| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
 Harry Abrams
Joined: 22 Jul 2009 Total posts: 388 Gender: Male
|
 Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 10:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Good story Ed. Funny...it made me think of Richard Warman for a moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
Edward Kennedy
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 Total posts: 11866 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Connie Fournier wrote: | So, your point is that you think we should shut up if the government decides to appeal Warman vs Lemire, Edward?
I must say that surprises me. |
No, my point is that there is a time to holler and a time to keep quiet, that is, it is best to keep quiet until the bad guys have ridden to the pass and have to go through it single file, then you pick em off one by one.
_________________
Please let me know if I said something that offended you. I may want to offend you again sometime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Abrams
Joined: 22 Jul 2009 Total posts: 388 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 4:55 pm Post subject: CHRC Won't Wait for Lemire Appeal |
|
|
Abrams and BBC v. Topham and Radical Press - Position of the Commission
Dear Tribunal and Parties,
We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.
It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.
In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).
Yours truly,
Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Canadian Human Rights Commission |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Narrow Back
Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Total posts: 2106 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 5:18 pm Post subject: Re: CHRC Won't Wait for Lemire Appeal |
|
|
| Harry Abrams wrote: |
Abrams and BBC v. Topham and Radical Press - Position of the Commission
Dear Tribunal and Parties,
We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.
It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.
In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).
Yours truly,
Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Canadian Human Rights Commission |
Let's see if I understand this. They want to go ahead, even without section 54(1)(a) - the money. If need be, they will only pursue a section 13 charge. They hope to leave the door on 54 open. Right?
_________________
I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
John Diefenbaker (From the Canadian Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mark Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 15061 Location: Kingston, ON Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: CHRC Won't Wait for Lemire Appeal |
|
|
| Narrow Back wrote: | | Harry Abrams wrote: |
Abrams and BBC v. Topham and Radical Press - Position of the Commission
Dear Tribunal and Parties,
We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.
It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.
In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).
Yours truly,
Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Canadian Human Rights Commission |
Let's see if I understand this. They want to go ahead, even without section 54(1)(a) - the money. If need be, they will only pursue a section 13 charge. They hope to leave the door on 54 open. Right? |
It looks like the CHRC plans to continue the punishment by process available to them via Section 13. I wouldn't put it past the CHRC to try to distinguish between the penalty they impose on the respondent (payable to the state) and an 'award' for hurt feelings and such to the complainant. They might try to duck Hadjis that way and still accomplish the same things.
_________________
"If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you. If you are willing to use violence to impose your ideas on your fellow man, you are a menace to society." - Entropy Squared |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Abrams
Joined: 22 Jul 2009 Total posts: 388 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: CHRC Won't Wait for Lemire Appeal |
|
|
| Narrow Back wrote: |
Let's see if I understand this. They want to go ahead, even without section 54(1)(a) - the money. If need be, they will only pursue a section 13 charge. They hope to leave the door on 54 open. Right? |
Close but not quite. They agree (with the Hadlis decision) that the money punishment clause that is 54(1) is unconstitutional, and wish to proceed to see if Topham offends Section 13.
Similar to, but just a wee step further than the latest B'nai Brith position.
Now we just have to clean up the hearing dates. Apparently there's a problem with December, but we're still presumably a go for the week of Jan. 11.
It's possible that we'll do the merits then and maybe the constitutional challenge at a later date.
If you'd like to help with the legal and travel expenses, please make your partially tax-deductible donation cheques out to:
B'nai Brith Canada
League For Human Rights Legal Fund (Abrams & BBC V. Topham)
15 Hove St., Toronto, Ontario, M3H 4Y8
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Abrams
Joined: 22 Jul 2009 Total posts: 388 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: CHRC Won't Wait for Lemire Appeal |
|
|
| Mark Fournier wrote: |
It looks like the CHRC plans to continue the punishment by process available to them via Section 13. I wouldn't put it past the CHRC to try to distinguish between the penalty they impose on the respondent (payable to the state) and an 'award' for hurt feelings and such to the complainant. They might try to duck Hadjis that way and still accomplish the same things. |
The CHRC doesn't impose anything. The CHRT calls the shots now. And there is indeed a discretionary penalty available for retaliation. And we have asked for this to be considered
Retaliation was not an issue in Lemire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maikeru
Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Total posts: 4374 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
“There were not six million Jews murdered; there was one murder, six million times.” — Holocaust survivor Abel Herzberg
"Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like." - Chesterton - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: CHRC Won't Wait for Lemire Appeal |
|
|
| Harry Abrams wrote: | | Mark Fournier wrote: |
It looks like the CHRC plans to continue the punishment by process available to them via Section 13. I wouldn't put it past the CHRC to try to distinguish between the penalty they impose on the respondent (payable to the state) and an 'award' for hurt feelings and such to the complainant. They might try to duck Hadjis that way and still accomplish the same things. |
The CHRC doesn't impose anything. The CHRT calls the shots now. And there is indeed a discretionary penalty available for retaliation. And we have asked for this to be considered
Retaliation was not an issue in Lemire. |
Retaliation was the WHOLE issue in Lemire.
The complaint was processed because Lemire dared question the CHRC's actions against others.
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edward Kennedy
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 Total posts: 11866 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 7:10 pm Post subject: Re: CHRC Won't Wait for Lemire Appeal |
|
|
| fourhorses wrote: | | Harry Abrams wrote: | | Mark Fournier wrote: |
It looks like the CHRC plans to continue the punishment by process available to them via Section 13. I wouldn't put it past the CHRC to try to distinguish between the penalty they impose on the respondent (payable to the state) and an 'award' for hurt feelings and such to the complainant. They might try to duck Hadjis that way and still accomplish the same things. |
The CHRC doesn't impose anything. The CHRT calls the shots now. And there is indeed a discretionary penalty available for retaliation. And we have asked for this to be considered
Retaliation was not an issue in Lemire. |
Retaliation was the WHOLE issue in Lemire.
The complaint was processed because Lemire dared question the CHRC's actions against others. |
chrc's are cowards, bullies and fascists. One cannot expect any typeset of justice from such scum of the earth and as I said, I had relatives in the last two Great Wars who shot better people than they are. They defended freedom and these inquisitors with their fascist politically correct bent do NOT MAKE JUDGMENTS, but impose their damned opinions.
_________________
Please let me know if I said something that offended you. I may want to offend you again sometime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jay Currie Joined: 02 Apr 2009 Total posts: 86 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now, as I recall, there is an application to dismiss before the Tribunal. Which, normally (and normal is not a trait of the 'roos) would have to be decided prior to the commencement of any hearing.
Topham, Abrams and BB, Christie as an intervenor and now the Commission have stated their positions.
Now I suspect the Tribunal will have to state its. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter O'Donnell
Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Total posts: 7995 Location: BC Age: 60 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "Honey, I know prostitution is wrong, but the call girl is just going to ride around in the car with me, and we're not going to have sex." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maikeru
Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Total posts: 4374 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The CHRC wants to ensure that B'nai Brith and the CHRT don't duck their fair share of public approbrium...
_________________
“There were not six million Jews murdered; there was one murder, six million times.” — Holocaust survivor Abel Herzberg
"Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like." - Chesterton - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 21101 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If they are asking for the "traditional" Cease and Desist Order, they are asking for a punishment that is worse than any fines they've imposed.
A Cease and Desist Order is nothing but a delayed ticket to prison.
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Abrams
Joined: 22 Jul 2009 Total posts: 388 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 30/ 09 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter O'Donnell wrote: | | "Honey, I know prostitution is wrong, but the call girl is just going to ride around in the car with me, and we're not going to have sex." |
Too much information.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
|
|
