From: "Ezra Levant" Subject: Fw: HRCs Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:16:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01C88557.E83CB240" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Unsent: 1 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C88557.E83CB240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: JAG=20 To: JAG=20 Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:04 PM Subject: HRCs ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Martin, Keith - M.P.=20 To: JAG=20 Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:03 PM Subject: RE: HRCs =20 Dear Joe, =20 Thank you for writing me to express your support for the motion I = recently introduced (M-446) regarding section 13(1) of the Canadian = Human Rights Act (CHRA). Good to hear from you! As a Member of = Parliament, I am encouraged that my motion has brought more public = attention to this issue and it is my hope that it will spur action = within Parliament. =20 The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) was created in the 1970s = with laudable objectives. At that time, we still had a society marred = by bigotry and ignorance. As a dark-skinned immigrant myself, I know = from painful, personal experience what it feels like to be on the = receiving end of those beliefs. The Commission was originally created = with the noble intent to investigate when people were allegedly being = discriminated against as they sought employment or housing. However, = the poorly crafted section 13(1) of the CHRA, has enabled the Commission = to move into an entirely different area - investigating, prosecuting and = fining people who communicate anything that someone else takes offence = to. In other words, if an individual feels offended by what somebody = has written, they can go to the Commission, lodge a complaint and the = Commission's lawyers will investigate the case at taxpayers' expense. = Although the plaintiff pays nothing, the defendant must defend = themselves with their own money, and if they are found guilty, they must = pay fines out of their own pocket and can be subjected to lifetime bans = on their ability to talk about certain issues. =20 =20 In the three decades of the CHRC's existence, not a single defendant has = been acquitted; not one. The Commission has a staggering 100% conviction = rate. Interestingly, more than half of the complaints have been = launched by just one person =AD- a former employee of the CHRC. =20 In our country, we already have laws that protect citizens against = slander, libel, discrimination and hate crimes. Civil suits, which are = adjudicated through the courts, are another recourse for people when = these laws are violated. But the Commission is using section 13(1) to = investigate and prosecute people who they deem to have offended = somebody. The Commission incidentally is accountable neither to the = Canadian public, nor Parliament. They have their own rules where the = balance that exists in our courts between prosecutor, judge and jury do = not exist.=20 =20 Thankfully, we have the right in our country to be free of slander, = discrimination and hate crimes. However, we do not have the right to = not be offended. Independent commissions that prosecute people for = writings that do not meet the test of being a hate crime, slander or = libel, is a very slippery slope indeed. To fix the problem, section = 13(1) should be either amended, or deleted entirely. =20 Once again, thank you for taking time to share your thoughts with me. =20 Sincerely, =20 Dr. Keith Martin, P.C., M.P. Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca =20 =20 KM/cw This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C88557.E83CB240 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: JAG
To: JAG
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:04 PM
Subject: HRCs

 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Martin, = Keith -=20 M.P.
To: JAG
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: HRCs

 

Dear  Joe,

 

Thank you for writing me to express = your=20 support for the motion I recently introduced (M-446) regarding section = 13(1) of=20 the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).  Good to=20 hear from you! As a Member of Parliament, I am encouraged = that my=20 motion has brought more public attention to this issue and it is my hope = that it=20 will spur action within Parliament.

 

The Canadian Human Rights Commission = (CHRC) was=20 created in the 1970s with laudable objectives.  At that time, we still had a = society=20 marred by bigotry and ignorance.  = As=20 a dark-skinned immigrant myself, I know from painful, personal = experience what=20 it feels like to be on the receiving end of those beliefs.  The Commission was originally = created=20 with the noble intent to investigate when people were allegedly being=20 discriminated against as they sought employment or housing.  However, the poorly crafted = section=20 13(1) of the CHRA, has enabled the Commission to move into an entirely = different=20 area =96 investigating, prosecuting and fining people who communicate = anything=20 that someone else takes offence to. =20 In other words, if an individual feels offended by what somebody = has=20 written, they can go to the Commission, lodge a complaint and the = Commission=92s=20 lawyers will investigate the case at taxpayers=92 expense.  Although the plaintiff pays = nothing, the=20 defendant must defend themselves with their own money, and if they are = found=20 guilty, they must pay fines out of their own pocket and can be subjected = to=20 lifetime bans on their ability to talk about certain issues. 

 

In the three decades of the CHRC=92s = existence,=20 not a single defendant has been acquitted; not one. The Commission has a = staggering 100% conviction = rate.  Interestingly, more than half = of the=20 complaints have been launched by just one person ­=96 a former = employee of the=20 CHRC.

 

In our country, we already have laws = that=20 protect citizens against slander, libel, discrimination and hate = crimes.  Civil suits, which are = adjudicated=20 through the courts, are another recourse for people when these laws are=20 violated.  But the = Commission is=20 using section 13(1) to investigate and prosecute people who they deem to = have=20 offended somebody.  The = Commission=20 incidentally is accountable neither to the Canadian public, nor = Parliament.  They have their own rules = where the=20 balance that exists in our courts between prosecutor, judge and jury do = not=20 exist.

 

Thankfully, we have the right in our = country to=20 be free of slander, discrimination and hate crimes.  However, we do not have the right to not be=20 offended.  Independent = commissions that prosecute people for writings that do not meet the test = of=20 being a hate crime, slander or libel, is a very slippery slope = indeed.  To fix the problem, section = 13(1) should=20 be either amended, or deleted entirely.

 

Once again, thank you for taking time = to share=20 your thoughts with me.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Keith Martin, P.C.,=20 M.P.

Esquimalt =96 Juan de = Fuca

 

 

KM/cw


This message was checked = by NOD32=20 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

= ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C88557.E83CB240--