Canadian Human Rights Tribunal chairman Athanasios Hadjis over-stepped his authority and erred in law when he declared Section 13, Canada's controversial hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression, according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.What a feeble argument. Either the sucker's legit or it isn't. And if it isn't (and it isn't), then the whole thing, penalties and all, must get axed.
Mr. Hadjis's decision to acquit far-right webmaster Marc Lemire last fall after a six-year hate-speech case brought by activist lawyer Richard Warman is the subject of an upcoming appeal in Federal Court, brought by the CHRC.
A major factor in Mr. Hadjis's decision was that Mr. Lemire immediately removed the offending material on learning of the complaint, but Mr. Warman rebuffed efforts at conciliation, and the CHRC continued to push the case toward a tribunal hearing.
In a memorandum filed with the court, CHRC lawyer Margot Blight argues that the manner in which the CHRC pursues hate speech is "irrelevant" to the constitutionality of the law that forbids it, Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
"Any question as to whether the Commission's process is sufficiently conciliatory to meet the requirements of the Charter is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction," the memo reads.
Ms. Blight also argues that the proper course of action, based on Mr. Hadjis's reasoning, was to "sever and refuse to apply" Section 13's penalty provisions, not declare the whole thing unconstitutional...
Will a real judge in a real courtroom fall for this line? I suppose that depends on the judge's ideological leanings. If he or she is someone who is wishy-washy on the subject of free speech and has swallowed the censors' and Official Jews' spin re "hate speech" (i.e. that "evil words lead to evil deeds"), then Queen Bossyboots may well get her power (the power to make you STFU in the name of "civility" and societal "harmony"--don't you pine to live in a bland Utopia like that?) reaffirmed.