ÿWPC qáë§Ù_oÉÇÙÏ7‰œÂiü-­bVûŒwšÃIìán~0©i_Âeï#Aÿ¤±ödp²š|ê–Jœ´Ñ4 UDÏ—Úãf&½&žJ¨…Fds­UÊ "Ýc?àjøž(uW)áIð)»Ðã»é£ i%XöRÛaÀý¤²ÅÆw@ã¦ûjÖfnRƒ\s]Üþ´`à&v±²£HÜ–(‚›ùlæð+è n¢F~( gÆ¥ƒÁIÐkp†ØóÄél ážõæÚ¸e¿ÊitHª+Xÿ ShÛ-õÓ&¼ÉhzûʼáÔϦÓv— kcé£=Õͤˆæ’Y’è 9åüëæáª.s[ GÊPéîš¿x.Ÿ]£o|©+€ÖìÏ¡‡Z‡Ðbnp¾pÛ÷ƆÇî„uÌ  •¤O©“KMu»"j¹ª”ù}Š^ÜÚãìÌÎGr¿á¦Z]£H’ÐiV!)Õ yù¤«žx ©B(Æíâ’)óÄZÄ|¢r$‰Ù¶W+D¸¡ Åd4à6?þ‚Φãç¶ÄXKf&©èÓÁ7/Ï´{+)ó“ªu£9ô• Z²ÚÂ:Þî«¿ó¥3%{àhë<Ïæøîƒ)ÉȤŦúH¦fU>–ÌÔ 0µ  0<U 0Y‘ 0_ê 0iIƲ 0áx 0(Y D+ AM¬ ¬ ¬ ù 0N 0ÆW #Á UNÞ %,M2(6N^^ `wl4p„ m†ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' J. R. T. and the W. G. Party v. Canada, Communication No. 104/1981 (6 April 1983),<B>U.N. 4 April 1983),<B>U.N. "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2ÎT$££Ý ƒV¹!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xã‡XXXÔÔ€Xã‡XXXã‡ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(žV¹$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xî;XXXÔÔ€Xî;XXXî;ÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX ¦<) ã…7)c(„³CorelÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒV¹!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xã‡XXXÔÔ€Xã‡XXXã‡ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòJ.€R.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€v.€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€104/1981Ð H˜ ÐÌ6€April€1983Ð  d ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€J.€R.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€(names€deleted)€on€18€July€1981€Ð xÈ  ÐòòÌAlleged€victimsóó:€J.€R.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€Ð D”  ÐòòÌState€partyóó:€CanadaÐ ` ÐòòÌDeclared€inadmissibleóó:€6€April€1983€(eighteenth€session)*/Ð Ü, ÐóóÌÓ  Óò òÌòòDecision€on€Admissibilityóóó óà @< àà @” àà @ì àÐ ŽÞ ÐÓñÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€communication€(initial€letter€dated€18€July€1981€and€further€submissions€dated€22Ð @ ÐSeptember€1981€and€4€August€1982)€is€submitted€by€Mr.€T.,€a€69„year€old€Canadian€citizen,Ð &v Ðresiding€in€Canada,€and€by€the€W.€G.€F€arty,€an€unincorporated€political€party€under€theÐ  \ Ðleadership€of€Mr.€T.€since€1976.€It€is€claimed€that€Mr.€T.€andò ò€ó óthe€W.€G.€Party€are€victims€ofÐ òB Ðinfringements€by€the€Canadian€authorities€of€the€right€to€hold€and€maintain€their€opinionsÐ Ø( Ðwithout€interference,€in€violation€of€article€19€(1)€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€andÐ ¾ ÐPolitical€Rights,€and€the€right€to€freedom€of€expression€and€of€the€right€to€seek,€receive€andÐ ¤ô Ðimpart€information€and€ideas€of€all€kinds€through€the€media€of€their€choice,€in€violation€ofÐ Š Ú Ðarticle€19€(2)€of€the€Covenant.€Ð p!À  ÐÌ2.€1.€The€W.€G.€Party€was€founded€as€a€political€party€in€Toronto,€Ontario,€Canada,€inÐ <#Œ" ÐFebruary€1972.€The€Party€and€Mr.€T.€attempted€over€several€years€to€attract€membership€andÐ "$r# Ðpromote€the€Party's€policies€through€the€use€of€tape„recorded€messages,€which€were€recordedÐ %X $ Ðby€Mr.€T.€and€linked€up€to€the€Bell€Telephone€System€inò ò€ó óToronto,€Ontario,€Canada.€AnyÐ î%>!% Ðmember€of€the€public€could€listen€to€the€messages€by€dialing€the€relevant€Telephone€number.Ð Ô&$"& ÐThe€messages€were€changed€from€time€to€time€but€the€contents€were€basically€the€same,Ð º' #' Ðnamely€to€warn€the€callers€"of€the€dangers€of€international€finance€and€international€JewryÐ  (ð#( Ðleading€the€world€into€wars,€unemployment€and€inflation€and€the€collapse€of€world€valuesÐ †)Ö$) Ðand€principles".€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ2.2.€The€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act€was€promulgated€on€I€March€1978.€Section€13€(1)€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€Act€reads€as€follows:€Ð -n(- ЇIt€is€a€discriminatory€practice€for€a€person€or€a€group€of€persons€acting€in€concert€toÐ ° Ðcommunicate€telephonically€or€to€cause€to€be€so€communicated,€repeatedly,€in€whole€or€inÐ –æ Ðpart€by€means€of€the€facilities€of€a€telecommunication€undertaking€within€the€legislativeÐ |Ì Ðauthority€of€Parliament,€any€matter€that€is€likely€to€expose€a€person€or€persons€to€hatred€orÐ b² Ðcontempt€by€reason€of€the€fact€that€the€person€or€those€persons€are€identifiable€on€the€basisÐ H˜ Ðof€a€prohibited€ground€of€discrimination.€Ð . ~ ÐÌ2.3.€By€application€of€this€provision€in€conjunction€with€section€3€of€the€Act,€whichÐ ú J Ðenumerates€"race,€national€or€ethnic€origin,€colour,€religion,€age,€sex,€marital€status,Ð à 0 Ðconviction€for€which€a€pardon€has€been€granted€and€physical€handicap"€as€"prohibitedÐ Æ   Ðgrounds€of€discrimination",€the€telephone€service€of€the€W.€G.€Party€and€Mr.€T.€wasÐ ¬ ü  Ðcurtailed.€It€is€alleged€that€section€13€(1)€of€the€Human€Rights€Act€is€clearly€in€violation€ofÐ ’â  Ðthe€Canadian€Bill€of€Rights.€Section€I€òò(d)€óóof€the€Bill€of€Rights€guarantees€freedom€of€speech,Ð xÈ  Ðand€section€2€states€that€it€shall€not€be€abrogated,€abridged€or€infringed€unless€expresslyÐ ^®  Ðauthorized€by€Act€of€Parliament.€It€is€claimed€that€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act€containsÐ D”  Ðno€provision€authorizing€such€restrictions.€Ð *z  ÐÌ2.4.€Section€32€of€the€Human€Rights€Act€enables€any€individual€having€reasonable€groundsÐ öF Ðfor€believing€that€a€person€is€engaging€in€a€"discriminatory€practice"€to€file€a€complaintÐ Ü, Ðbefore€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Commission.€Under€this€provision,€a€number€of€JewishÐ Â Ðgroups€and€individual€Jews€filed€letters€complaining€about€Mr.€T.'s€messages.€InÐ ¨ø Ðconsequence,€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Commission€initiated€complaint€ProceedingsÐ ŽÞ Ðagainst€Mr.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€on€16€January€1979€for€messages€recorded€on€6€July,€27Ð tÄ ÐSeptember,€17€November,€14€and€19€December€1978€and€9€January€1979,€and€decided€toÐ Zª Ðappoint€a€Human€Rights€Tribunal€to€inquire€into€the€complaints€and€to€determine€whetherÐ @ Ðthe€matters€communicated€telephonically€by€the€W.€G.€Party€and€Mr.€T.€would€be€likely€toÐ &v Ðexpose€persons€identifiable€by€race€and€religion€to€hatred€and€contempt.€The€hearings€of€theÐ  \ ÐTribunal€order,€and€therefore€an€òòex€parte€óóapplication€was€made€were€carried€out€on€12,€13,Ð òB Ð14€and€15€June€1979€and€a€to€the€Federal€Court,€Trial€Division,€by€the€Canadian€decisionÐ Ø( Ðwas€made€on€20€July€1979.€The€Tribunal€found€that€"although€some€of€the€messages€areÐ ¾ Ðsomewhat€innocuous,€the€matter€for€the€most€part€that€they€have€communicated€is€likely€toÐ ¤ô Ðexpose€a€person€or€persons€to€hatred€or€contempt€by€reason€of€the€fact€that€the€person€isÐ Š Ú Ðidentifiable€by€race€or€religion€and€in€particular,€the€messages€identify€specific€individualsÐ p!À  Ðby€name".€It€held,€therefore,€that€the€complaints€were€substantiated€and€ordered€the€W.€G.Ð V"¦! ÐParty€and€Mr.€T.€to€cease€using€the€telephone€to€communicate€the€subject„matter€which€hadÐ <#Œ" Ðformed€the€contents€of€the€tape„recorded€messages€referred€to€in€the€complaints.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ2.5.€The€Canadian€Human€Rights€Commission€sent€the€decision€of€the€Tribunal€to€theÐ î%>!% ÐFederal€Court€for€the€purpose€of€enforcement€on€22€August€1979,€pursuant€to€section€43€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act,€and€it€was€filed€pursuant€to€Federal€Court€Rule€201€òò(I€a)Ð º' #' Ð(a);óó€the€decision€thereupon€became€enforceable€in€the€same€manner€as€an€order€of€that€Court.Ð  (ð#( ÐSection€28€(2)€of€the€Federal€Court€Act€requires€that€parties€seeking€judicial€review€of€aÐ †)Ö$) ÐTribunal€order€initiate€proceedings€within€10€days€of€the€date€the€decision€is€communicatedÐ l*¼%* Ðto€them.€The€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act,€however,€provides€that€"an€appeal€lies€to€aÐ R+¢&+ ÐReview€Tribunal€from€a€decision€of€a€Tribunal€on€any€question€of€law€or€fact€or€mixed€lawÐ 8,ˆ', Ðand€fact",€and€section€42€(1)€of€the€Act€lays€down€a€time„limit€of€30€days€for€such€appeal.Ð -n(- ÐMr.€T.€was,€therefore,€convinced€that€he€would€have€30€days€to€launch€an€appeal€and,€inÐ ° Ðconsequence,€failed€to€appeal€within€the€10€days€set€out€in€section€28€(2)€of€the€FederalÐ –æ ÐCourt€Act.€In€these€circumstances,€Mr.€T.'s€only€redress€was€to€bring€a€Notice€of€MotionÐ |Ì Ðunder€Federal€Court€Rule€324€to€extend€the€time€for€such€appeal.€He€did€so€on€14€SeptemberÐ b² Ð1979,€but€extension€of€time€was€refused€on€17€October€1979,€on€the€grounds€that:€"theÐ H˜ Ðmaterial€filed€in€support€of€the€application€did€not€disclose€any€serious€grounds€forÐ . ~ Ðchallenging€the€validity€of€the€Decision€which€the€applicants€wished€to€attack".€Ð  d ÐÌ2.6.€On€31€August€1979,€before€the€appeal€proceedings€mentioned€above€took€place,€theÐ à 0 ÐCanadian€Human€Rights€Commission€recorded€a€new€message€from€the€telephone€serviceÐ Æ   Ðof€the€W.€G.€Party,€complaining€that€"we€are€now€denied€the€right€to€expose€the€race€andÐ ¬ ü  Ðreligion€of€certain€people,€regardless€of€their€guilt€in€the€destruction€of€Canada"€and€addingÐ ’â  Ð"those€who€do€not€believe€there€is€a€preponderance€of€certain€racial€and€religious€minoritiesÐ xÈ  Ðinvolved€in€the€corruption€of€our€Christian€way€of€life€will€never€understand€the€simple€basisÐ ^®  Ðof€our€way€of€life„the€common€denominator".€In€this€connection,€the€Canadian€HumanÐ D”  ÐRights€Commission€instructed€its€Legal€Counsel€to€write€to€Mr.€T.€He€warned€Mr.€T.€on€2Ð *z  ÐOctober€1979,€that€if€these€particular€passages€were€not€deleted€from€the€recordings€by€10Ð ` ÐOctober€1979,€he€would€make€an€application€to€the€Federal€Court€to€enforce€the€TribunalÐ öF Ðorder.€Mr.€T.€responded€by€letter€dated€10€October€1979€that,€although€he€did€not€agree€thatÐ Ü, Ðthe€passages€were€n€contravention€of€the€order€of€the€Tribunal,€he€would€change€theÐ Â Ðmessages.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ2.7.€Subsequent€to€Mr.€T.'s€letter€of€reply,€Mr.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€continued€to€useÐ tÄ Ðmessages€that€were€deemed€to€be€in€contravention€of€the€Tribunal€Human€RightsÐ Zª ÐCommission€to€the€effect€that€acts€had€been€committed€by€Mr.€T.€contrary€to€the€order€of€aÐ @ ÐHuman€Rights€Tribunal.€A€transcript€of€the€allegedly€offensive€messages€dated€7€and€31Ð &v ÐAugust€1979,€12€October€1979,€and€27€November€1979€was€placed€before€the€Federal€Court.Ð  \ ÐMr.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€were€ordered€to€appear€before€the€Federal€Court€on€19€FebruaryÐ òB Ð1980€to€hear€proof€that€they€had€disobeyed€the€order€and€to€submit€a€defence.€Ð Ø( ÐÌ2.8.€The€contempt€of€court€proceedings€took€place€before€the€Federal€Court.€After€hearingÐ ¤ô Ðthe€Legal€Counsel€for€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Commission€and€Mr.€T.,€it€concluded€thatÐ Š Ú Ðthe€Commission€had€established€beyond€any€doubt€that€Mr.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€hadÐ p!À  Ðdisobeyed€the€order€made€by€the€Human€Rights€Tribunal€and€had€made€use€of€the€telephoneÐ V"¦! Ðservices€to€convey€the€type€of€messages€which€they€were€prohibited€from€disseminating,Ð <#Œ" Ðnamely,€that€"some€corrupt€Jewish€international€conspiracy€is€depriving€the€callers€of€theirÐ "$r# Ðbirthright€and€that€the€white€race€should€stand€up€and€fight€back".€The€Court€decided€on€21Ð %X $ ÐFebruary€1980€that€Mr.€T.€was€guilty€of€contempt€of€court€and€sentenced€him€to€one€yearÐ î%>!% Ðimprisonment€and€the€W.€G.€Party€to€pay€a€fine€of€òò$5,000.€óóThe€sentences€were€to€beÐ Ô&$"& Ðsuspended€as€long€as€Mr.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€did€not€use€telephone€communications€forÐ º' #' Ðthe€dissemination€of€hate€messages.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ2.9.€Mr.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€appealed€against€this€decision€within€the€required€period€ofÐ l*¼%* Ð30€days.€The€suspension€of€sentences€was€lifted€on€II€June€1980€on€the€grounds€of€the€natureÐ R+¢&+ Ðof€an€additional€message€of€3€June€1980,€and€Mr.€T.€was€committed€to€the€Toronto€jail€onÐ 8,ˆ', Ð17€June€1980.€Early€in€June€1980,€Mr.€T.€hired€legal€counsel,€Mr.€R.€B.,€to€represent€him€andÐ -n(- Ðthe€W.€G.€Party,€and€to€continue€with€the€appeal€to€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal.€On€24€JuneÐ ° Ð1980,€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€ordered€that€the€execution€of€sentences€be€stayed€pendingÐ –æ Ðthe€disposition€of€the€appeal.€On€27€February€1981,€the€Court€dismissed€the€appeal.€TheÐ |Ì Ðauthor€of€the€communication€alleges€that€the€Court€did€so€without€written€or€oral€reasons,Ð b² Ðand€without€deciding€upon€any€of€the€issues€raised.€An€application€for€leave€to€appeal€to€theÐ H˜ ÐSupreme€Court€of€Canada€was€denied€by€the€presiding€judge€of€the€Court€of€Appeal.€AnÐ . ~ Ðapplication€for€suspension€of€the€operation€of€the€sentence€imposed€upon€Mr.€T.€was€grantedÐ  d Ðby€the€Federal€Court€of€first€instance€on€13€April€1981.€Another€application€by€Mr.€B.€onÐ ú J Ðbehalf€of€Mr.€T.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€was€brought€by€way€of€Notice€of€Motion€for€leave€toÐ à 0 Ðappeal€before€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada,€but€was€denied€on€22€June€1981.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ3.€The€author€of€the€communication€states€from€the€foregoing€that€all€domestic€remediesÐ ’â  Ðhave€been€exhausted€and€that€the€same€matter€has€not€been€submitted€for€examination€underÐ xÈ  Ðanother€procedure€for€international€investigation€or€settlement.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ4.€In€a€further€letter,€dated€22€September€1981,€Mr.€B.€added€that,€following€the€denial€ofÐ *z  ÐMr.€T.'s€appeal€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada,€he€again€surrendered€to€the€Sheriff€of€theÐ ` ÐJudicial€District€of€York,€Province€of€Ontario,€on€27€July€1981,€and€had€been€serving€hisÐ öF Ðsentence€since€then.€The€following€claim€was€also€made:€pursuant€to€the€provisions€ofÐ Ü, Ðsection€7€of€the€Post€Office€Act€(Canada),€which€forbids€the€transmission€of€"scurrilousÐ Â Ðmaterial",€Mr.€T.€had,€since€May€1965,€been€proscribed€from€receiving€or€sending€any€mailÐ ¨ø Ðin€Canada.€The€author€maintains€that€there€are€no€domestic€recourses€to€exhaust€in€thisÐ ŽÞ Ðregard€under€Canadian€legislation,€and€requests€that€the€said€proscription€be€considered€byÐ tÄ Ðthe€Human€Rights€Committee,€together€with€the€other€claims,€as€a€possible€further€violationÐ Zª Ðof€article€19€of€the€Covenant.€(The€author's€initial€submission€of€18€July€1981€indicates€thatÐ @ Ðthe€proscription€has€also€applied€to€the€W.€G.€Party€since€1980.)€Ð &v ÐÌòò5.óó€By€its€decision€of€24€October€1980,€the€Working€Group€o€f€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ òB Ðtransmitted€the€communication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€theÐ Ø( ÐState€party€concerned,€requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€ofÐ ¾ Ðadmissibility€of€the€communication.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ6.1.€In€its€submission€dated€10€May€1982,€the€State€party€objected€to€the€admissibility€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication€on€various€grounds.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ6.2.€As€regards€the€allegation€that€prosecution€under€section€13€of€the€Canadian€HumanÐ "$r# ÐRights€Act€resulted€in€a€breach€of€article€19€and,€by€inference,€articles€2€and€26€of€theÐ %X $ ÐCovenant,€the€State€party€submits€that€no€breach€of€the€Covenant€occurred.€It€states€that€theÐ î%>!% Ðimpugned€provision€of€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act€does€not€contravene€these€provisionsÐ Ô&$"& Ðof€the€Covenant,€t€ut€in€fact€gives€effect€to€article€20€(2)€of€the€Covenant.€Thus,€not€only€isÐ º' #' Ðthe€author's€"right"€to€communicate€racist€ideas€not€protected€by€the€Covenant,€it€is€in€factÐ  (ð#( Ðincompatible€with€its€provisions,€and€therefore€this€part€of€the€communication€is€in€thisÐ †)Ö$) Ðrespect€inadmissible€under€articles€1,€2€and€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€The€State€partyÐ l*¼%* Ðfurther€contends€that,€as€regards€the€same€allegation,€the€communication€should€be€declaredÐ R+¢&+ Ðinadmissible€because€the€W.€G.€Party€and€Mr.€T.€failed€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies.€TheÐ 8,ˆ', ÐState€party,€in€this€respect,€notes€that€Mr.€T.€and€the€Party,€by€their€own€inaction€andÐ -n(- Ðnegligence,€failed€to€file€their€application€for€judicial€review€within€the€time„limitsÐ ° Ðprescribed€by€law,€to€seek€review€of€the€order€of€the€Tribunal€within€the€time€frame€providedÐ –æ Ðby€law,€or€to€succeed€in€convincing€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€to€extend€this€time€byÐ |Ì Ðshowing€that€their€appeal€had€some€merit;€that€they€could€have€challenged€the€validity€of€theÐ b² Ðlegislation€which€hey€were€found€to€have€contravened;€consequently,€that€that€negligence,Ð H˜ Ðas€well€as€failure€to€invoke€convincing€grounds€to€justify€an€extension€of€the€time€for€review,Ð . ~ Ðresulted€in€the€loss€of€these€remedies.€Ð  d ÐÌ6.3.€As€regards€the€allegation€that€the€application€of€section€7€of€the€Post€Office€Act€resultedÐ à 0 Ðin€an€arbitrary€interference€with€their€correspondence€contrary€to€the€provisions€of€article€19Ð Æ   Ðof€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€contends€that€the€evidence€shows€that€there€occurred€in€thisÐ ¬ ü  Ðrespect€no€breach€of€this€article€or,€for€that€matter,€of€article€17,€but€that€the€impugnedÐ ’â  Ðprovision€of€the€Post€Office€Act€gives€effect€to€article€20€of€the€Covenant,€and,€therefore,Ð xÈ  Ðthat€this€part€of€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð ^®  ÐAs€regards€the€question€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€State€party€submits€that€Mr.Ð D”  ÐT.€and€the€W.€G.€Party€had€failed,€at€the€time€the€communication€was€made,€to€challenge€theÐ *z  Ðvalidity€and€legality€of€the€Minister's€prohibitory€order,€or€its€extension,€in€judicialÐ ` Ðproceedings€before€the€courts.€The€State€party€further€states€that€a€prohibitory€order€may€beÐ öF Ðrevoked€by€the€Postmaster„General€under€certain€conditions:€"Formerly,€section€7€of€the€PostÐ Ü, ÐOffice€Act€and,€currently,€section€41€of€the€Canada€Post€Corporation€Act€allow€forÐ Â Ðrevocation€of€a€prohibitory€order€if€a€person€ceases€to€use€the€mail€for€a€prohibited€purpose.Ð ¨ø ÐShould€Mr.€T.€cease€to€distribute,€personally€or€through€the€W.€G.€Party,€scurrilous€material,Ð ŽÞ Ðhe€could€apply€for€the€revocation€of€the€1965€Order."Ð tÄ ÐÌ6.4.€The€State€party€furthermore€argues,€on€the€question€of€admissibility,€that€the€complaintÐ @ Ðof€the€W.€G.€Party€should€be€declared€inadmissible€since€un€er€the€preamble€and€articles€1,Ð &v Ð2,€3€and€5€of€the€Optional€Protocol€only€"individuals"€may€submit€a€written€communicationÐ  \ Ðto€the€Committee€for€consideration,€but€not€entities€such€as€the€W.€G.€Party.€Ð òB ÐÌ7.€1.€Mr.€B.€submitted€further€comments,€dated€4€August€1982,€together€with€supplementaryÐ ¾ Ðexhibits€on€the€State€party's€submission€of€10€May€1992.€Mr.€B.€alleges€that€a€prohibitoryÐ ¤ô Ðorder€which€was€made€under€section€7€of€the€Post€Office€Act€in€1965,€specifically€forbiddingÐ Š Ú ÐMr.€T.€and€his€Party€(his€Party€was€then€called€the€"€N.O.")€to€use€the€Canadian€mail,€is€soÐ p!À  Ðbroad€that€mail€sent€to€Mr.€T.€or€the€W.€G.€Party€(for€the€W.€G.€Party€since€9€July€1980)€isÐ V"¦! Ðalways€returned€to€the€sender€and€there€has€been€continuous€interference€for€17€years.€Mr.Ð <#Œ" ÐB.€also€states€that€this€discriminatory€policy€continued€even€during€the€period€of€Mr.€T.'sÐ "$r# Ðimprisonment,€specifically€denying€him€all€mail€privileges€afforded€to€other€prisoners.€TheÐ %X $ Ðauthor€submits€that€this€practice€was€in€violation€of€"the€Standard€Minimum€Rules€forÐ î%>!% ÐTreatment€of€Offenders".€It€is€further€alleged€that€Mr.€T.€is€now€disputing€this€matter€further,Ð Ô&$"& Ðbut€his€legal€counsel€was€personally€inconvenienced€thereby€in€his€duty€to€represent€Mr.€T.Ð º' #' Ðat€all€times,€since€correspondence€with€him€was€rendered€impossible,€and€that€this€is€clearlyÐ  (ð#( Ða€violation€of€the€right€to€hold€opinions€without€interference.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ7.2.€Mr.€B.€further€states€that,€although€the€State€party€makes€the€points€that€under€sectionÐ R+¢&+ Ð28€(2)€of€the€Federal€Court€Act€parties€seeking€a€review€of€an€order€must€initiate€proceedingsÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwithin€10€days€of€the€date€of€the€communication€of€the€order€to€them,€"or€within€such€furtherÐ -n(- Ðtime€as€the€Court€of€Appeal€or€a€judge€thereof€may,€either€before€or€after€the€expiration€ofÐ ° Ðthose€10€days,€fix€or€allow",€and€that€Mr.€T.€was€late€in€filing€his€application€for€a€review€ofÐ –æ Ðthe€order,€the€visit€to€the€Federal€Court€Office€in€Toronto€in€connection€with€his€affidavitÐ |Ì Ðsupporting€the€application€for€an€order€extending€the€time„limit,€was€made€9€hours€after€theÐ b² Ðlapse€of€the€prescribed€10€days.€It€is,€therefore,€claimed€that€the€refusal€to€extend€the€timeÐ H˜ Ðwas€in€these€circumstances€harsh,€arbitrary€and€a€misuse€of€discretionary€power.€If€theÐ . ~ Ðapplication€had€been€granted,€it€might€have€been€unnecessary€to€refer€the€presentÐ  d Ðcommunication€to€the€Human€Rights€Committee.€Ð ú J ÐÌ8.€On€the€basis€of€the€information€before€it€the€Human€Rights€Committee,€after€carefulÐ Æ   Ðexamination,€concludes:€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌòò(a)€óóThe€W.€G.€Party€is€an€association€and€not€an€individual,€and€as€such€cannot€submit€aÐ xÈ  Ðcommunication€to€the€Committee€under€the€Optional€Protocol.€Therefore,€theÐ ^®  Ðcommunication€is€inadmissible€under€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol€in€so€far€as€itsÐ D”  Ðconcerns€the€W.€G.€Party;€Ð *z  ÐÌ(b)€As€to€the€author's€claim€that€section€13€(1)€of€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act,€underÐ öF Ðwhich€his€use€of€the€telephone€service€has€been€curtailed,€has€been€applied€against€him€inÐ Ü, Ðviolation€of€article€19€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€notes€that€he€failed€to€file€hisÐ Â Ðapplication€for€judicial€review€within€the€time„limits€prescribed€by€law.€It€appears,€however,Ð ¨ø Ðin€view€of€the€ambiguity€ensuing€from€the€conflicting€time„limits€laid€down€in€the€laws€inÐ ŽÞ Ðquestion,€that€a€reasonable€effort€was€indeed€made€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies€in€thisÐ tÄ Ðrespect€and,€therefore,€the€Committee€does€not€consider€that,€as€to€this€claim,€theÐ Zª Ðcommunication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€under€article€5€òò(2)€(b)€óóof€the€OptionalÐ @ ÐProtocol.€However,€the€opinions€which€Mr.€T.€seeks€to€disseminate€through€the€telephoneÐ &v Ðsystem€clearly€constitute€the€advocacy€of€racial€or€religious€hatred€which€Canada€has€anÐ  \ Ðobligation€under€article€20€(2)€of€the€Covenant€to€prohibit.€In€the€Committee's€opinion,Ð òB Ðtherefore,€the€communication€is,€in€respect€of€this€claim,€incompatible€with€the€provisionsÐ Ø( Ðof€the€Covenant,€within€the€meaning€of€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol;€Ð ¾ ÐÌòò(c)€óóAs€to€the€author's€claim€that€the€application€of€section€7€of€the€Post€Office€Act€resultedÐ Š Ú Ðin€arbitrary€interference€with€his€correspondence,€contrary€to€the€provisions€of€article€17€andÐ p!À  Ð19€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€accepts€that€the€broad€scope€of€the€prohibitory€order,Ð V"¦! Ðextending€as€it€does€to€all€mail,€whether€sent€or€received,€raises€a€question€of€compatibilityÐ <#Œ" Ðwith€articles€17€and€19€of€the€Covenant.€However,€this€claim€is€inadmissible€under€articleÐ "$r# Ð5€òò(2)€(b)€óóof€the€Optional€Protocol.€Mr.€T.€did€not€challenge€the€validity€and€legality€of€theÐ %X $ ÐMinister's€prohibitory€order,€or€its€extension,€before€the€competent€Canadian€courts.Ð î%>!% ÐMoreover,€a€prohibitory€order€may€be€revoked€under€certain€conditions€and€Mr.€T.€has€notÐ Ô&$"& Ðapplied€for€such€revocation.€He€has€therefore€failed€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ9.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌà0 4 àThat€the€communication€is€inadmissible.€ÐR+¢&+4ü!4ü! ÐÌ_________Ð -n(- Ð*/€€€Mr.€Walter€Surma€Tarnopolsky,€pursuant€to€rule€85€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure,Ð ° Ðdid€not€participate€in€the€consideration€of€this€communication€or€in€the€adoption€of€theÐ –æ ÐCommittee's€present€decision.€Ð |Ì ÐÓnÓ