Direct Link to Latest News


Tribunal Halts Zionist Complaint Vs Henry Makow

May 28, 2010


by Marc Lemire (left)

The Freedom Site

BREAKING!!! Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Refuses to Enforce Section 13. All S.13 cases halted

(See update at bottom)
In a ruling dated May 26, 2010, Tribunal Member Edward Lustig adjourned a Section 13 complaint file by the Canadian Jewish Congress against Henry Makow until a final decision in the Lemire case.

[Makow insert: This is a great victory for the cause of freedom. If the Lemire case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, it will probably take about 6 years. If he wins, that is the end of the Jewish Congress/Bnai Brith complaints against Lemire, Makow, Arthur Topham and other truth seekers.  To support Marc Lemire's case, send a checque made out to "Marc Lemire" at the following address: Marc Lemire, 152 Carlton Street PO Box 92545 Toronto, Ont. Canada M5A2K1  -- I owe Marc my freedom of speech and I will be supporting his case. Money has been difficult to raise. We also owe respect and gratitude to his brilliant, tireless, dedicated lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka who also represents me. She challenged the constitutionality of Canadian "hate speech" laws and won.]

The Tribunal's ruling stated:

[8] I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and have concluded that it would be appropriate and would properly serve the interests of justice if this matter was adjourned. While the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, 1990 3 S.C.R. 892 that s. 13 (1) of the CHRA is constitutional, the application now before the Federal Court seeks to bring clarity to this issue in view of the distinct factual and legal context giving rise to this Tribunal's decision in Warman v. Lemire. Clearly Member Hadjis' decision goes beyond the consideration alone of the penalty provisions in s. 54 of the CHRA, as he chose not to "read out" the penalty provisions and preserve s. 13 of the CHRA. It is now up to the Federal Court to determine the operability of s. 13 of the CHRA. This will achieve the clarity that the Commission has indicated and that I agree is desirable in order to allow the Tribunal to be able to determine this and other cases brought under s. 13 of the CHRA.

[9] For these reasons I hereby adjourn these proceedings sine die pending the final outcome in the Warman v. Lemire case.

"Signed by"
Edward P. Lustig
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 26, 2010

What this decision means is that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has stopped holding hearings on alleged violations of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  Basically, enforcement of Section 13 has now stopped!

To understand how important today's ruling was, here is a bit of background of censorship regime used by the "human rights" enforcers.

Canada's Internet censorship legislation is broken up into two distinct parts. 

1.     Canadian Human Rights Commission
The first part is run by the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).  They accept complaints from the public, investigate them and send them onto an "impartial" Tribunal to determine if the person actually violated the act.  (unless of course you're a hate promoting friend of the CHRC, in which case, they toss out the complaint).  Only the CHRC can send a case to the Tribunal.  There is no direct access method.

2.     Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
The second part is a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT).  The Tribunal operates basically as a pseudo-court, and makes determinations on all issues before it.  The hearing process is sort of free wheeling and made up as they go along.  At the Tribunal basic human rights mean little.  For instance, Truth is No Defence - intent is no defence.  The complainant doesn't even have to show up at his own hearing.

Think of it this way.  The CHRC are the prosecutors and the CHRT are court.

What today's ruling means, is that the CHRC will continue on in their mission of fanatical censorship and totalitarianism, BUT when the CHRC refers a case to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will adjourn the case "sine die", until a final decision is reached in the Lemire case.   That final decision might end up at the Supreme Court of Canada, and take up to 6 more years.

There is one other high profile case currently before the Tribunal. This is the case of B'nai Brith and Harry Abrams vs the Radical Press and Author Topham.  It is expected that a decision will be released shortly also adjourning this case "sine die" pending the final outcome of the Lemire case.

By stopping the Tribunal hearings, the CHRT has signaled that it will not be putting respondents through a lengthy meat grinder like prosecution at the behest of special interest groups.

ed.jpgThe Tribunal member in this case was Edward Lustig (left.)  He came to light in a recent ruling in the Ouwendyk case, where he slammed Serial complainant Richard Warman.

In his March 13, 2009 ruling Lustig found that:

"Moreover, it is possible that his activity in this regard, could have precipitated further hate messages in response. His explanation for including other hate messages in his postings by mistake seems very weak to me.

The evidence in this case of his [Richard Warman's] participation on Internet sites similar to the Northern Alliance site is both disappointing and disturbing. It diminishes his credibility."

In today's decision, the Tribunal also left a nice parting shot on the CHRC.  Tribunal member Lustig used the CHRC's own press release against them to stop enforcement of Section 13.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Tribunal Halts Zionist Complaint Vs Henry Makow "

Dan said (May 29, 2010):

here was a popular conventional wisdom anywhere you went in America before Sept 11, 2001, summed up in an oft quoted phrase

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Isn't it coincidental that we've been told since 911 this was never said by Frenchman we were taught previously had said it?
I don't care who said it. It sums up the very essence of the egalitarian spirit of freedom of speech we took for granted for 200 years (except during American Civil War and World War One that is... and of course since 2001).

It's a good maxim and superior principle for freedom of speech. Two centuries of allowing people to speak their mind without cutting their heads off proved beyond the shadow of a doubt the wisdom of letting people VENT and say what they're thinking out in the open. What really happens when people speak freely is they get the chance to hear for themselves how stupid or unfair their thoughts really are when the thoughts truly are stupid or unfair. It goes to another old expression - once in everyday parlance - it "lays the cards on the table".

Getting thoughts expressed out in the open is how things get aired, get "off their chest", and that's when people know where they really stand and it 'breaks the ice' for genuine dialog.
Freedom of speech fostered honestly and transparency.

Censorship tends to result in suppression of resentment. It fosters secrecy and paranoia in an atmosphere of communication SNAFU.

- Dan

"The most oft-cited Voltaire quotation is apocryphal. He is incorrectly credited with writing, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” These were not his words, but rather those of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, written under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre in her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire. Hall intended to summarize in her own words Voltaire's attitude towards Claude Adrien Helvétius and his controversial book De l'esprit, but her first-person expression was mistaken for an actual quotation from Voltaire. Her interpretation does capture the spirit of Voltaire’s attitude towards Helvetius; it had been said Hall's summary was inspired by a quotation found in a 1770 Voltaire letter to an Abbot le Roche, in which he was reported to have said, “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”[15] Nevertheless, scholars believe there must have again been misinterpretation, as the letter does not seem to contain any such quote.[16]"

Robert said (May 29, 2010):

I wouldn't be optimistic about getting section 13 declared unconstitutional. It should have been obvious from the outset that it was incompatible with the concept of freedom of speech, yet the law was passed. These Marxist people's "courts" are integral to the future planned for our society and will not be weakened or abolished. The heat has been on them lately, so the powers that be are applying Lenin's tactic for advancing the communist agenda: two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward one step back., and so on. The game is probably to lull us into apathy by instilling false hope that these institutions that terrorize people for their opinions are going to be declawed.

Dan said (May 29, 2010):

Good to hear.
After 10 years of debating against Zionazis all over the net and in person:
NO ONE expresses irrational hate like they do.
No one.

Moe said (May 29, 2010):

Good to read about the Tribunal victory! You have some very great articles and I always look forward to reading your site. You are awesome. We need more people with your courage and insight. Don't ever stop.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at