RSS FeedAthanasios Hadjis Rules in Lemire v. Warman
In the high profile case between Marc Lemire and Richard Warman, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has refused to apply s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which stated that hate messages also affected,
…a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet…
Tribunal chair Athanasios Hadjis said,
Since a formal declaration of invalidity [of Section 13(1)] is not a remedy available to the Tribunal, 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
The complete decision can be reviewed here (I’m reading it now):
| HTML |
Off the hook? Not necessarily – Mr. Warman will likely seek judicial review. And the civil actions still exist for defamation, as well as much more rigorous Criminal Code provisions, will still attempt to regulate Internet activity.
This paper by Alexander Thesis, commissioned by the Attorney General of Canada, comes to a different conclusion – the provision is rationally connected with minimal impairment.
Here’s a scorecard of the outcome of judicial reviews of CHRT decisions:
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | TOTAL | |
| Cases referred | 139 | 99 | 70 | 82 | 390 |
| Decisions rendered | 14 | 11 | 13 | 20 | 58 |
| Upheld | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Overturned | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Judicial review withdrawn or struck for delay | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Judicial review pending | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Total challenges | 7 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 20 |
Updates
Commentary by various personalities, both for and against, available here.
Terrence Watson points out that it’s only the penalty that was deemed unconstitutional, not the provision itself, and Big City Lib points out it will have limtied effect on future cases.
What’s Behind the Veil of Justice?
An abridged version of this piece was published today in the Toronto Star. Reproduced here for interest with permission of the author, all rights reserved.
Veils and justice
February 04, 2009
Faisal Kutty
Here they go again. Muslims just don’t give up trying to change our values and roll back hard fought rights of equality and justice. Though this time, we may have nipped it in the bud early – but should we?
Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman‘s “admittedly difficult decision” to force a complainant to testify without her niqab, or face covering, in a sexual assault case has unleashed a torrent of discussion and debate. Again, the usual suspects with too little knowledge, appreciation or understanding of the complexities of the issue have jumped into the fray.
The ruling once again brings to the fore questions surrounding the limits of accommodation in a liberal multicultural society. But this time, in a novel twist, the clash pits a person’s religious right with the right of a defendant in a criminal trial to due process and procedural fairness; namely that of being able to face his or her accuser in open court. Obviously, both are important rights in a liberal democracy.
The niqab – which a small fraction of orthodox Muslim women use to cover their faces, and not to be confused with the hijab or head covering – is attacked by some as a symbol of oppression. By others as a badge of political Islam. By others as a public-relations nightmare for their “moderate” or more palatable versions of Islam. By others as something that should be compromised in the two-way dance of accommodation. And still by others as not compulsory or even totally unnecessary from a strict Islamic legal point of view.
