Thursday, June 27, 2013

Section 13 is Abolished (Kudos to Canada)

Finally, after YEARS of trying to get this addendum within the Human Rights Tribunal shut down, it has been done. Moslems will no longer be allowed to use the "hurt feelings" clause to shut Canadians up. Canadians are allowed to share their freedom of expression unfettered.

I included links for you, including the Tribunal Ezra Levant had to ordeal (at great financial and personal expense), regarding his publication, "The Western Standard" and his decision to publish the Mohamed Cartoons, and Mark Steyn and Maclean's Magazine regarding his excerpt from "America Alone."

A long battle but section 13 is dead

 - June 26th, 2013
As I write this I am still only being updated by text message on the proceedings in the Senate chamber but I am told Bill C-304 has passed third reading and will receive Royal Assent tonight making it law.
What does this bill do?
There are a number of amendments to the act that help limit abuse but the main one is this:
2. Section 13 of the Act is repealed.
To put it bluntly, the means you can’t take someone through the federal human rights apparatus over hurt feelings via a blog post or a Facebook comment.
Now the bill is passed and will become law but like many acts of Parliament it will not come into force for a year.
Still after a long hard battle to restore free speech in Canada, this is a victory.
Here is the section of the act as it now stands, soon to be just a memory.
  • 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.
  • Marginal note: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.
  • Marginal note:Interpretation
    (3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

Ezra Levant:

Ezra at the Human Rights Hearing over the Western Standard publication of the Danish cartoons:


Wiki link for Mark Steyn:


  1. This repeals seems to affect only statements made electronically. Does this mean that if a person actually speaks something that "is likely to offend" they can still be prosecuted? For example, let's say a pastor in a church gives a short, reasoned, and dispassionate statement to his congregation as to why he thinks some forms of sexual practice are against Scripture and thus immoral, is he still open to prosecution by a mole from the human rights commission?

  2. I think if it is recorded, it may. But, you pose a great scenario.