. "

As the National Post points out, "said that these committees have outlived their usefulness and no longer fulfill their original mission is a perfectly legitimate argument. It is clear that Ms. Lynch did not agree, but it does not deem it in the final. Mais on peut la pardonner de le penser. But it can be forgiven for thinking. Indeed, the CHRC is usually both investigator, prosecutor and judge when it deals with complaints against racism and hate speech. In addition, the Commission decides what constitutes hatred printed or spoken. It is therefore not surprising that Ms. Lynch would not understand why it should tolerate those who want to stop the commission of human rights. In his daily work, it can get rid of those who disagree with it by defining their words as hateful, so why could not do it in a public debate about the rights of citizens and those that should protected?"

In Ottawa, the committee continues to address the human rights commissions in Canada.

Testimony of Mr. Langtry of the CHRC and Mr. Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Link