HATE CRIMES CANADA – BOUT TWO
Admonition: It is best you familiarize yourself with Canadian Law through this second posting and the subsequent articles to follow between now and 2017. “For he whom God hath sent speaks the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loves the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:34-36)
For many of you 2017 shall present the last opportunity to avoid eternal wrath; and your pathway of escape shall only be through seeing to correct application of Canadian hate/bias crime laws effecting your personal choices of existence.
While opinion is rampant on both sides of the hate/bias crimes fence, ultimately it shall be existing legislation and laws that will determine your future in Canada be you Christian or heathen. Opinions are of little value in an arena that ultimately demands the weaponry of fact, for while opinions are often “the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing”; the Oxford dictionary states them to be “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” Pro or Con you need to be factually correct about hate/bias crime and cannot continue to swim in a cultural sea of ‘weasel opinions’.
So, what do we consider weasel opinions? Whether pro or con they are unsupported opinions often prefaced by such claims as… some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it is often said … and blah, blah, blah.
Most persons automatically assume that referencing the OPP Hate/Bias Crimes statistics is more reliable than going to Wikipedia, but why do we assume this? “Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.”
Weasel opinions seep in through both OPP and Wiki sources that are affecting their results and it is an individual responsibility for all to distance themselves from whatever might be weasel opinion. For myself this is a simple process for whatever contradicts the written Word of God in the King James Bible is weasel opinion no matter how it is disguised.
Now, I consider the following to be factual and I will ultimately prove it so through the arena of hate/bias crimes I am dragging you into. It is fact there are special treatments given Gender-based crimes when considered as hate crime; and there are special treatments given perceived hate crimes toward Islamic based interest groups. These special status factors are clearly violating the Canadian hate propaganda legislation and laws as currently exist and are being deliberately manipulated by persons of ill cultural intents. And thus, the blah, blah war of weasel opinion wages onward about hate propaganda legislation.
In general, the arguments against existing hate propaganda legislation are centered around perceived threats to an individuals’ human rights and freedoms of expression. Some alarmists believe that it is too difficult to draw the lines of such legal restrictions, that once started down such pathway a societal crash is unavoidable through manipulations by special interest groups.
Once enacted, hate propaganda legislation may be abused and used against those to whom it was not originally intended to apply, but this does lessen the need for such legal parameters in our society. What has to be equally applied are the monitoring and legal checks against such abuses.
There was a time the purveyors of hate propaganda were only of marginal importance and generalized legislative measures appeared sufficient, but this is no longer so with the impact they now have on the body politic. Strengthened laws are probably needed to deal with them for society is being further divided as groups apply to have their critics silenced through charges of hate/bias crimes. But, to hesitate prosecuting hate propagandists because it enables them to use the courtroom as the medium to further disseminate their ideas is sheer stupidity. And even more moronic is the psycho-drivel that claims the non-penalized distribution of hate propaganda has a cathartic or safety valve effect on our society.
However, what appears perhaps saner opposition to some hate crime laws states them in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics. Some go so far as to assert that it conflicts with our more fundamental right of free thought. This is particularly evidenced when such fundamental Christian religious beliefs as surrounding sexuality are being classified as illegal.
Support for hate crime laws and many of the arguments in favor of hate propaganda legislation appear too generalized, such as “numerous reports and legislative enactments indicate a consensus as to the legitimacy of using the law against hate propaganda.” Or, “many other Western liberal democracies have anti-hate propaganda legislation.” And, “Canada must fulfil its international obligations by enacting hate propaganda legislation. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, to all of which Canada is a signatory, oblige Canada to combat racism and the advocacy of genocide and racial superiority.” Such appeals have their elements of truth, but it is the reality of laws on the books and their evidence of application that pictures our present reality.
In advancing their causes the Pro Side makes repeated claims of justification due to claims of egalitarian legislation imbued in sections 15 and 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This same Charter is claimed as basis for stating that Canada is a multicultural society and that this multiculturalism is accepted as a basic constitutional norm. We shall examine this Charter for the same article sources also state: “Rights are never absolute – in Canada they are exercised under law – legal intervention is justified in some circumstances.” Yes, legal intervention is justified in many circumstances! But, if not all citizens have an absolute right to the legislated Rights and Freedoms then Canada is in dire straits and must stop wandering about in the delusion that it somehow occupies a special legal cultural empowerment beneficial to every citizen and other nations should emulate.
This term empowerment can be duplicitous, often leading to acceptance of measures designed by self-interest groups to increase their own autonomy, self-determination and ability to act on their own authority. Such is the case in the Islamic thrust for sharia and Rainbow Coalition advance of all queer agendas.
The term empowerment is stated to originate from American psychology as if this somehow makes the claimed actions of empowerment truly beneficial. Empowerment as action refers both to the process of self-empowerment and to the professional support of people by government and other agencies. This is supposed to enable them to overcome their sense of powerlessness and lack of influence in the society in general. This is supposed to be for the ultimate good of all, and people dependent upon tax dollars for their living push this idea as being a practical approach of resource-oriented intervention. This empowerment is supposedly good way to expend your tax dollars. And, an even more grandiose claim for such empowerment is that it is the best educational tool to increase the responsibility of the truly democratic, egalitarian, multi-cultural Canadian citizen. This claim is self-serving special interest group crap.
It Matters Who Is Educating Who and How They Are Doing It
“Intelligence Services, Hate Crime Unit remains dedicated to the achievement of its complementary objectives: the prevention and thorough investigation of hate/bias motivated offences and the pro-active education of others to enable them to recognize and combat hate. Our goal is to encourage mutual acceptance amongst communities and to safeguard the freedoms, safety and dignity of all persons as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”
An idea has been planted and matured that some individuals or groups suffer disproportionate harm due to their ethnicity, sexual orientation or particular spiritual platform. Most of this is comprised of information filtered through the bipartisan lens of the ‘special interest groups’ that claim they are more greatly affected by hate/bias than their fellow citizens. Theirs is garbage can ‘motivated reasoning’ designed to create ‘bias blind spots’ where you only truly hear what you ‘want to believe is true’. When a person is occupied in such a mental mind set they end up squabbling from a base of personal values, while thinking they are actually dealing from a basis of facts. In the ongoing blah, blah, blah entailed there has emerged opinions both pro and con as to the reality and need for hate/bias crime laws. But, be assured such laws are needed in our multi-cultural swap of personal ideals.
Community and Individual Impacts
It is claimed that hate/bias motivated crimes have longer lasting serious side-effects for society as a whole. It is stated a hate/bias motivated crime not only victimizes the individual, but also the entire group that individual belongs to, resulting in the increased isolation, stress and vulnerability of that particular group. As well, it is stated if police do not respond to reports of hate/bias crimes immediately and appropriately, these crimes can lead to increased social conflict between opposing groups and possible retaliation. As well, it is claimed that conversely, a timely and effective police response can have a positive and lasting influence on the relationship between police and various communities. Positive relationships such as these are supposed to have the ability to provide extensive benefits in other aspects of public safety. What these other aspects of public safety are visibly comprised of seems illusionary at best.
Communities are comprised of divergent ethnic individuals, and while it is stated hate/bias crimes have a disproportionately greater effect on their victims than other types of crimes, all individuals are impacted differently. The particular cultural background of the individual certainly influences the degree of reaction to any type of crime they may become enmeshed with.
But, from the murky depths of psychology and sociology, the claim is made that when the core of a person’s identity is attacked through hate/bias crime, that degradation and dehumanization of the individual occurs. An action of dehumanization purportedly describes a behavior or process that undermines individuality of and in others. It is the exhibiting of a disposition towards others that debases the others’ or acts inhumanely towards them through disruption of social norms. But, the ascribing of social norms disruption as being the measuring stick of dehumanization is not always ‘sane or sound’.
“From a sociological perspective, social norms are informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society. Social psychology recognizes smaller group units, such as a team or an office may also endorse norms separate or in addition to cultural or societal expectations. In other words, norms are regarded to exist as collective representations of acceptable group conduct as well as individual perceptions of particular group conduct. They can be viewed as cultural products including values, customs, and traditions which represent individuals’ basic knowledge of what others do and think that they should do.” I suggest you try applying the measuring stick of dehumanization to my actions of disrupting the social norms of the pedophiles, queers and trans-genders and put the spotlight of spiritual insanity fully upon yourself.
Further, “as social norms define what is humane is, reflexively these same social norms define what isn’t humane or is inhumane. Figuratively in law, the dehumanizer is the judge, attorney, and jury and the person dehumanized is an alien, a non-citizen without rights, purpose, or acknowledgment in the dehumanizer’s court. The act of dehumanization is then the alienation of human rights.” Pretty twisted ass backward sense of logic in this, eh? What human rights do you alienate in castigating a pedophile? What human rights do you give to the victim of the pedophile? To liken the actions of segments of our society to those of non-human animals is neither a hate crime nor dehumanization; for to be truly human you do not verbally, physically, sexually, spiritually, socially or economically with deliberate intent disrupt any basis of healthy societal social norms. But, if you do not disrupt the actions of those that destroy morally healthy societal norms you are truly dehumanizing it. There simply is too much theorizing surrounding dehumanization by persons with vested interests in the particular form of societal psychosis they are trying to advance.
“Dehumanisation is viewed as a central component to inter-group violence because it is frequently the most important precursor to moral exclusion, the process by which stigmatized individuals and groups are placed outside the boundary in which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply.” This is a very strong, all encompassing statement; and, for certain dehumanization due to the degree of violence of a hate crime will proportionately affect the victim’s self-identity, self-esteem and often occasion their depression. “ But, the degree of violence is the mitigating factor of prime concern, not the specific type of crime label.
“As well, there may be feelings of generalized fear in the group to which the victim belongs, and in other groups that identify themselves with the targeted group, especially when the displayed hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that speaks simultaneously against several groups.” But to claim that responses to hate crimes are more damaging to multicultural societies is not true, for all negative responses are based somewhere in fear. And, fear is a primary and strong emotion that has distortive effects on the perception of ordinary people in all societies. And the majority of Canadians are daily being pushed by their fears generated through one source or another. Just what exactly do you fear and why do you fear it when you live in this claimed land of democratic freedoms?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada and it forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and the protection of the civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982 along with the rest of the Act.
The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was enacted in 1960. However, this Canadian Bill of Rights is only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document. As a federal statute, it can be amended through the ordinary legislative process of a simple majority of Parliament and has no direct application to provincial laws.
Many of the rights and freedoms that are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the rights to freedom of speech, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence, have their roots in a set of Canadian laws and legal precedents sometimes known as the Implied Bill of Rights. Many of these same rights were also included in the Canadian Bill of Rights successfully introduced by then prime minister John Diefenbaker of Saskatchewan.
Criticism of the Canadian Bill of Rights (CBR) has mostly centered on its limited effect. The CBR did not contain all of the rights that are now included in The Charter, omitting, for instance, the right to vote and freedom of movement within Canada. Because it is an ordinary statute, the authority of the Bill of Rights is limited to matters set out in Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 as being under the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. However, the 1960 Act does enumerate some rights, property rights for example, which are not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For this and other reasons, the 1960 Act is still regularly referenced in court decisions today.
But, the relative ineffectiveness of the Canadian Bill of Rights motivated many to try to improve rights protections in Canada. The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The British Parliament formally enacted The Charter as a part of the Canada Act 1982 at the request of the Parliament of Canada as the result of the efforts of the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
One of the most notable effects of the adoption of The Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because The Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Canadian Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of The Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. The Charter, however, granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada’s parent country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, The Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power. The Charter only applies to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, but not to private activity.
Note: It is the scope of judicial powers and the utilization of them by incumbents due to their personal bias that has to great degree placed the Canadian democratic process and social norms under such great duress.
Under The Charter, people physically present in Canada have numerous civil and political rights. Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person (The Charter does not define a corporation as a “legal person”), but a few of the rights belong exclusively to natural persons, or as stated in sections 3 and 6 only to citizens of Canada. The rights are enforceable by the courts through section 24 of the Charter, which allows courts discretion to award remedies to those whose rights have been denied. This section also allows courts to exclude evidence in trials if the evidence was acquired in a way that conflicts with The Charter and might damage the reputation of the justice system. Section 32 confirms that The Charter is binding on the federal government, the territories under its authority, and the provincial governments. But, the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter have some Exceptions.
The Exceptions Are Extremely Important for they preclude all the freedoms and form the very basis of The Charter. The very first section, known as limitations clause, allows governments to justify certain infringements of Charter rights. Every case in which a court discovers a violation of The Charter would therefore require a section 1 analysis to determine if the law can still be upheld. Infringements are upheld if the purpose for the government action is to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society, and if the infringement can be “demonstrably justified.” Section 1 has thus been used to uphold laws against objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R. v. Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R. v. Butler). Section 1 also confirms that the rights listed in The Charter are guaranteed. *The wording all seems a bit contradicting.
In addition, some of these rights are also subjected to the notwithstanding clause of section 33. The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal. The Canadian federal government has never invoked it, and some have speculated that its use would be politically costly. In the past, the notwithstanding clause was invoked routinely by the province of Quebec , which did not support the enactment of the Charter but is subject to it nonetheless.
The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have also invoked the notwithstanding clause, to end a strike and to protect an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage, respectively. Note that Alberta’s use of the notwithstanding clause is of no force or effect, since the definition of marriage is a federal and not provincial jurisdiction. The territory of Yukon also passed legislation once that invoked the notwithstanding clause, but the legislation was never proclaimed in force.
Canadian Fundamental freedoms are listed in Section 2: of the Charter. These are primarily our rights to freedom of conscience, of religion, of thought, of belief, of expression, of the press (and of other forms of media communication), of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.
Canadian Democratic rights are generally enshrined in Charter section 3. Here the right to participate in political activities and our right to a democratic form of government are protected through ensuring the right to vote and eligibility to serve as member of a legislature.
Canadian Mobility rights are protected under Section 6 and include the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada. Further, Citizens and Permanent Residents have the ability to move to and take up residence in any province to pursue gaining livelihood.
Canadian Legal rights are the protected rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement. The following sections should be examined.
Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment.
Section 13: rights against self-incrimination
Section 14: rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding.
Canadian Equality rights are highlighted in Section 15: and were designed to ensure equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, it was not until 1985 that the main provisions regarding equality rights came into effect. The delay was meant to give the federal and provincial governments an opportunity to review pre-existing statutes and strike potentially unconstitutional inequalities.
Generally, people have the right to use either the English or French language in communications with Canada’s federal government and certain provincial governments. Section 17: gives the right to use either official language in Parliament or the New Brunswick legislature.
Section 18: the statutes and proceedings of Parliament and the New Brunswick legislature are to be printed in both official languages.
Section 21: and Section 22 sustain other constitutional language rights outside the Charter other than English and French. Section 23: rights for certain citizens belonging to French and English speaking minority communities to be educated in their own language.
Other sections have various provisions to clarify how the Charter works in practice. These include,
Section 25: states that the Charter does not derogate existing Aboriginal rights and freedoms. Aboriginal rights, including treaty rights, receive more direct constitutional protection under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Section 26: clarifies that other rights and freedoms in Canada are not invalidated by the Charter.
Section 28: states all Charter rights are guaranteed equally to men and women.
Section 30: clarifies the applicability of the Charter in the territories.
Section 31: confirms that the Charter does not extend the powers of legislatures.
Finally, Section 34: states that Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, containing the first 34 sections of the Act, may be collectively referred to as the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. Or, as come to be referred to as THE CHARTER.
The inclusion of a charter of rights in the Constitution Act was a much-debated issue. Of great concern was the potential bias among judges, when called upon to enforce rights. Still, the responsibility was given to the courts and judges whom could now even exclude evidence in trials if acquired in breach of Charter rights in certain circumstances, something The Charter was not originally going to provide for. As the process continued, more features were added to The Charter, including equality rights for people with disabilities, more sex equality guarantees and recognition of Canada’s multiculturalism. The limitations clause was also reworded to focus less on the importance of parliamentary government and more on justifiability of limits in free societies.
The Charter has been amended since its enactment. For example, section 25 was amended in 1983 to explicitly recognize more rights regarding Aboriginal land claims, and section 16.1 was added in 1993.
The task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter clearly falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter. But, in comparison to politicians, judges at no level of the legal system have to be as sensitive to the will of the electorate in any manner, nor do they have to make sure their decisions are easily understandable to the average Canadian citizen. In essence, they are pretty much a law munching-mushing association that can infect society with whatever aberrant personal beliefs they may hold. If you do not think our system is in trouble given the bias, patronage and special interest groups read the report of our new ‘batch of bozos’ that the Trudeau Tripe are about to saddle us with. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judge-shortage-24-appointments-1.3814275 How many Islamists and Queers are now rapidly filling out judicial application forms because they know Jackass Justin is in bed with them?
Courts may receive Charter questions in a number of ways. For example, rights claimants can be prosecuted under a criminal law that they argue is unconstitutional and their cases end up in the Supreme Court. Other complainants may feel government services and policies are not being dispensed in accordance with The Charter, and apply to lower-level courts for injunctions against the government, as was the case in Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education). And governments may also raise questions of rights by submitting reference questions to higher-level courts. In Canadian law, a reference question is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically, the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation. For example, Prime Minister Paul Martin‘s government approached the Supreme Court with Charter questions as well as federalism concerns in the case Re Same-Sex Marriage(2004). Provinces may also do this with their superior courts. The government of Prince Edward Island initiated the Provincial Judges Reference by asking its provincial Supreme Court a question on judicial independence under section 11.
The Provincial Judges Reference  3 S.C.R. 3 is a leading opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in response to a reference question regarding remuneration and the independence and impartiality of provincial court judges. Notably, the majority opinion found all judges are independent, not just superior court judges and inferior court judges concerned with criminal law, as the written constitution stipulates. Unwritten constitutional principles were relied upon to demonstrate this, indicating such principles were growing in importance in constitutional interpretation. The reference also remains one of the most definitive statements on the extent to which all judges in Canada are protected by the Constitution.
The majority opinion established that independent compensation commissions are required to help set salaries free of political manipulation. These commissions are described by a majority as “an institutional sieve” and by the dissent as “a virtual fourth branch of government,” making recommendations that governments may deviate from only with rational explanations. However, the reference has been subject to harsh published criticisms.
In several important cases, judges developed various tests and precedents for interpreting specific provisions of The Charter. These include the Oakes test for section 1, set out in the case R. v. Oakes (1986). But our Charter rights are limited by the “savings clause” of section 1 of the Charter as interpreted in R. v. Oakes. It is claimed Canadian courts have consistently interpreted each right more expansively, but due to the limitations clause, where a violation of a right exists, the law will not necessarily grant protection of that right. Nor will it necessarily see the law enforced to protect a granted right.
In general, courts have embraced a purposive interpretation of The Charter rights. This means that since early cases like Hunter v. Southam (1984) and R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1985), they have concentrated not on the traditional, limited understanding of what each right meant when the Charter was adopted in 1982, but rather on changing the scope of rights as appropriate to fit their broader purpose. This is tied to the generous interpretation of rights, as the purpose of The Charter provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers. As an example, authors note that The Charter right against self-incrimination has been extended to cover scenarios in the justice system that had previously been unregulated by self-incrimination rights in other Canadian laws.
Another approach to The Charter, taken by the courts, is the dialogue principle, which involves greater participation by elected governments. This approach involves governments drafting legislation in response to court rulings and the courts acknowledging the effort if the new legislation is challenged.
As well, public interest groups frequently intervene in cases to make arguments on how to interpret The Charter. The purpose of such interventions is to assist the court and to attempt to influence the court to render a decision favorable to the legal interests of the group. In law, intervention is a procedure to allow a non-party, called the intervenor (also spelled intervener) to join ongoing litigation, either as a matter of right or at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants. The basic rationale for intervention is that a judgment in a particular case may affect the rights of non-parties, who ideally should have the right to be heard.
In general, it is within the discretion of the court to allow or refuse an application to intervene. There are exceptions to this however; for example, under sub rule 61(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, if the court has stated a constitutional question then the attorney general of any province or territory, or of the federal government, may intervene “as of right”, i.e. without the need to be granted leave to intervene.
Courts will tend to allow an application to intervene if the applicant will provide a different perspective on the issues before the court, without expanding those issues.
Intervenors are permitted in criminal matters as well as civil matters. However, courts sometimes express concern in allowing applications for intervention in criminal matters where the applicant will make arguments against the position of the accused. It sometimes is seen as unfair that the accused in a criminal matter be required to meet arguments from sources other than the prosecution.
There are several distinct reasons why someone might wish to intervene in a proceeding:
- if the proposed intervenor is currently a litigant in a case with legal issues similar or identical to the case at hand;
- if the proposed intervenor represents a group of people who have a direct concern in the legal issues raised in a case (for example, if the case involves deportation of a particular individual, an application for leave to intervene might be made by an interest group for the rights of refugee claimants);
- if the proposed intervenor is concerned that the court’s decision in a particular case might be so broad as to affect the proposed intervenor’s interests; in other words, it would be an intervention to ensure that the court’s ruling does not have “accidental” unintended effects.
It is often said that the role of intervenors is to “assist” the court in making a just decision on the dispute at hand. While it is true that judges sometimes do indicate that intervenors have been of aid to the court in reaching a decision, the use of the word “assist” can be seen as misleading in that it implies the intervenor is acting altruistically. In general, the goal of the intervenor is to influence the court in making its decision, not just to “assist” the court.
And one more reference you should become aware of is your right to counsel, or a right to legal aid that has been read into section 10 of The Charter whereby the Covenant explicitly guarantees the accused need not pay “if he does not have sufficient means.”
The building of the Supreme Court of Canada, the chief authority on the interpretation of the Charter.
The Charter and National Values
The Charter was intended to be a source for national values and national unity. But the only values mentioned by the Charter’s preamble are recognition for the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and these continue to be controversial.
With the Charter’s supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism. However, under section 24 of the Charter, courts also gained new powers to enforce creative remedies and exclude more evidence in trials. Courts have since made many important decisions, including R. v. Morgentaler (1988), which struck down Canada’s abortion law, and Vriend v. Alberta (1998), in which the Supreme Court found the province’s exclusion of homosexuals from protection against discrimination violated section 15. In the homosexuality case, the Court then read the protection into the law.
Homosexual and pro-abortion rights (gay rights and women’s rights) have long been systematically favored by biased judges, special interest groups and manipulating politicians. For example, a proposed Rights of the Unborn Amendment in 1986–1987, which would have enshrined fetal rights, failed in the federal Parliament. It failed, for one of Canada’s National Values is clearly the right to murder unborn children when personally desired.
We have seen many brands of Penis and Vaginal Sucking Queers invading the Canadian political arena since MP Svend Robinson first exposed himself in public in 1988. He is noted as the first Member of Parliament in Canadian history to come out as gay while in office. And by 2004 it was clearly evidenced that this critter was a mentally ill, bi-polar, sexual deviant thief at odds with anything that could be considered Godly. Intent on destroying any true moral basis of Canadian values the Psycho-Svend tried to remove the mention of God in the preamble in 1999 through proposing an amendment because “he felt it did not reflect Canada’s diversity”. Well, God is still around but the abomination called Svend now has to push his illness through other less direct avenues than the Canadian Parliament.
The same year that saw the public exposure of theft by Svend saw the “March of Hearts” rally for same-sex marriage equality under the Charter in 2004. Same-sex marriage in Canada was progressively introduced in several provinces by court decisions beginning in 2003 before being legally recognized nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act on 20 July 2005. The introduction of a federal gender-neutral marriage definition made Canada the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legally recognize same-sex marriage throughout its borders.
Somewhat sane and supposedly morally responsible Christians stood by and permitted the special interest groups to bring this about. Thus, we now live under the legalized stigma that Canada’s National Values Number Two is promotion and acceptance of sexual perversion in every form.
But, the perverts’ claim that same-sex marriage is an equality-human rights issue is nothing more than satanically induced nonsense. Continue to affront God through embracing such foolish ideas and you spiritually are nothing more than an impacted stool, the carnal thought results of a homosexual bareback ride celebrating a Satanic wedding night. Homosexuality of any strain is not a human right; it simply is an abomination in the eyes of God. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” (Leviticus 18:22-23)
And, to parallel abominations with God you need look no further than the practice of any strain of Islam. The practice of Islam in Canada is not a human right in any manner, and in fact to promote the same truly qualifies you to be charged under hate/bias crime laws in existence.
HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION
The Canadian Bill of Rights (CBR) is a federal statute enacted by the Parliament of Canada on August 10, 1960. It provides Canadians with certain quasi-constitutional rights at Canadian federal law in relation to other federal statutes. It was the earliest expression of human rights law at the federal level in Canada, though an Implied Bill of Rights had already been recognized in the Canadian Common Law. The Canadian Bill of Rights remains in effect, but its widely acknowledged ineffectiveness arises in large part to its character as a federal statute only—although as to Canadian federal law, the Bill of Rights has subsequently acquired through judicial interpretation a quasi-constitutional status through the paramountcy doctrine. The legal and constitutional shortcomings of the CBR were a significant reason that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established to be an unambiguously-constitutional-level Bill of Rights for all Canadians, governing the application of both federal and provincial law in Canada, with the patriation of the Constitution of Canada in 1982. Since patriation, the usefulness of the Canadian Bill of Rights at federal law in Canada is mostly limited to issues pertaining to the enjoyment of property, as set forth in its section 1(a), and a slightly-broader “life, liberty, and security of the person” right than is recognized in Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Patriation Reference is a historic Supreme Court of Canada reference case that occurred during negotiations for the patriation of the Constitution of Canada. In its decision in the Patriation Reference (1981), the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled there was a tradition that some provincial approval should be sought for constitutional reform. The Court affirmed the existence of an unwritten dimension to the Constitution and the majority held that by constitutional convention, amendments to the Constitution require a substantial degree of provincial consent. However, a differently-constituted majority of the court held that there was no legal barrier to the federal government seeking a constitutional amendment without any provincial consent. But, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the notwithstanding clause still allowed governments to opt out of certain obligations.
But, beginning in 1947, the provinces began adopting human rights legislation with the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights being the ground breaker and standard for many others to somewhat emulate. The Saskatchewan Bill of Rights covered both fundamental freedoms and equality rights. Saskatchewan’s Bill of Rights is considered to have had formative influence on John Diefenbaker, who was from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. Thirteen years after the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights was enacted, Diefenbaker in 1960 successfully introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights. As we know, the Canadian Bill of Rights was the precursor of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and this was not ensconced until 1982. By this time there were many arguments, enactments and rulings surrounding human rights and the law. For example, following Saskatchewan, Ontario was next to adopt human rights legislation in 1962. Further, it was not until 1977 that the federal government enacted the Canadian Human Rights Act and this only added additional fuel to the fire of what truly comprises human rights. The result has been a miss-matched enactment of different rulings by the provinces and territories until the present day.
Every politically incorrect embryonic media style moron, with little or no true capacity to judge anything political, moral, cultural or social; with their coffee in one hand and a cell phone in the other, daily trumpets forth their opinions about these matters. And the average Canadian sucks up their swill as truth. Thus, the historic blah, blah and the modern politically correct blah, blah surrounding human rights, hate/bias crimes and National Values foments fear daily like an Iranian junk yard dog.
So, what is some solution to the issues the nation faces? One could start with provision of a code of laws that are uniform from coast to coast that all cultures must bend themselves toward and adapt themselves to. Canadian Law was never intended to be bent and misshapen to fit all sub-cultural, multi-cultural desires and the desires of divergent ethnic base special interests. And, it has been under the Human Rights Legislation that special interest groups have been able to manipulate the political-social structure of the nation to the greatest degree. Further, it is under judges biased rulings pursuant to such Charter ‘questions’ brought before them that a great deal of political-moral carnage continues. It is time all judges in Canada were held fully accountable to this Biblical fact: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” (Leviticus 19:15)
Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, The Commission protects the human rights of all individuals lawfully present in Canada. It promotes a vision for Canada where all individuals have equal opportunity and are able to live their lives free from discrimination.
The Commission is responsible for dealing with allegations of discrimination. By law, it is bound to screen every discrimination complaint it receives. When possible, The Commission encourages people to try to solve their disputes informally. In the event people are unable to solve the matter themselves, The Commission may conduct an investigation. If it believes the complaint has merit, The Commission can send it to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for further examination. Otherwise, the complaint is dismissed.
In some instances, The Commission can also appear before the Tribunal. This occurs when The Commission feels that the complaint deals with a matter of public interest. This includes decisions that have the potential to clarify, influence, shape or define human rights law in Canada.
The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) is a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1977 with the express goal of extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds such as sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, creed, age, colour, disability, political or religious belief. But, it is also stated that while the Canadian Human Rights Act applies throughout Canada, that it is fully applicable only to federally regulated activities; each province and territory thus has its own anti-discrimination law that applies to activities that are not federally regulated. Thus, we have a hodgepodge of jurisdictional matters and unequally applied laws due to definitional contexts from coast to coast; and the CHRC has been justifiably criticized over its investigations of alleged hate speech as well as its procedures regarding admissibility of evidence. Such criticism is probably even more warranted when you look at the activities of the Provincial-Territorial Human Rights Commissions established.
On May 17, 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16) was introduced to the Canadian House of Commons, to add and include “gender identity or expression” to the legislation, by the Liberal Government of PM Justin Trudeau. If enacted the bill will add “gender identity or expression” as a prohibited ground of discrimination. That would make it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or expression. An individual who denies benefits based on the gender identity or expression could be civilly liable for monetary damages to the individual denied benefits. This prohibition supposedly would only apply to matters falling within federal jurisdiction.
The bill also proposes to amend the Criminal Code by adding “gender identity or expression” to the definition of “identifiable group” in section 318. That amendment would make it a criminal offence to spread hate propaganda based on gender identity or expression, contrary to section 318, and would also make it a criminal offence to advocate genocide based on gender identity or expression, contrary to section 319 of the Code.
The bill also proposes to add “gender identity or expression” to section 718.2 of the Code. This section is part of the sentencing provisions, and would make it an aggravating factor to commit a criminal offence motivated by the gender identity or expression of the victim.
These criminal prohibitions would apply across Canada.
The Process of Enacting Federal Bills
A bill must pass the legislative process in the House of Commons, then the Senate, and finally receive Royal Assent before it will become law. In Canada, the Governor-General may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill. If the Governor General of Canada is unable to give assent, it can be done by either the Deputy of the Governor General, or the Chief Justice of Canada—or another justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not actually necessary for the governor general to sign a bill passed by a legislature, the signature being merely an attestation. In each case, the parliament must be apprised of the granting of assent before the bill is considered to have become law. Two methods are available: the sovereign’s representatives may grant assent in the presence of both houses of parliament; alternatively, each house may be notified separately, usually by the speaker of that house. However, though both houses must be notified on the same day, notice to the House of Commons while it is not in session may be given by way of publishing a special issue of the Journals of the House of Commons, whereas the Senate must be sitting and the governor general’s letter read aloud by the speaker.
Final approval of the Federal Bills in Canada is assent through the lieutenant governors of the provinces and their offices can become a “pass the buck process of delay due to political designs of incumbents”. A lieutenant governor may defer assent to the governor general, and the governor general may defer assent to federal bills to the sovereign authority over the province. The lieutenant governors are plain and simply a process of patronage and attempted political manipulations. While required by the tenets of constitutional monarchy to be nonpartisan during their time in office, lieutenant governors have frequently been former politicians and some have returned to politics following their vice regal service. Canadian lieutenant governorship’s have also been used to promote women and minorities into a prominent position.
In Canada, a lieutenant governor is the vice regal representative in a provincial jurisdiction of the Canadian monarch and head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, who resides predominantly in her oldest realm, the United Kingdom. On the advice of his or her prime minister, the Governor General of Canada appoints the lieutenant governors to carry out most of the monarch’s constitutional and ceremonial duties for an unfixed period of time known as serving at His Excellency’s pleasure—though five years is the normal convention. Similar positions in Canada’s three territories are termed Commissioners and are representatives of the federal government, however, not the monarch directly.
These appointments are usually done in consultation with the relevant premier of a province or territorial head. In 2012, the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments was established to create a non-binding shortlist of candidates to be presented to the prime minister when the appointment of a lieutenant governor is upcoming.
Incumbents are constitutionally mandated to serve for at least five years, unless the federal parliament agrees to remove the individual from office. Also, the prime minister may recommend to the governor general that the viceroy remain in the Crown’s service for a longer period of time, sometimes upwards of more than ten years. And, in some provinces, the associated chief justice has a standing appointment as the provincial administrator. Besides the administration of the oaths of office, there is no set formula for the swearing-in of a lieutenant governor-designate.
To sum up: “a lieutenant governors’ primary task is to perform the sovereign’s constitutional duties on his or her behalf, acting within the principles of parliamentary democracy and responsible government as a guarantor of continuous and stable governance, and as a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power. The office is the core of authority in a province.
For the most part, however, the powers of the Crown are exercised on a day-to-day basis by elected and appointed individuals, leaving the lieutenant governors to perform the various ceremonial duties the sovereign.”
The system truly does not function as a non-partisan safeguard against the abuse of power, and to say it does is hypocritical.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission
But, it is through the Canadian Human Rights Commission which administers the Canadian Human Rights Act that much of our legal morass has evolved and not just the judicial bodies we call our Courts of Justice. The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) was established in 1977 by the government of Canada. As stated in the foregoing, it is empowered under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal jurisdiction.
The Employment Equity Act of 1995 Employment equity (Canada)
The CHRC is also empowered under the Employment Equity Act to ensure that federally regulated employers provide equal opportunities for four designated groups: women, Aboriginal people, the disabled and visible minorities. The CHRC helps enforce these human rights and inform the general public and employers of these rights. The Act states that “employment equity means more than treating persons the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.”
Barriers to employment are to be removed for the four designated groups and the term reasonable accommodation is often used for the removal of such barriers to employment. Examples of employment barriers are wheelchair inaccessible buildings, or practices that make members of a designated group uncomfortable, such as holding management meetings in strip clubs. Employers are also required to institute positive policies for the hiring, training, retention, and promotion of members of the designated groups.
The Employment Equity Act is federal legislation, and as such, applies only to a narrow group of industries that are federally regulated under the Canadian constitution. Overall, federal employment equity legislation covers only 6% of the Canadian workforce, thus the scope of the Employment Equity Act is quite limited, and the vast majority of employers, including nearly all retailers and manufacturing companies, fall outside its jurisdiction.
The Canadian federal government also administers the Federal Contractors’ Program (FCP). This is not part of the Employment Equity Act, but rather is a non-legislated program that extends employment equity to organizations beyond the scope of the Act. The FCP states that suppliers of goods and services to the federal government (with some specified exceptions) must have an employment equity program in place. This is basically a federal government form of coercion; if the contractors desire the funds available through federal contracts they must have the equity program with all its rules in place.
Some provinces also use the term employment equity in conjunction with their enforcement of provincial-level human rights legislation. However, while every province has human rights legislation to prohibit discrimination against women and various minorities, no province has a law that is an analogue to the federal Employment Equity Act.
Oversight of employment equity is shared among three federal government agencies, of which the Canadian Human Rights Commission is but one. The CHRC deals with both private and public sector employers that are federally regulated, and it is also responsible for conducting audits of employers’ compliance.
However, Employment Equity is surrounded with controversy and has in some areas further muddied the waters of what best designates hate/bias crimes. But, in ways it is distinct from other propounded human rights concepts.
The Canadian Human Rights Act has long prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, and certain other grounds. But the key distinction between the two laws is that the Canadian Human Rights Act merely prohibits discrimination, whereas the Employment Equity Act requires employers to engage in proactive measures to improve the employment opportunities of the four specific groups listed above. Note that the Canadian Human Rights Act protects a wider range of minorities, such as sexual and religious minorities, while the Employment Equity Act limits its coverage to the aforementioned four protected groups. In Canada, employment equity is a specific legal concept, and should not be used as a synonym for non-discrimination or workplace diversity. Neither should employment equity be confused with pay equity, which is an entirely distinct concept. Pay equity, as a Canadian legal term, refers to the legal requirement that predominantly female occupations be paid the same as predominantly male occupations of equal importance within a given organization.
The Constitution of Canada incorporates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2 of the Charter grants to everyone freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media formats. However, Section 1 restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Censorship in Canada is a bit out of whack through the appeals to the judiciary who holds that community standards and the public interest are the ultimate determinants of which forms of expression may legally be published, broadcast, or otherwise publicly disseminated. Over the 20th century, legal standards for censorship in Canada shifted from a “strong state-centered practice”, intended to protect the community from perceived social degradation, to a more decentralized form of censorship often instigated by societal groups invoking state support to restrict the public expression of their political and ideological opponents. Canada is now believed to have more hate crime legislation than any other country in the world.
Beside the Judiciary, other public organisations with the authority to censor include the Canadian Human Rights Commission, various provincial human rights commissions, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, along with self-policing associations of private corporations such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
Many thorny issues surround disguised community standards purporting to be the local norms bounding acceptable conduct. Sometimes groups claim their standards as being the community’s values and demand their guidelines be recognized as legal necessity for your participation in the community. Often, such standards are invoked in legal situations to resolve disputes, especially around LGBTQ rights and pornography. Critics argue that puritanical moralists have used community standards to wrongly punish minorities such as homosexuals or those in interracial marriages, but the factor usually avoided in such matters surrounds who’s basis of morality is being employed.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with “goodness” or “rightness.” But, what could possibly be construed as having any moral basis if it violates the moral codes of God. Such violation certainly is not definable as in the public interest, which according to the Random House Dictionary, requires the welfare or well-being of the general public be stated through an article or action as being in public interest through appeal or relevance to the general populace. It is the same for any news story or media format to serve the public interest it must be for the good of the general populace and not special interest groups.
Of Ever Increasing Concern Is Internet Content
It is certainly in the Canadian Interest that controls be legally exercised over what is permissible to be transmitted over the Internet. Currently, most Internet Content is not specifically regulated in Canada; however, some laws apply to websites hosted in Canada as well as to residents who host sites on servers in other jurisdictions. Section 320 of the Code allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.
Publicly inciting hatred remains a key issue in hate/bias crimes and the landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of the law surrounding publicly inciting hatred was R. v. Keegstra (1990). But, the Supreme Court of Canada, by a bare 4-3 plurality, upheld the constitutionality of section 319 in R. v. Keegstra  3 S.C.R. 697.
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is the highest court of Canada, and the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The SCC grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the notwithstanding clause. You had better pay close attention to the “notwithstanding clause” and its use through the judicial sector from this point onward in time.
In the case of Canada The Human Rights Commission v. Taylor,  3 S.C.R. 892 at 902, the Supreme Court said hate propaganda denotes any expression that is “intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group”. A well-known example is the case of Ernst Zündel, who was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for promoting ethnic hatred via his website. In Citron v. Zündel TD 1/02 (2002/01/18) the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that the respondent had theories of secret conspiracies by Jews. The respondent posted his theories to the Internet. The Tribunal found that the tone and extreme denigration and vilification of Jews by the respondent was a violation of s. 13(1). The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices.
But, in 2003 in Saskatchewan, the Crown charged David Ahenakew under the Criminal Code with wilfully inciting hatred because of the remarks he made about Jews to a reporter. In 2005, the Provincial Court convicted Ahenakew, and fined him $1,000. In 2008, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan decided to retry the matter after the conviction was overturned on appeal. On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew’s remarks were “revolting, disgusting, and untrue,” but they did not constitute “promoting hatred.”
What were the differences between Zundel’s and Ahenakew’s remarks? If you read the links you see they both spoke and displayed many of the same beliefs. Ahenakew’s remarks were “revolting, disgusting, and untrue,” but they did not constitute “promoting hatred.” So why did only Zundel’s promote hatred? Both men were culturally sick hate propagandists. One was German White and the other Canadian Brown. Both were playing on the same team and short a few ‘sane similar sound tracks’. It appears that Judge Tucker either executed politically expedient means to defuse the bubbling racial issues or his own personal bias toward appeasement of native Canadian elements rose to the fore. But who truly cares, eh?
THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
The Canadian Human Rights Act also created the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to judge the cases arising through the CHRC. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) is a special administrative tribunal directly funded by the Parliament of Canada and is independent of the CHRC which refers cases to it for “adjudication” under the Act. Adjudication simply defined is a formal and often assumed legally binding judgment about a disputed matter. But these judgments still potentially have further redress before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Before a case can be brought to The Tribunal it must go through several stages of investigation and remediation by The Commission. After this process is completed, if the parties are not satisfied, the case will go to The Tribunal. A Guide To Understanding The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
The Tribunal holds hearings to investigate complaints of discriminatory practices and may order a respondent to a complaint to cease a practice as well as levy fines. Decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are reviewable by the Federal Court of Canada. Tribunal decisions upon review can then be further appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal through the Supreme Court of Canada. The Federal Court of Canada can also issue and enforce decisions made by The Tribunal if violations continue and imprison an offender for contempt of court if a decision continues to be disregarded. This has happened in the cases of John Ross Taylor in 1981 and Tomasz Winnicki in 2006.
If a complainant can show a valid case of discrimination the defendant can rebuke it by showing that their practice was for a justified reason. The process is generally known as the “Meiorin test” which is similar to the Oakes test justification in a Charter challenge. While these “tests” appear to make it necessary for The Tribunal to have proven its decisions correct beyond a reasonable doubt, such are not always the facts. The personal bias of those appointed Chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and its members cannot be overlooked in where judgments have evolved to. Neither can the personal bias of the persons given authority to act through the Tribunals and Commissions of the Provinces and Territories.
Provinces and Territories Human Rights Legislation
The provinces and territories all have human rights legislation and human rights commissions, except for British Columbia, which has a tribunal but no longer has a commission. As a rule, the legislation forbids discrimination, in the absence of a lawful reason, on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, creed, political opinion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted (hereinafter referenced as “common grounds”). As a rule, the legislation forbids discrimination in at least five contexts: accommodation, employment, the purchase of property, membership in unions and associations, and publications. The context of publications is where our issue of hate speech arises and the Provincial and Territorial Human Rights acts usually have provisions similar to the following.
Prince Edward Island‘s Human Rights Act, section 12:
(1) No person shall publish, display or broadcast, or permit to be published, displayed or broadcast on lands or premises, or in a newspaper or through a radio or television broadcasting station or by means of any other medium, any notice, sign, symbol, implement or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion upon any subject in speech or in writing.
A person who believes that his rights under a provincial or territorial human rights act have been violated may seek redress through a Human Rights Commission. As a rule, the commission receives a complaint and, if it appears to be within the commission’s jurisdiction, the commission investigates the matter. The commission may try to bring the complainant and the respondent to a settlement, or it may turn the issue over to an adjudicator. In practice, many complaints are successfully resolved through mediation.
The Office and Role of The Adjudicator
Differences between the provinces and territories appear in the authority granted to an adjudicator and in the amounts prescribed for compensation and penalties. All adjudicators have the authority to order a respondent to cease any contravention of the human rights legislation, and not to engage in any contravention from the date of the order. All adjudicators have the authority to order that the respondent compensate the complainant for any loss occasioned by the respondent’s contravention.
In addition, some adjudicators have the authority to order that the respondent pay “emotional damages” to the complainant, or pay a penalty for wilful or reckless misconduct. Thus, dependent upon the province or territory, you may find yourself in conflict with a political appointee able to come at you to enforce their own bias. Thus, consider the following Acts.
Nunavut‘s Human Rights Act 2003 allows its adjudicator to order inter alia compensation “for injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect” and “for any malice or recklessness”, and to order an apology.
The Northwest Territories‘ Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the common grounds and on “social condition”. The section regarding publication (s.13) explicitly forbids any means of expression that “is likely to expose any individual or class of individuals to hatred or contempt”. The adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent “to pay to a complainant an amount that the adjudicator considers appropriate to compensate that complainant for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect”. If the adjudicator finds that the respondent “acted wilfully or maliciously”, or that the respondent repeatedly contravened the Act, the adjudicator may order the respondent to pay an amount not exceeding $10,000 as exemplary or punitive damages”.
The Yukon Human Rights Act prohibits treating any individual or group unfavourably on account of the common grounds and “source of income”. The Act does not have any specific provision that forbids discriminatory publications, displays, or broadcasts.
British Columbia is unique in no longer having a human rights commission. Complaints can be filed directly with the province’s human rights tribunal. Under British Columbia‘s Human Rights Code, an adjudicator must order a violator to cease contravening the Code, and may order inter alia that the violator pay to the complainant an amount that the adjudicator considers appropriate “for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them”.
Alberta‘s Human Rights Act forbids discrimination upon the common grounds except for political opinion, but also on account of “source of income”. The Act forbids a publication or display that “is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt”. An adjudicator has no authority to order that a respondent pay to the complainant “emotional damages” or pay a penalty. The authority responsible for the Act is the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC).
Saskatchewan had the first legislation in North America (1947) to prohibit victimisation on account of race, religion, colour, sex, nationality, ancestry, and place of origin. It has been the model for many of the Human Rights Activists, but it will be shown when dealing fully with Hate/Bias crime, defamation, defamatory libel and coercion etc. that both the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission are the tools of special interest groups. This shall be done in a subsequent posting.
Manitoba‘s Human Rights Code allows an adjudicator to order inter alia that a respondent pay damages for injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect in an amount that the adjudicator considers “just and appropriate”, and to pay a penalty or exemplary damages (up to $2000 in the case of an individual respondent; up to $10,000 in any other case) if malice or recklessness is involved. Manitoba’s Code is unique in having an “analogous grounds” provision. Complaints can be based not only on the listed grounds (such as sex, age, national origin, etc.), but also on grounds analogous to the listed ones. For example, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission currently accepts complaints based on gender identity.
The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids discrimination upon various grounds which depend upon the circumstances. An adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent: to pay monetary compensation to the complainant “including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect”; to make restitution to the complainant “including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect”; and to do anything that will rectify the respondent’s violation of the Code. The majority of cases concerning violations of the Code are heard by the quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms Section 10 prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law. Section 80 provides: Where the parties will not agree to negotiation of a settlement or to arbitration of the dispute or where the proposal of the commission has not been implemented to its satisfaction within the allotted time, the commission may apply to a tribunal to obtain, where consistent with the public interest, any appropriate measure against the person at fault or to demand, in favour of the victim, any measure of redress it considers appropriate at that time.
Prince Edward Island‘s Human Rights Act has no provision for a payment of “emotional damages” to the complainant. But, the adjudicator may inter alia impose a fine on an individual of not less than $100 and not exceeding $500, and on any other entity of not less than $200 and not exceeding $2,000.
New Brunswick‘s Human Rights Act forbids discrimination upon various grounds which depend upon the circumstances. An adjudicator (Board of Inquiry) may order a respondent “inter alia” to compensate a complainant “for any consequent emotional suffering, including that resulting from injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect, in such amount as the Board considers just and appropriate”.
Nova Scotia‘s Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination upon the common grounds and upon “an irrational fear of contracting an illness or disease”. An adjudicator “may order any party who has contravened this Act to do any act or thing that constitutes full compliance with the Act and to rectify any injury caused to any person or class of persons or to make compensation therefor and, where authorized by and to the extent permitted by the regulations, may make any order against that party, unless that party is the complainant, as to costs as it considers appropriate in the circumstances”.
Newfoundland and Labrador has no provision for “emotional damages” under its Human Rights Code. This probably is a good thing given the unrivaled sense of humor the Newfie has in Canada. The ‘hurt feelings crowd’ in Canada if infecting The Rock would soon place it into an economic despair unrivaled since the time the first immigrant landed on its shores.
The foregoing show quite a variance in what should be ‘one standard for all standard democratic citizens in a nation that is supposed to espouse the equality of all from sea to shiny sea. Si, Senor? Mais, oui Madame? Yo, Bro? Eh? Eh? Eh? Perhaps Your Commissions, Tribunals and Adjudicators are not quite functioning according to your sociological-political-legal theories? So toss the dice Canada and determine where it is least costly in all formats for you to be charged under hate/bias crime, eh?
In 2006 Project Cleanfeed was launched by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to institute voluntary measures by Canadian Internet Service Providers to block web sites hosting child pornography. Anything fighting against such pornography should be commended. The list of blocked sites is compiled from reports by Internet users and investigated by the independent organization Cybertip.ca. Every little bit helps, but voluntary measures just are not stemming the tide of either pornography of all sorts or hate/bias postings on the Internet.
Whatever, in October 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that online publications cannot be found liable for linking to defamatory material as long as the linking itself is not defamatory. ‘To link or not to link’ truly is not he question of prime importance, rather it is the content of what has been linked to, what has actually been published and what should be eradicated from visible existence in accordance with the law.
Thus, with what is coming up in a subsequent posting dealing with defamatory material I strongly suggest that you reconnect to the link and solidly familiarize yourself with the topic. I most strongly suggest this to Nathan Jesse, Leisure Services Management; Roy Ludwig, Mayor and Paul Ladouceur, Chief of Police; all of the City of Estevan Saskatchewan.
We now end Hate Crimes Canada Bout Two and what I know to be part of a minimum basic knowledge required to enable your sound judgment in the arena of Canadian hate/bias crimes.
Eternally in Christ, I Remain Phinehas.