Here is what I gleaned from the following blogs and websites:
The Shotgun blog
Small Dead Animals
Big City Lib Strikes Back
Jay Currie
GenX at 40
Covenant Zone
Ezra Levant
Rob Breakenridge interview of Ezra Levant on CHQR AM 770 (scroll to the bottom)
I will go through the information point by point.
I will post my brief commentary at the end.
The case:
* Marc Lemire was charged with hate speech on his website by Richard Warman
* Before the case went to the Human Rights Tribunal, Lemire had removed all incriminating information from his site
* Lemire spent the better half of five years in this HRT case
* Warman has a history of bringing hate speech cases to the HRCs, and has to date won tens of thousands of dollars in this lucrative "enterprise"
The HRT judge and his ruling:
* Athanasios Hadjis, the HRT judge, has been involved with the HRT for at least five years
* So far, he's had a 100% conviction rate with section 13 (1)
* He didn't rule that that Section 13(1), was unconstitutional
* He did rule that Section 13(1), when combined with the penalty provisions set out in another portion of the Act - Section 54(1) - is unconstitutional, since it violated section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
* So technically, Section 13 (1) still stands. But is "unconstitutional" when in conjunction with the penalty - read thousands of dollars of fines - seeking section 54(1)
* The big question is whether Hadjis has the authority to make constitutional rulings
* According to the National Post: As a statutory tribunal, Mr. Hadjis does not have the legal authority to officially declare a law unconstitutional. But if he finds it would be unconstitutional to enforce it, he can do as he has done, which is to "simply refuse to apply these provisions."
The lawyers:
* Eleven lawyers prosecuting the case
* Two from the Justice Minister’s office
* Four from the CHRC
* Five from the B’nai Brith, Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center
The background to Hadjis' decision:
* Ever since the MacLeans, Steyn and Levant cases at the various national and provincial HRCs, there has been a media blitz focusing on the HRCs
* Levant's book Shakedown, describing his and others' ordeal, and proposing to demolish the HRCs, is a national bestseller
* Shakedown has been glowingly approved by all the mainstream, even left-liberal publications
* High official, such as Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission Jennifer Lynch, have been stumbling in the media, including cancelling debating Ezra Levant on a national television show on CTV
* During Lemire's case, too many "scandalous" stories started coming out, including the HRC hacking into a private citizens internet account to hide their tracks while logging into Neo-Nazi sites
* Hadjis, up to now, had been working on obscure cases, and has had a 100% conviction rate, and lethal fines for the convicted
* With media scrutiny, Levant's new book out, Lemire not backing down for five to six years, Hadjis had to do "something"
The consequence:
* Ultimately, the Federal Court or the Supreme Court are the ones to decide on the actual constitutionality of Section 13
* The Canadian Jewish Congress has already said the case should be appealed
* The losing parties are sure to appeal the case, when it will go before the Federal or Supreme Court
* Another suggestion is that Canadian government (the Conservative Party of Canada) repeal the law
* This could be an election issue, since the Liberal Party leader is shooting for a Fall election
My commentary I will add for now is:
What will the Federal or Supreme court judges do? Is it worth their time to dismantle this institution with which they are aligned?
The case was of the right thing happening for the wrong reasons - the HRT judge got frightened of media scrutiny
Even with section 13 gone, and the HRCs dismantled, will this lessen the types of cases that could be filed based on "hate" or "discrimination" or "racism" etc. I.e. what is the root cause of such kinds of cases being filed?
What provisions will the government put in place to help the kinds of cases described above?
- One that already exists is in the Criminal Code of Canada, which has a Hate Crime Provision
- Another is providing plaintiffs with all kinds of government support such as free lawyers (legal aid), subsidizing their cases, charitable organizations raising funds for such cases, etc.
