Connie Fournier wrote:The way I see it, it is win-win for us. Either we get our constitutional challenge, or the CHRC gets a black eye.
Jay Currie wrote:And be prepared, in the event of any dismissal for the Dawg, Jackal and BCL as well as the lesser vultures and the coward Lynch to proclaim this as an example of the "human rights system" working. And there is where, win or lose, we have to push back hard.
Connie Fournier wrote:Jay Currie wrote:And be prepared, in the event of any dismissal for the Dawg, Jackal and BCL as well as the lesser vultures and the coward Lynch to proclaim this as an example of the "human rights system" working. And there is where, win or lose, we have to push back hard.
They can try that, but it will be pretty hard for them to get away with it. They have defamed Marc Lemire for two years calling him a Nazi, a racist, a white supremacist etc.
If this is dismissed and they try to say it is evidence that the system works, my response will be that they can't have it both ways. Either the system "worked" because an innocent man is vindicated, or an evil Nazi is free to taunt people with the immigrant poem because the system failed. They can't say the system worked and continue to lie about Lemire being a Nazi.
They've painted themselves into a corner with their libel of Marc Lemire.
Dogpatch wrote:I want to understand this.
If Lemire wins against Warmen, he cannot take the rest of his complaint to the SCOC.
If the above is correct, can't he otherwise sue them (Warmen, CHRC etc... ) for libel, slander, etc? In their defence, wouldn't they have to open everything they have on Lemire (and possibly Mark and Connie, the FD 8 etc)?
bojamajams wrote:It doesn't seem to make sense that he could win an 'abuse of process claim' because the conclusion says: "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."
Anybody know if he can get a costs remedy though? I really hope so...
And what steps could be taken to get the legislation removed altogether now?
free_life2 wrote:Official Jew 2b's 'official' response.
Sep 02, 2009 - Canadian Jewish Congress says Lemire case decision wrong in law
TORONTO- Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) said today it believes the decision in the case of Warman v. Lemire is wrong in law and should be appealed. CJC also noted it believes section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) remains constitutional.
The case involves a complaint filed against Marc Lemire, webmaster of freedomsite.org, by Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, for a number of alleged antisemitic postings on Lemire's web site.
"We are pleased that Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Member Athanasios Hadjis found that some of the material posted by Lemire violated s. 13 of the CHRA. However, we strongly disagree with his decision not to impose a cease and desist order because he believed the penalty provisions in the Act render s. 13 unconstitutional," said Joel Richler, CJC National Honourary Legal Counsel.
"Reasonable people can differ regarding the penalty provisions of the Act - that is a matter for the Federal Court of Canada to determine," said Richler.
"The Supreme Court of Canada clearly ruled that s. 13 was constitutional long before the penalty provisions were added to it. As such, Mr. Hadjis should have simply ignored the penalty provisions and applied the appropriate cease and desist order against Mr. Lemire," he added.
"This action is known as the doctrine of 'reading out' - a well-established practice endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada under which the portion of a law that may be unconstitutional is edited out but the remaining constitutional elements are applied. Mr. Hadjis should have 'read out' of section 13(1) the penalty provisions and preserved the rest of the section. Mr. Hadjis failed to consider this option, even though the Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that section 13(1) is perfectly constitutional," Richler explained.
"This was a decision by a single member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. We should recall that there have been two previous decisions by the Tribunal that rejected the constitutional challenges to s. 13. In order to clarify the law, we strongly urge the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Mr. Warman to appeal this decision," CJC CEO Bernie Farber said.
- 30 -
National Director of Community Relations
Canadian Jewish Congress
Not at all. Tribunals are fond of referring to 'two-part tests', eg:bojamajams wrote:Or am I putting too much emphasis on the 'repeatedly' part?
Users browsing this forum: TurnitinBot [Bot] and 1 guest