Here's what you get from "hate speech" legislation

July 16, 2007

File 2006057

Ms. Connie Wilkins
c/o Free Dominion
2033 Unity Rd.
Kingston, ON
K0H 1M0

Dear Ms. Wilkins:

I am the investigator designated under Part III of the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate the complaint of Ms. [name omitted at this time] against Free Dominion. As the investigator, it is my responsibility to gather the evidence in relation to the complainant's allegations and, once the investigation is complete, to report on my findings to the Members of the Commission.

The report will include a recommendation for the disposition of the complaint. I can recommend that a conciliator be appointed, if the evidence supports the allegations in the complaint, or that the complaint be dismissed, if the allegations are not supported by the evidence. I can also recommend to the Commission that a settlement be approved if the parties reach an agreement during the course of the investigation.

I am currently awaiting your full response to the allegations which is due on 18 July 2007.

I would like to draw your attention to section 48 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which allows the parties to settle a complaint in the course of investigation. I would be pleased to discuss the possibility of a settlement with you or your representative at any time.

You can reach me at the address and telephone number indicated at the bottom of the first page of this letter. My direct line is [redacted] and my email address is [redacted]@chrc-ccdp.ca. Please note that there are security and confidentiality risks in sending information by email.

Written July 16. Mailed from Ottawa July 17. Received July 18. No details of the "complaint" provided, and oh, by the way, we want a full response *today.*

Some links:
Initial post
Timeline (will be updated as story develops)
Free Republic thread
Small Dead Animals: Free Dominion Targeted by HRC
Canada Free Press coverage (with annoying Vibrant Media popups)
 
Canada's Orwellian legislation, below...

From a reader comment at SDA:

I suspect the Commission is taking jurisdiction under section 12 or 13 of the act which read:

12. It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or
(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11 or in section 14.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 12; 1980-81-82-83, c. 143, s. 6.

Hate messages

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Interpretation

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

UPDATE 070807 01:20: Complaint withdrawn

-----

HT: Kate

Posted by: Old Grouch in Linkage at 16:40:43 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 5 kb.