Yesterday, Pearl Eliadis, who has been at the trough of the human rights industry for an awfully long time, wrote a letter to the National Post declaring that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did not, in fact, declare section 13, the censorship provision, unconstitutional. Here's Eliadis's letter:
Re: Tribunal Backs Off Hate Provision, Joseph Brean, Sept. 3.
Warman vs. Lemire does not, actually, declare Section 13 to be unconstitutional. What the decision says is that Section 13 is constitutional (following the Supreme Court's Taylor case), but that punitive payments, which go to the government instead of the victim, are inconsistent with the constitution. This is not a "technicality" -- it is the central issue.
Practically, this means that Section 13 cases that only seek cease and desist orders or personal damages to the victim, are still constitutional within the meaning of the ruling.
Given the remedial nature of human rights laws, the legality of the punitive remedy will have to be sorted out in appeal. It is worth mentioning, though, that there are cases from the tribunal going the other way. The constitutionality of punitive damages does not or should not affect the legality of the hate speech law itself.
This is where tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis has erred: Linking the constitutionality of punitive damages to the hate speech law provoked confusion and this is a reason in itself to appeal. The media headlines trumpeting the decision as a blow to hate speech laws are evidence of how badly the reasons were interpreted.
It is one thing for the media -- or anyone else -- to make an honest mistake about a long and complex decision. It is quite another to have a journalist like Joseph Brean, who was specifically told everything that is written above, to distort the central reasoning of the case and misconstrue what I said to him.
Pearl Eliadis, human rights lawyer, Montreal.
Nice try. Here's my short reply in today's Post:
Re: What The Tribunal Ruling Really Means, letter to the editor, Sept. 4.
As a former human rights commission employee, Pearl Eliadis can't bring herself to admit that censorship is a violation of Canadian values. It's understandable -- it must be embarrassing to know that you're part of an industry that has been illegally prosecuting Canadians for years.
In her letter yesterday, Ms. Eliadis is in full denial mode. She writes "Warman vs. Lemire does not, actually, declare Section 13 to be unconstitutional."
Really? Here's the full text of paragraph 295 of the tribunal's landmark ruling this week: "For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire's freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter."
Perhaps Ms. Eliadis thinks she can censor that, too.
Ezra Levant, Calgary.
I think I can do better, though. Eliadis signs her letter as a "human rights lawyer". That's about as accurate as calling the Canadian Human Rights Commission the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Both Eliadis and the CHRC are on a mission to destroy real human rights like freedom of speech and replace them with counterfeit human rights, like the fake right not to be offended.
In other words, I ought to sign my letter "human rights lawyer", too. I think it would be more accurate than when Eliadis does it -- and it would drive her crazy.
