Summary of Complaint

1. The issue in this complaint is whether the respondent communicated or caused to be communicated, by way of the Internet, material that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of religion, race, national or ethnic origin and sexual orientation.

Background to Complaint

2. The complainant alleges that the respondent has communticated or caused to be communicated discriminatory material on www.freedominion.ca Free Dominion is a Canadian website that was inspired by Free Republic in the United States. It is described as a Canadian conservative news forum for the discussion of conservative philosophy and activism. The founders of the site are Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins.

Request to Withdraw Complaint

3. On July 17th and 23rd 2007, the complainant contacted the Commission advising that she wanted to withdraw her complaint.

Recommendation

4. It is recommended, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that the Commission take no further proceedings in the complaint because the complainant has asked to withdraw the complaint.

——————————————————————————-

Also included was a cover letter asking us to take note of the fact that Investigative branch of the CHRC will be recommending that the Commission not proceed with this case.

Free Dominion
Background

(This paragraph referencing Tristan Emmanuel’s column has been removed 17/07/07. The reason for removal is explained here)

Emmanuel’s article is called Freedom Snatching Commie Commissions and is directed to the conservative evangelical  Republican community in the US. His column followed a Bob Unruh article - again tying in the CHRC and the pending US legislation.

As well Conservative Thoughts in the US tied in the  Free Dominion CHRC complaint to the US legislation.
Religious right groups in the US such as the Family Research Council has lobbied against the US bill, without ever posting it and the Council is targeting certain senators districts with robocalls.

Box Turtle Bulletin has called out US conservative groups for misrepresenting the US bill, and for not posting the text for their site’s readers. Box Turtle Bulletin has put up the legislation 3 times on their website.

These US groups often site the case of Aake Green, a Swedish minister who was acquitted of charges, (he published a sermon against homosexuality in a local paper). The case made international news when Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) made plans to go to Sweden.

Concerns for the safety of the royal family were valid as hate rhetoric from the US escalated and the Phelps were banned from entering the country. They are also not permitted in Canada.
Green strongly and publicly distanced himself from the uproar the Phelps caused and announced he would no longer preach against homosexuality because he had said all he needed to say.

The Free Dominion complaint withdrawal  is also receiving little attention - Owning up to their lowest - The Globe and Mail; the conservative Catholic Lifesite. 
The Kingston Whig-Standard, Michael Coren and The Winnipeg Sun gave the inititial notice attention. From the Globe and Mail:

According to Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa law professor, columnist and blogger, Canadian law isn’t clear on whether or not the proprietors of a website are liable for the things that third parties write on their site. American law, he says, spells out protections for sites like Amazon.com that rely on millions of user-submitted comments, but the question hasn’t been hashed out north of the border.

…The Internet, after all, deals in quantity; it’s a place where a single blogger can attract hundreds of comments each day. Making a site’s owner legally responsible for each and every one would punish small sites for attracting more comments than they can police. Imagine the complications for larger service providers, like Google, that host the writings of millions of bloggers. (In fact, I wonder if the U.S.-born online revolution that’s swept the world could have flourished in Canada’s uncertain legal climate.) But the court of public opinion is another matter, and this is where Bill O’Reilly was right. His methods were tacky and his reporting was dishonest, but in the end, websites deserve to be tarred with the crowds they attract. Daily Kos isn’t a hate site, but if it fosters a culture of wingnut commentary, it deserves the stigma it gets.

So it should be with Free Dominion. On its owners: shame, for creating such a nasty place. But let the Whatcotts of the world face the law for their words on their own.

via: BigCityLib

Other blogs: Big Blue Wave, rootleweb, Relapsed Catholic, Blazing Cat Fur, Just Right, The Black Kettle