OUR FIGHT FOR FREEDOMS
BEGAN IN JULY 2007
Free Dominion has spent thousands of dollars fighting human rights investigators and in bringing the actions of human rights tribunals to public attention.
In late 2006 a casual browser on the Free Dominion web site decided that posts by a member could be considered discriminatory by the members of a minority group and filed a complaint with the CHRC. The complainant was not a member of the minority group and was no complaining on her own behalf.
In July 2007 the CHRC advised Free Dominion that it was under investigation. Our members were incensed and undertook hundreds of hours of research to establish what the Canadian Human Rights Commission was, how it operates, what similar cases had been investigated and what the result was.
What our members unearthed appalled us. We found out that the majority of similar cases had been filed by a single complainant, and that the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal had never failed to convict someone investigated for alleged ‘hate crimes’.
Our members felt that the complainant was engaged in a witch hunt using the CHRC to punish those he disagrees with and reacted vocally and angrily. They were appalled at the methods and practises of the complainant and the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
The CHRC suddenly announced that the complaint against Free Dominion had been withdrawn and that the investigation was ended. We have been unable to establish any details respecting the complaint, or of the CHRC investigation.
We waited for ’the other shoe’ to drop, convinced that the attack on Free Dominion was not over.
WE WERE NOT DISAPPOINTED
In November, 2007 the CHRC serial complainant commenced an action against us alleging that the Free Dominion and eight members had libelled him with remarks on the web site.
The action sat dormant until last fall when the plaintiff demanded that we provide him with the names and other personal details of the Free Dominion members referred to in the libel action.
We opposed the motion as there was no proof of any libel or other wrong-doing, only the unproven contentions contained in the plaintiff’s statement of claim. We went to court and the court ruled against us.
THE COURT DECISION
AND OUR
POLITICIZED COURTS
In a decision on the plaintiff's Motion before the Ontario Superior Court, Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman, in his reasons for decision, made the following statement:
[33] In the case before the court, we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service.
This statement is astonishing as the reputations of the parties were not at issue in the hearing. Neither side had made submissions on reputation. The comment is extraneous and outside the facts before the court.
Justice Kershman’s comments politicize the case at bar to the prejudice of the defendants. There is no clear, impartial and universally accepted measurement of what does and does not constitute a ‘controversial’ web site. No evidence was presented for consideration by the court.
Likewise, there was no evidence presented to the court that the plaintiff is an ‘anti-hate speech advocate’. He may be, but no evidence for the assertion was presented to the court for consideration.
The comment in the motion decision has politicized and prejudiced the case at the bar and prevents an unbiased hearing of facts at trial. Our justice system cannot allow its courts to engage in character assassination during interim proceedings.
A statement of claim is a declaration by a plaintiff that he intends to present certain evidence to the court in support of his claim but does not empower the plaintiff in any way.
The only means to review Justice Kershman’s decisions and rationale is by appeal. It is critical that the appeal be made to prevent this decision from standing as precedent as presented. We cannot allow a court to politicize a case, to be prejudiced by a statement of claim or to bring in extraneous commentary prejudicial to either side.
Protect Our Charter Rights
Censorship is an enemy of democracy, freedom and liberty; the things we hold most dear.
The Internet and our charter rights to the freedoms of belief, conscience, expression and religion are under attack. Internet forum hosts, including media outlets, are being attacked for allowing citizens to express their opinions and views on events, issues and news of the day.
Political correctness has run amok. We have Human Rights Commissions hunting for people who may have made utterances likely to expose a person or persons to contempt. We have various individuals and groups attempting to censor those whose beliefs or opinions they disagree with. We have censorship based on PC: “You can’t say that.” Incredible!
Democracy is messy. That is why it works. Canadians are exposed to a wide variety of beliefs and views. Our politicians express views that cause us to alternately cheer and jeer. It is no accident that parliamentarians enjoy the privilege of speaking their minds in the House and Senate free from concern over accusations of libel or slander. In heated exchanges, political correctness is forgotten along with decorum and manners.
Our society has always contained a smattering of rebellious people who hold beliefs and views that are shunned by the mainstream. We are not fragile flowers in need of a soothing hand when we are exposed to repulsive or vulgar actions and ideas. If we were, few of us could survive a week of the evening news or the ‘entertainment’ that pollutes the airwaves.
A healthy society must be exposed to opinion it may find repulsive. Citizens need to be able to counter views they find objectionable. Our politicians have stage managed elections to the point that from writ drop to voting day, no citizen voices are heard. The dialogue is restricted to exchanges between politicians and political party spokesmen. Ordinary citizens, electors, are left out and increasingly refuse to participate in a process that shuts out their opinions.
Internet forums, in particular political forums and blogs, are the last refuge of sane patriots, people who care about our nation and our society, people who want to examine issues and seek solutions, people who want to share their ideas and views and hone their knowledge of issues so they can write an informed letter to their paper or representative, and vote with confidence.
Politicians may have shut out the views of electors, in particular views they do not want to deal with, but electors have not shut out politicians. The Internet allows citizens to come together across vast distances and work together to influence our politics and governance. That makes politicians, political parties and vested interests nervous, which is as it should be.
Efforts to censor Internet dialogue amongst law-abiding citizens must end.
Connie & Mark Fournier
Connie and Mark Fournier founded the Free
Dominion web site in January 2001. Although
the site is dedicated to promoting principled
conservatism, its 9,300 (and growing)
membership represents diverse religious
and political beliefs. Members visit to discuss
and debate a wide range of local, national
and international issues and news items from
across Canada and throughout the world.
OUR CHARTER RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK
Free Dominion is under attack for allowing its members to express their opinions and views openly. The web site and some members are accused of libel for expressing their opinions of those who attempt to censor and stifle commentary that they disagree with. The tactic is known as a legal chill and the objective is to run up legal bills for the defendants.
Debate and dialogue on issues of concern cannot be restricted to campaigning politicians or stifled by individuals or groups with an agenda. A healthy democracy requires that we argue and debate with those who seek to make changes to our society, its standards and values.
Canada has tens of thousands of people who have fled nations where they cannot speak freely without the risk of prison, torture or worse. Our freedoms to believe and worship as we wish have been bought by the blood of generations.
Attacks on our freedoms using ill-conceived legislation, quasi-judicial panels with no respect for the principles of justice and the misuse of our courts are no different than an attack on our freedoms at the point of a gun. Join our battle against tyranny.
This is a battle to preserve our freedoms that we can all join in and must not lose for the sake of future generations. Our duty is to pass on intact the freedoms we grew up enjoying.
If you believe in judicial impartiality, the principles of fundamental justice and in our equality before and under the law, please support the appeal of this decision by visiting www.freedominion,caGOVERNMENT RIGHTS AGENCIES
DESTROY OUR
FUNDAMANTAL FREEDOMS.
Our fundamental, constitutionally protected freedoms of belief, expression, religion and thought are not protected by governments sworn to uphold our constitution and the rule of law. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of our Constitution since 1982, protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of individual citizens from intrusion by the state.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UDHR), enacted in December 1948, protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals. Canada subscribes to the UN universal human rights declaration.
The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) was passed into law in 1977. We assume that the CHRA closely follows the UDHR but the CHRA does not prohibit discrimination based on birth, language, political or other opinion and property while the UDHR does. The CHRA prohibits discrimination based on age, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted while the UDHR does not.
The federal Human Rights Act was not the template for provincial legislation. The federal government was late to the ball. Every province except Saskatchewan had passed human rights legislation prior to the federal government. Legislation was enacted:: Ontario (1962); Nova Scotia (1963); Alberta (1966); New Brunswick (1967); Prince Edward Island (1968); Newfoundland (1969); British Columbia (1969); Manitoba (1970); Québec (1975); the Federal Government (1977); Saskatchewan (1980); Yukon (2002); Northwest Territories (2003); and Nunavut (2003)
The Criminal Code of Canada Sections 318 through 321.1 deal with hate crimes and hate propaganda. CHRA sections 12 and 13 duplicate sanctions against hate propaganda expanded as shown below and without any of the protections for an accused built into the criminal justice system. There is no valid reason or acceptable excuse for the duplication.
DEPARTURES FROM
RIGHTS LEGISLATION
There are three other major differences between the CHRA and other rights and freedoms legislation:
The language of the CHRA extends protection to groups of individuals and is thus divisive and open to abuse if all groups are not treated equally, which is the case at present.
The CHRC extends prohibited discrimination to include any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The CHRA allows investigation and prosecution of a complaint in respect of which no particular individual is identifiable as the victim.
The government extended the CHRA to include Internet messaging when Bill C-36 passed into law in December 2001. Bill C-36 was described by the government as: an Act to combat terrorism (Anti-terrorism Act).
ORWELLIAN ABSURDITY
Our governments have created the absurd situation where someone can conclude that an Internet posting may possibly cause someone to feel that he is the subject of contempt and file a complaint with the CHRC. The spokesman for a group can conclude that a posting may cause some members to feel the subject of contempt and file a complaint. There is no need for the complainant to be directly involved, to show that any harm has been done or to prove that there are real victims. The CHRC will investigate imaginary harm to imaginary victims as if it was real.
Christians are under increasing attack as someone claims to be offended, or that his religious beliefs are compromised by public references to God, Christian prayers, the Commandments, or by Christian artefacts and displays. There is no consideration for the offence to the Christian.
Once a decision is made to proceed with a complaint, the CHRC can pursue an accused with vigour, and has the power to obtain a search warrant to obtain any information that it seeks. The respondent must undertake the costs of legal advice and defence. The system is thus open to abuse as a complainant has no ongoing costs of prosecution. The investigation process is punitive to the accused.
The CHRC usually initiates an investigation by demanding that an accused provide it with information about himself in direct violation of Charter Section 11 (c): Any person charged with an offence has the right … c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence…
The CHRC powers to obtain a search warrant and seize records, which would include computers and related equipment, is a powerful and coercive incentive for an accused to give up his Charter right and provide the information demanded.
When the CHRC completes an investigation, and despite CHRA provisions for arbitration of a complaint, every case involving an Internet blog or forum has been referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) for prosecution.
The CHRT ignores our common-law based legal system entirely and operates in an Orwellian fantasy land.
An accused is denied disclosure of the case against him and cannot learn the rules of the hearing as each chairperson is given the authority to set the rules for that hearing on the fly during the proceedings. A Tribunal has ruled that telling the truth is not a legitimate defence at hearings. A Tribunal has listened to evidence that the freedom of expression is an American concept, not valid in Canada.
It is no wonder that the CHRC has ruled against the accused in every CHRA Section 13 (1) case it has considered. A contributing factor is that almost every person accused has lacked the means to hire and be represented by competent legal counsel.
Also troubling are recent CHRT rulings that not only require an accused to refrain from speaking to the subject of complaint for life, but also to impose fines that have been diverted to the complainant to offset alleged expenses. Since the CHRC and CHRT operate independently at public cost and do not require participation of the complainant, it is hard to imagine what costs a complainant could incur unless he was actively participating in allegedly independent processes.
NO VALID EXCUSES
The Canadian Human Rights Act is very bad law. There is no excuse for a law that allows the prosecution of a citizen for having caused imaginary harm to imaginary people or that allows the prosecution of a citizen for having offended another person. No Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights or Human Rights legislation anywhere else in the world provides a person or group with protection from feeling offended.
The freedoms of the chosen groups supported by the CHRC are having their freedoms undermined. When the freedoms of a citizen are overridden to assuage the hurt feelings of a visible minority, we all lose. In future, a person facing discrimination will have no recourse as the fundamental freedoms he should enjoy has been subverted to the power of the group.
The HRTs have made it clear that membership in a visible minority trumps the rights and freedoms of the individual. If HRC/HRTs are allowed to continue unchecked, individual freedoms and rights will be replaced by a competition amongst groups of individuals for power over our society.
If we consider the Charter in our constitution to be the benevolent Dr. Jekyll there is no question that the HRC/HRTs are the evil Mr. Hyde. We need to exorcise those sections of the CHRC that allow Mr. Hyde to exist.
REQUIRED REVISIONS
The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) is clearly set out in the Act:
The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
There is no provision in this purpose, nor should there be, for the protection of groups of any sort, and there is no provision in this purpose for protecting people from contempt. The person whose actions or behaviour invited contempt and derision may seek to claim discrimination, but is standing on quicksand and is unworthy of protection.
Groups of individuals cannot be protected under human rights legislation. Human rights, along with our fundamental charter rights and freedoms, rest with the individual.
Human Rights Commissions have adopted the approach that someone claiming discrimination is correct if he or she is a member of a visible minority and in effect requiring that an accused prove his or her innocence.
Canadian Human Rights Tribunals operate with no consistent rules of order or rules respecting evidence. It is impossible for an accused to properly defend himself when he cannot know what evidence may and may not be presented and cannot establish the rules of procedure.
Despite having an alleged through investigation by the CHRC, Tribunals routinely refuse to provide an accused with disclosure of evidence held against him, choosing instead to develop evidence during the hearing. While it may make for good theatre, it results in failed attempts at justice.
There is nothing in the Canadian Human Rights Act that requires Tribunal members to be impartial in their hearing and decision on a case. There is nothing that required a member of the Tribunal to recues themselves from a case in which they have a direct interest.
These are serious breaches of the fundamental principles of justice, and must be addressed.PROTECTING OUR
FREEDOMS FROM
GOVERNMENT AGENTS
The Canadian Human Rights Act is very bad law. There is no excuse for a law that allows the prosecution of a citizen for having caused imaginary harm to imaginary people. There is no excuse for a law that allows the prosecution of a citizen for having offended another person. No Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or Human Rights legislation anywhere else in the world provides a person, let alone groups and persons unnamed, with protection from feeling offended.
The freedoms of the chosen groups supported by the CHRC are having their freedoms undermined by the sponsors they hold so dear.
When the freedoms of a citizen are overridden to assuage the hurt feelings of a visible minority, we all lose. Down the road, a person facing discrimination will have no recourse as the fundamental freedom he or she should enjoy has been subverted to the power of the group.
The HRCs are undermining a very important fundamental human right which is the right to equality before and under the law. The HRTs have made it very clear that membership in a visible minority group trumps the rights and freedoms of the individual. If HRC/HRTs are allowed to continue unchecked, individual freedoms and rights will disappear and be replaced by a competition amongst groups of individuals for power over our society.
If we consider the Charter in our constitution to be the benevolent Dr. Jekyll there is no question that the HRC/HRTs are the evil Mr. Hyde. We need to exorcise those sections of the CHRC that allow Mr. Hyde to exist.
The CHRC fails to protect the ultimate minority - the individual, and is thus a fraud.
REQUIRED REVISIONS
The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) is clearly set out in the Act:
The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
The intent is to protect individuals from discrimination that would infringe on their equality as citizens and prevent them from enjoying an equal opportunity to prosper to the limit of their abilities within the framework of their duties and responsibilities as citizens.
There is no provision in this purpose, nor should there be, for the protection of groups of any sort, and there is no provision in this purpose for protecting people from contempt. The person whose actions or behaviour invited contempt and derision may seek to claim discrimination, but is standing on quicksand and is unworthy of protection.
Groups of individuals cannot be protected under human rights legislation. Human rights, along with our fundamental charter rights and freedoms, rest with the individual. Human Rights Commissions have adopted the approach that someone claiming discrimination is correct if he or she is a member of a visible minority and in effect requiring that an accused prove his or her innocence.
Canadian Human Rights Tribunals operate with no consistent rules of order or rules respecting evidence. It is very difficult if not impossible for an accused to properly defend himself when he cannot know what evidence may and may not be presented and cannot establish the rules of procedure. Despite having an alleged through investigation by the CHRC, Tribunals routinely refuse to provide an accused with disclosure of evidence held against him, choosing instead to develop evidence during the hearing. While it may make for good theatre, it results in failed attempts at justice.
Members of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are not required to be apolitical or to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest. There is nothing in the Canadian Human Rights Act that requires Tribunal members to be impartial in their hearing and decision on a case. There is nothing that required a member of the Tribunal to recues themselves from a case in which they have a direct interest. These are serious breaches of the fundamental principles of justice, and must be addressed.
At a minimum, the Canadian
Human Rights Act requires
the following amendments:
1. A requirement that Canadian Human Rights Tribunal members be politically neutral and recuse themselves when they face a conflict of interest;
2. Removal of any and all references to groups and groups of people;
3. A requirement that an investigation or inquiry cannot proceed without the authorization of an injured party when the complainant is not an injured party;
4. Removal of the provision for the CHRC to undertake an investigation or inquiry when there is no complaint;
5. Removal of the provision for an investigation or inquiry when no particular individual is identifiable as a victim;
6. A requirement for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to publish its rules of evidence and rules of order for a hearing; and
7. Strike sections 12 and 13 from the CHRA – hate crimes including publications are already covered by the Criminal Code and the duplication is gratuitous and dangerous in a free democracy.
The Canadian Human Rights Act came into force in 1977, five years prior to enactment of the 1982 Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the Criminal Code has been amended as a result of a barrage of Charter challenges, there has been no similar spate of Charter challenges to the CHRA in part because accused persons do not have the funds to mount a court challenge while criminals have the advantage of having their challenges funded by legal aid. That increases the responsibility of our legislators to review and amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that its provisions and operations are not in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If someone was charged under the Criminal Code hate crimes provisions and the case was then turned over to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a hearing and decision, the protest would reverberate in the media for months. That should tell legislators that they cannot continue to ignore the monstrosity they have created.
IF YOU LOVE YOUR LIBERTY
AND FREEDOMS,
JOIN US IN THE BATTLE
TO PRESERVE THEM
If you believe in judicial impartiality, the principles of fundamental justice and in our equality before and under the law, please support the appeal of this decision by visiting www.freedominion,ca
