Far-right group leader faces contempt charge


Tyr
#1
Motion served on Terry Tremaine alleges he posted anti-Semitic, racist material online in contravention of cease-and-desist order issued by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Globe and Mail Update
March 5, 2009 at 2:58 PM EST

A Regina mathematics professor with ultra-right leanings – Terry Tremaine – faces contempt of court charges for disobeying an order from the Canadian Human Rights Commission that he not post virulently racist material on the Internet.

A Federal Court of Canada motion served on Mr. Tremaine by the CHRC alleges that anti-Semitic, racist material posted on websites by Mr. Tremaine contravenes a 2007 cease-and-desist order issued by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Mr. Tremaine is the self-described head of the National Socialist Party of Canada – a far-right group which is viewed as a cousin of various white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups.

In addition to the contempt charge – which carries a penalty ranging from an unlimited fine to five years in prison – Mr. Tremaine is also facing a criminal charge for willfully promoting hatred.

Thursday's move was precipitated by Richard Warman, a federal government lawyer who has made it his mission to roust out far-right propagandists on the Internet.

In a 2004 affidavit that precipitated the CRHC's original action against Mr. Tremaine, Mr. Warman accused him of posting virulently racist hate material on Internet websites that could expose blacks, Asians, Aboriginals, other non-whites and persons of the Jewish faith to hatred or contempt.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal agreed. It ordered Mr. Tremaine to cease posting his material on the Internet, and fined Mr. Tremaine $4,000.

Mr. Warman alleges in an affidavit that since the tribunal's decision, Mr. Tremaine's postings have disparaged immigrants, described Jews as “highly-evolved parasites,” and predicted that “the brown masses” will rise up and destroy Jews.

“Mr. Tremaine is free to hold repugnant views but Canada and virtually every other Western democracy have made it illegal to spread hate propaganda,” Mr. Warman said in an interview Thursday.

“If he wants to blatantly defy a Federal Court order then he brings the consequences on his own head,” he said. “Mr. Tremaine has had his day in Federal Court, and the judge described his hate propaganda attacking the Jewish, black, and aboriginal communities as extreme and malicious.

“It's up to Mr. Tremaine to change his heart, but in the meantime he needs to obey the law.”
 
Scott Free
#2
Seriously... a tribunal! Where is this again? China? Russia?
 
Colpy
#3
Mr. Tremaine is obviously a moron......laughable, a man who has, despite his best efforts, had little effect on society.......an pathetic excuse for a human being spewing forth what practically everybody recognizes as garbage.

He is insignificant.

I am infinitely more concerned about Mr. Warman, who apparently suffers from the delusion that his duty is to stifle the expression of thought that makes him uncomfortable............

Aided, of course, by "Human Rights" Commission Tribunals.....God what an exercise in Orwellian double-think!.....that work desperately to suppress the human right of freedom of speech. And judges that support their decisions....

Mr. Tremaine we could laugh at, poke fun at, easily show the stupidity of his ideas...... and if he tried to act on any of his ideas, we could smack him over the head with something large and heavy before any real damage was done.

The real damage has already been done by HR Commissions, in case after case after case where defendants are forced to spend tens of thousands to defend their right to free speech...........even if they win, they've lost......and even more significantly, society has lost, because it has come to accept that government regulation of the expression of thought is fully acceptable.

Outrageous.
 
Scott Free
#4
Maybe the tribunals will be used against religion next. The bible is full of hate and intolerance.
 
Cannuck
#5
Only the Canadian Human Rights Commission could make one feel sorry for a Nazi
 
Colpy
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Only the Canadian Human Rights Commission could make one feel sorry for a Nazi

exactly
 
SirJosephPorter
#7
This has nothing to do with Human Rights Commission. The original complaint may have been heard by the Human Rights Commission. However, the contempt order was issued by the Federal Court, so it is dishonest to pretend that it is a Human Rights Commission issue.

He is in contempt of the Courts now; it has nothing to do with Human Rights Commission. Mr. Tremain had a perfect right to appeal the HRC decision to courts, which I assume he didn’t do.

Now it has moved beyond the HRC, now it is between Courts and Mr. Tremain. The legal process will grind on, and if Mr. Tremain deserves any penalties or punishment, he will be given that. The process is working as it should and I don’t see anything wrong with that.
 
Zzarchov
#8
the federal court has no right to issue a contempt of court issue to a command which is not from a court, and has no authority to issue one.

As this is a legal charge though, I hope he can argue that HR Tribunals are unconstitutional and they are banned.
 
karrie
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

... I hope he can argue that HR Tribunals are unconstitutional and they are banned.

Or at the very least, held to a much narrower scope of investigation. Actual hate crimes, calls to arms against a group, calls for death. Or actual violations of human rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of association. But, then they might have to investigate themselves.
 
Colpy
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

This has nothing to do with Human Rights Commission. The original complaint may have been heard by the Human Rights Commission. However, the contempt order was issued by the Federal Court, so it is dishonest to pretend that it is a Human Rights Commission issue.

He is in contempt of the Courts now; it has nothing to do with Human Rights Commission. Mr. Tremain had a perfect right to appeal the HRC decision to courts, which I assume he didn’t do.

Now it has moved beyond the HRC, now it is between Courts and Mr. Tremain. The legal process will grind on, and if Mr. Tremain deserves any penalties or punishment, he will be given that. The process is working as it should and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Pheck the "process"!

The "problem" is state control of freedom of thought and expression. I don't give a rat's *** if it is expressed through the CHRC (the storm troopers of thought police) or the courts.

It is completely unacceptable.

The foot in the door.
 
Colpy
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Or at the very least, held to a much narrower scope of investigation. Actual hate crimes, calls to arms against a group, calls for death. Or actual violations of human rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of association. But, then they might have to investigate themselves.

Actual hate crimes are covered by laws against assault, murder, harassment, etc.

IMHO, the laws against conspiracy and incitement cover any other problems.

Too much law.
 
karrie
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Actual hate crimes are covered by laws against assault, murder, harassment, etc.

IMHO, the laws against conspiracy and incitement cover any other problems.

Too much law.

I agree... nothing bothers me more than when we write more specific laws for things that existing laws already cover. Like cell phone laws. Frick. Police have always been able to pull over someone driving erratically while talking on their cell phone, as we've always had laws governing the operation with due care and attention of motor vehicles. Yet they feel they have to write one that actually explains it for the moron public, rather than just clarifying that existing laws cover it.
 
Zzarchov
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Or at the very least, held to a much narrower scope of investigation. Actual hate crimes, calls to arms against a group, calls for death. Or actual violations of human rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of association. But, then they might have to investigate themselves.

I would argue those should also go through the courts.

If someone is commiting a crime, they deserve a fair trial with the same legal protections we would give to someone who rapes then eats babies alive.

Its an utterly corrupt practice that should be stamped out before it spreads to other areas

"Traffic violations Tribunals", then "Domestic Tribunals" then "Fraud Tribunals"

people have a right to a fair trial, and this is an insidious creep that needs to stop, these things always start by targeting someone slimey (like bigots) then creep up from there.
 
Said1
#14
He violated section 13 and the article about findings of the Canadian Human Rights Act (i think). The tribunal applies to the fed court for the contempt order on their cease and desist decision. The commission and the tribunal are not the same entities, although the tribunal hears cases referred by the commission - sort of ike the UN GA and the SC. The article is not very informative.
 
talloola
#15
I have a slightly different approach to those who commit hate crimes, and make
hateful statements that hurt those who are of other races, and religions.


Pick them up by the scruff of the neck and the seat of the pants, and we all count
one --two--three and 'hurl' them into the ocean.(far off-shore).
Our country doesn't want them.
 
MHz
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Only the Canadian Human Rights Commission could make one feel sorry for a Nazi

So is a nazi anybody not 100% supportive if all things Jewish (all thoughts and all actions) or a person or group of persons who promote any form of punishment that was used during the time we call WWII?
Put another way is it a German problem or a plague that can infect any part of Society at any moment?
 
MHz
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

I have a slightly different approach to those who commit hate crimes, and make
hateful statements that hurt those who are of other races, and religions.


Pick them up by the scruff of the neck and the seat of the pants, and we all count
one --two--three and 'hurl' them into the ocean.(far off-shore).
Our country doesn't want them.

Does that cover ALL races and ALL religions?
 
Cannuck
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Mr. Tremain had a perfect right to appeal the HRC decision to courts, which I assume he didn’t do.

Appealing an HRC decision is as pointless as the Popes *****. All the HRC does is suck money out of people. Not sure if you've heard of the "ladies only" gym that's been dragged in front of these bozos because they won't let a man who "feels like a woman" join.
 
SirJosephPorter
#19
Appealing an HRC decision is as pointless as the Popes *****.

Cannuck, and why is it pointless? It is no more pointless than appealing a decision by the lower court. HRC is just a step before the courts, where two parties can see if they can settle their argument informally, without spending a lot of money (I understand court trials cost much more than HRC adjudications).

So sure you can appeal HRC decision, and I assume success rate for appeals would be comparable to the success rates of appeals against a lower court decision.

And just why is Pope’s ***** pointless? Don’t you know the single most important qualification for a person to be a pope (or to become a Catholic Priest) is that he must possess a *****? No *****, no Pope.
 
Colpy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Appealing an HRC decision is as pointless as the Popes *****.

Cannuck, and why is it pointless? It is no more pointless than appealing a decision by the lower court. HRC is just a step before the courts, where two parties can see if they can settle their argument informally, without spending a lot of money (I understand court trials cost much more than HRC adjudications).

So sure you can appeal HRC decision, and I assume success rate for appeals would be comparable to the success rates of appeals against a lower court decision.

And just why is Pope’s ***** pointless? Don’t you know the single most important qualification for a person to be a pope (or to become a Catholic Priest) is that he must possess a *****? No *****, no Pope.

Now hear this:

The HRC, the government, the courts nor anybody else has any business in the heads of the nation!

In other words, thought and the expression of same MUST be kept free of government interference.

That is SO basic a principle and SO simple a concept, I'd think anyone could grasp it.

I guess not. And I am not just pissing on atheletic Sir Porter's leg (I am truely sorry, but I couldn't resist ).........but on the leg of the Gov't of Canada, the HRC's themselves, and the courts.

Anybody watch Ezra Levant give 'em hell? Good going, but he should have done it without a lawyer.......why bother?
 
SirJosephPorter
#21
The HRC, the government, the courts nor anybody else has any business in the heads of the nation!

In other words, thought and the expression of same MUST be kept free of government interference.


Colpy, now that is a matter of opinion. I happen to think that in the rare, extreme case where an incendiary speech from an extremist is likely to lead to hatred, violence against a particular minority group, it should be actionable in the courts.

Anyway, if you don’t like it, fight to try to get the hate crimes law repealed. I doubt if you will succeed, there appears to be broad based support for it. The Conservatives (if anybody would repeal it, it would be the Conservatives) so far have shown no inclination to repeal the law or to get rid of HRC.

As long as we have the hate crime law, individuals will be prosecuted under it in rare instances. I see nothing wrong with that.
 
Cannuck
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

...without spending a lot of money...

If only that was the case.
 
Just the Facts
#23
Maybe I'm just naively idealistic but I would have thought a "human rights" commission would be concerned with cases like "they didn't hire me because I'm short" not issues of expression. You know, issues where someone's rights were violated.

In my opinion these tribunals are not serving the purpose they were meant to serve and should be disbanded immediately.
 
Zzarchov
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post


Cannuck, and why is it pointless? It is no more pointless than appealing a decision by the lower court. HRC is just a step before the courts, where two parties can see if they can settle their argument informally, without spending a lot of money (I understand court trials cost much more than HRC adjudications).


Actually it costs the defendant a helluva lot more money. Its brutally expensive, added to the fact that you can charge someone for the some offense over and over again.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

So sure you can appeal HRC decision, and I assume success rate for appeals would be comparable to the success rates of appeals against a lower court decision.

Nope. HRC is a Kangaroo court. 100% conviction rate and they hold.
 
Scott Free
#25
For once I agree with you Zzarchov.
 
talloola
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Does that cover ALL races and ALL religions?

yes, just because we don't all believe in the same religions, or like me, don't believe
at all, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have respect and be fair to everyone.

We are all equal, all have the same right to be here, and make a good life for
ourselves, but we should not 'judge' others, just because we don't agree with them.
 
MHz
#27
That seems to be an 'in theory' type of thing. In practice every member on this board falls short, bar none.
I'm not Muslim but I would view anybody who supports 'Islamaphobia' as being outside the belief that "all" are equal. If it is promoted by one specific group then that is the group that is the greater danger.
The same goes for calling Iran all sorts of negative names when she has not laid a finger on anyone. If the US has any issues with them having nuclear power those views should have been brought up when their application was first brought up rather than listening to them for the last, what, 6 years. When do they get told to STFU.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. One section of society does not get the right to brow-beat, condemned anybody they feel like for what they 'might do' (and then some 27 specific off the wall points), slander, lie about, etc. without being subject to the same in return.

Part of the right to disagree also means being able to express that view in a lawful manner, excluding threats of physical harm. Are mistakes supposed to be pointed out and then acted on in order to correct a wrong or does one 'lucky' section' get to point out all the errors they see but don't have to listen to any criticism on the way they act. So while Canadians might puff out their chests and proclaim to the world how grand and noble we are we do have our own baggage that says we are not always the kindest most gentle people around, each and every one of us can revert to extreme hatred in about as much time as it takes to flip a switch.

Now if there is something in those words you disagree with, by all means speak as long as you wish. The alternative is me trying to tell you your opinion doesn't matter so shush up. I'll even let you call me a few names but that is a short lived right that ends when I say it ends.

You can read as much or as little hidden meaning into that as you wish. While I may want it to be taken in the context given I'm well past the point of carrying if somebody wants to twist it to mean whatever they want it to mean.
 
talloola
#28
doesn't matter if one disagrees or agrees with another's beliefs, it is not the point.

The point is that, all should be treated kindly, fairly and no hate language or action
should be thrown to anyone else.
 
MHz
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

doesn't matter if one disagrees or agrees with another's beliefs, it is not the point.

The point is that, all should be treated kindly, fairly and no hate language or action
should be thrown to anyone else.

I agree, 'all should be', in practice it is well short of that mark, without it being written down we wouldn't even know it was a goal it is so far from being real.

You might have better luck getting people used to insults so they laugh them off rather than the anger and such that they raise today. After several billion insults maybe people will just get bored of the whole thing.
 
talloola
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

I agree, 'all should be', in practice it is well short of that mark, without it being written down we wouldn't even know it was a goal it is so far from being real.

You might have better luck getting people used to insults so they laugh them off rather than the anger and such that they raise today. After several billion insults maybe people will just get bored of the whole thing.

Yeah, it would be much simpler to learn to ignore the insults, and leave it with
the insulter, it is all about them anyway, and really has nothing to do with
the insultee.
 

Similar Threads

0
Obama prayer leader from group linked to Hamas
by Francis2004 | Jan 17th, 2009
0
Baby's accused killer faces new charge
by marygaspe | Feb 26th, 2007
no new posts