StopSection13.com

	Legal Challenge
	Legal challenge of Section 13 (Marc Lemire constitutional challenge) >> more info
	Political Challenge
	The political challenge to Section 13 and media articles >> more info
	What is Section 13?
	History and operation of Section 13, and CHRC totalitarianism. >> more info
	Victims of Section 13
	Writers, webmasters, magazines, Christians, the entire list of victims >> more info
	Books and Videos
	Get one of these informative booklets and videos on Section 13 >> more info
	Support The Challenge
	Support the legal team challenging Section 13 >> more info

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

.Section 13 of the CHRA is the single largest threat to Freedom of Speech in Canada!

On November 25, 2005, Marc Lemire and his legal team, heading up by courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka, filed before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal a constitutional challenge of Section 13 (internet censorship) and Section 54 (impose hefty fines) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

On Sept 2, 2009, the Tribunal found Section 13 to be unconstitutional and an affront to freedom of speech. The fanatical CHRC appealed the ruling. On December 13, 2011, the Federal Court of Canada heard the appeal. The decision of the Federal Court is pending.

Legal Documents Submitted to Federal Court on Section 13 Review

Lemire Memorandum of Fact and Law [A must read!]

Motion Record of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

Motion Record of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Written Representations of the Canadian Free Speech League

CHRC's Memorandum of Fact and Law

African-Canadian Legal Clinic

...

-- Main Documents & Latest Updates --

Dec 20/11: Canadian Human Rights Commission ARE LIKE THE NAZIS! Kulaszka was right to make the comparison

Dec 17/11: TORONTO STAR: Free speech is the key

Dec 15/11: [VIDEO] Marc Lemire on Ezra Levant's The Source on Section 13 censorship. Plus Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation

Dec 15/11: Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law Is "Like Putting Lipstick on a Pig" -- Kulazska Says

Dec 14/11: Live Blogging of the Section 13 Lemire hearing (click here to follow the case live on the internet)

Dec 12/11: The Fall of Section 13 Censorship: Information on the Upcoming Lemire case (Address of hearing, live blogging, parties, judge, etc)

Dec 8/11: The FATE of Section 13 to be decided in Federal Court - December 13-14, 2011

Dec 6/11: FLYER: The Marc Lemire Appeal at the Federal Court of Canada, December 13-14, 2011

Dec 4/11: Support the Marc Lemire Appeal - The best chance ever to defeat Section 13 Censorship!

Nov 30/11: DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case 80 pages - $15 [more info...]

Sept 30/11: Bill C-304 - An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)

Sept 28/11: National Post editorial board: Abolishing S. 13 would be a big win for free speech

Sept 1/11: [CFSL] Marc Lemire - Section 13 Case heading to Federal Court in December

July 6/11: CHRC says: No Section 13 (Internet censorship) Complaints in 2010! … so what do we need this law for?

June 4/11: Documents referred to by Marc Lemire during the Ezra Levant’s ‘The Source’ Interview

June 3/11: Marc Lemire on Ezra Levant's 'The Source' Discussing Censorship & Section 13

May 26, 2011: One Year without Section 13 … and the sky has not fallen! The “perfect storm” is here to rid Canada of censorship legislation

May 12, 2011: Internet Censorship case finally gets Court Date - Lemire case to be heard December 2011

Dec 26, 2010: ORDER of Federal Court - CFSL, CAFE and ACLC are granted status. The Battle Lines for Freedom of Speech are now Drawn

June 20, 2010: CHRC Spent Close to $85,000 to Uphold Internet Censorship Legislation

June 19, 2010: Canadian Free Speech League File to Intervene in the Lemire Constitutional Challenge

May 28, 2010: BREAKING!!! Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Refuses to Enforce Section 13. All S.13 cases halted

May 27, 2010: OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL - THE COURT: On the eve of change? Addressing hate speech in the Internet age at the Federal Court: "I find Lemire’s submissions stronger"

May 26, 2010: Lemire Opposes the African-Canadian Legal Clinics Intervention to support Censorship

May 19, 2010: NATIONAL POST: Online hate law tested against Charter + Lemire's Comments

April 8, 2010: Canadian Civil Liberties Association Applies for Intervener Status in the Lemire Constitutional Challenge of Internet Censorship CCLA supports Free Speech and an end to CHRC Censorship

March 17, 2010: Federal Court Ruling: BCCLA is allowed to intervene in Lemire case

March 3, 2010: BC Civil Liberties Association files at the Federal Court of Canada to oppose Internet censorship from the misnamed Canadian "Human Rights" Commission BCCLA Intervene in the Marc Lemire Free Speech case

Feb 15, 2010: Marc Lemire files at the Federal Court to oppose Internet censorship from the misnamed Canadian "Human Rights" Commission [PDF: Lemire Memorandum of Fact and Law]

Jan 25, 2010: Canadian Human Rights Commission appeals Lemire decision to the Federal Court of Canada

Sept 2, 2009: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal finds Section 13 and 54 to be unconstitutional, and refuses to apply the section against Marc Lemire

Aug 25/08: Final Submissions on the Constitutionality of Section 13 (part 1)

Aug 25/08: Final Submissions on the Constitutionality of Section 13 (part 2)

Nov 25, 2005: Notice of Constitutional Question sent to all Attorneys' General

Dec 6, 2005: FACTUM - Written Submissions on Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (This is a MUST read)

Spreadsheet of all victims of the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Expert Reports on Section 13

Dr. Donald A. Downs: Expert on Freedom of Speech, Speech codes and effects of speech
Dr. Michael Persinger: World famous neuro-scientist. Report on social - psychological effects of speech and the negative cultural impact of legal punishment
Bernard Klatt: Internet and computer expert from British Columbia.

In September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that:

[290] Thus, following the reasoning of Justice Dickson, at 933,one can no longer say that the absence of intent in s. 13(1) “raises no problem of minimal impairment” and “does not impinge so deleteriously upon the s. 2(b) freedom of expression so as to make intolerable” the provision’s existence in a free and democratic society. On this basis, I find that the Oakes minimum impairment test has not been satisfied, and that s. 13(1) goes beyond what can be defended as a reasonable limit on free expression under s. 1 of the Charter.

c) Conclusions with respect to the claim of infringement on the freedom of expression

[295] For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

[279] This question, however, is not what is relevant to the present discussion. The point is that, when assessed against the characteristics of the penalty provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of whether s. 11 Charter rights are necessarily triggered). The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in Taylor that s. 13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter.

V. CONCLUSION

I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article. However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).

See full decision [here]

This is the first time the new revised Section 13 and 54 of the CHRA has been constitutionally challenged. This is the major battle to rid Canada of this totalitarian law. Another constitutional challenge before the Federal Court of Canada has been stayed pending the outcome of this challenge. [Kulbashian v CHRC/AG - 2007 FC 354]

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13
Opposed to Section 13/54	In favour of Section 13
BC Civil Liberties Association Canadian Civil Liberties Association Canadian Association for Free Expression Canadian Free Speech League	Canadian Human Rights Commission Canadian Jewish Congress Simon Wiesenthal Centre B'nai Brith Canada African Canadian Legal Clinic
Expert Witnesses: Dr. Donald Downs (Lemire) Dr. Downs Expert Report Dr. Michael Persinger (Lemire) Dr. Persinger Expert Report Bernard Klatt (Lemire) Klatt Expert Report Fact Witnesses: Paul Fromm Jerry Neumann (Summary of what the fact witnesses testified about) Witnesses via Subpoena: (CHRC employees, subpoenaed by Lemire): Hannya Rizk (called twice) investigator of Lemire case Dean Steacy (called twice) Most senior Internet investigator and admitted infiltrator of Internet message boards (to engage Lemire in conversations) Harvey Goldberg Most senior policy advisor on Section 13 to CHRC Federal Court of Canada Appeals: Lemire challenges all invocations of Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act to the Federal Court of Canada January 2008: Lemire wins before the Federal Court and all challenges revoked by CHRC	Expert Witnesses: Karen Mock (CHRC) Alexander Tsesis (AG) Fact Witnesses: Richard Warman Lawyer for the CHRC Monette Maillet: (left case on Nov 8, 2005) Giacomo Vigna: Left case after two years and 22 hearing days .. after having what he termed "Mental Serenity" issues and telling the Tribunal he was "not mentally capable of proceeding" Ian Fine Philip Dufresne Margot Blight: outside counsel hired by CHRC