Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A lawsuit has been served against our Canadian "sister" site, Free Dominion.
Free Dominion ^ | 11-23-07 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

Posted on 11/23/2007 3:43:25 AM PST by backhoe

Edited on 11/23/2007 1:22:32 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

Its purpose is to silence free speech.
And, to shut down discussion of any and all subjects which offend the perpetually aggrieved, professional whiners & moaners.
 

The skull behind the Smiley Face of "political correctness" is revealed-- and bear in mind, the Legal Jackal, Richard Warman, behind all this is getting rich, using the law to cudgel people in to silence-- but the threat, to free speech, is real:
 
 The Free Dominion Eight - Which FDers made Warman's lawsuit?... [ 1, 2 ]

 

Connie Fournier wrote:
Oh, yeah, he wants $150,000 in damages, but he is willing to settle this for the bargain price of $10,900.


I can't think of any words that are contemptuous enough to use in response to that.



Backhoe says:
What a sorry, conniving, thieving little bastard.


Abusing the might and majesty of the law to extort money from innocent people.

And, to silence them.

All under the aegis of "rights..."

At least with a common street criminal, you know you are dealing with a crook- he is nothing more than a silk-shirted thief.

Connie, you let us know what you need- me and Miss Emily are far from rich, but we'll scrape the floorboards, and I can always bump the fundraisers with drivel and doggerel and musings from the swamps of Georgia...

Get the meanest, most aggressive lawyer you can find.

 
The above story is a subset of this:
 
Be sure to read it all...
...use the links.

This affects all of us.
 
If Richard Warman, Hyena in a $1,000 suit, can silence one site- he can silence another.
 

****UPDATE****

More information has come up, here:

  Court Papers from Richard Warman [ 1, 2, 3 ]


TOPICS: Breaking News; Canada; Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: canada; chrc; freedom; freedominion; internet; lawsuit; richardwarman; speech; tr; warman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 901-930 next last
To: All
Steyn: "My career in Canada will be formally ended next... -- The genius of the Sharia Creeps' complaint is that they can silence Maclean's (and, don't doubt it, every other publication in Canada) more effectively without violence, because they'll have preemptively silenced the "screw you" -- not to mention the cheers.
551 posted on 05/12/2008 6:47:43 AM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Steyn: The Justice Minister speaks...
 
CHRC files - Appeal for help by Ezra -- It will be hard to top Ezra Levant's incredible fisking of this pathetic document.

But he's asking other bloggers to try, so knock yourselves out.
 
CHRC files - Front Page Challenge

552 posted on 05/12/2008 12:15:51 PM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

"Support Free Speech In Canada"

I'm a proud R.A.G.E Media affiliate -- they're the folks who give out free copies of Chesterton's classic book Orthodoxy, offer  an Instant Catholic Library for a great price, and much more.

They're terrific to work with. Here's another reason why. I just got this via email:

We Americans take the free speech we (still) have for granted.

Take, for instance, Catholic Blogs like Five Feet of Fury which are being sued for speaking out.

If you want to help, a percentage of every purchase made through [this link] will go to Kathy at Five Feet of Fury to help her pay her legal fees.


After a long hard day of being monitored by government agents (while trying to concentrate on my own actual work) it's nice to know I've got friends too.

Thanks, Paul. I'm so moved. God bless.


 

R.A.G.E. Media Supports Free Speech in Canada!

RA.G.E. Media Steps up to the Plate:

We Americans take the free speech we (still) have for granted.

Take, for instance, Catholic Blogs like Five Feet of Fury which are being sued for speaking out.

If you want to help, a percentage of every purchase made through the link below will go to Kathy at Five Feet of Fury to help her pay her legal fees.

Letter to A-G re: Freedom of Speech

Dead Reckoning writes a letter to a zombie, er the near dead er I mean Rob Nicholson.


553 posted on 05/12/2008 3:44:22 PM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHRC files - BS from the Robbie Factory

554 posted on 05/13/2008 1:08:40 AM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

 Write to the Liberal Justice Critic about the CHRC


555 posted on 05/13/2008 11:31:19 AM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Heads up, people!
We need another $3000 to keep the legal boat afloat

556 posted on 05/13/2008 12:33:35 PM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

"...if the lights are starting to go out on the free web..."

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/

"...let’s rage and fight against the dying of the light, and make the maximum good mischief we can while opportunity affords."




557 posted on 05/13/2008 1:16:25 PM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

"...if the lights are starting to go out on the free web..."

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/

"...let’s rage and fight against the dying of the light, and make the maximum good mischief we can while opportunity affords."




558 posted on 05/14/2008 1:54:33 AM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 
 
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-05-13-0011/

Me on CFRB Radio this afternoon?

Just got a call from John Moore's producer. They want me to talk for a few minutes after 4PM EST, about that dumb Department of Justice document.

Ugh. Oh well, you can't really say no to this XXX. Hope I don't act too stupid. Moore gets on my nerves but I have a feeling he may be semi-ok on this issue. [UPDATE: I was right, he gets it. That wasn't entirely horrible. And the two callers were properly outraged.]

John Moore And Kathy Shaidle · 9.21 MB

559 posted on 05/14/2008 3:26:31 AM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: All

you've got to go to Free Mark Steyn to read it all.

The National Post: Warman lawsuit "entirely unfounded"

| | |

As regular readers of this blog will know, I have been sued by Canada's most litigious human rights complainant, Richard Warman. Warman has sued me and some of Canada's other leading bloggers -- Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan and Connie and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion -- for criticizing his conduct as Canada's chief user of Canada's section 13 thought crimes provision. In particular, we've been sued for discussing his habit of going online under a pseudonym, and posting bigoted remarks -- strange conduct for a human rights investigator indeed.

Here's a copy of Warman's suit, and my comments on it at the time.

Besides suing me and my fellow bloggers, Warman sued the National Post and its comment editor, Jonathan Kay. Kay had written a short blog item about one of Warman's online rants in which Warman called Sen. Anne Cools some outrageously racist and sexist epithets. Warman claimed he didn't write that particular screed -- though he's lied under oath about similar misdeeds before. Kay and the Post took Warman's denial at face value, and immediately pulled the blog entry. In addition, they published an apology both online and in the newspaper's print edition -- though the article only appeared on their blog.

In other words, the Post and Kay did just about everything possible to mitigate any damages alleged by Warman -- they even contacted other bloggers who had copied their original blog entry, and asked them to take it down. I've never heard of anyone going that far before.

Warman sued them nonetheless.

I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now. What did he think he'd get from them? Another apology? He's already got two. Or did he think that, because the Post settled so quickly once before, they'd settle again quickly, but this time with money? It just doesn't make sense to sue one of the biggest media companies in the country over such a trifle -- especially since they made Warman whole so quickly. Warman's speciality has been suing poor defendants without lawyers, or getting the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do so for him. It's just not his modus operandi to take on someone his own size -- or 1,000 times bigger. 

Well, now the National Post and Jonathan Kay have filed their Statement of Defence. You can see it here. (The other defendants, including me, will be filing our defences shortly.)

The Post/Kay defence naturally is different than mine and the other defendants' will be. The Post and Kay are not standing by the substance of their blog post -- they already conceded that without a fight. Now they're fighting Warman on his decision to sue them nonetheless.

Their defence claims that Warman's reputation hasn't suffered at all, and if it did, their apologies have made up for that -- apologies that the Post notes were approved by Warman's lawyer. The Post takes on Warman in his essence: a hyper-litigious, thin-skinned complainer-of-fortune. Look at paragraph 22 of their defence:

the damages or loss claimed are excessive, exaggerated, remote, unrecognized at law, unmitigated by the Plaintiff, and unconnected with any alleged act or omission on its part, and puts the Plaintiff to strict proof thereof.

In other words, the Post is calling Warman's bluff. Normally, damages are presumed, but not when an Ontario newspaper makes an apology immediately, as the Post did. Warman will now have to demonstrate, specifically, how he was damaged by the Post, and how he's owed big bucks for it. And, if he doesn't, the Post demands "costs on a solicitor-client basis" -- in other words, every single cent of their legal bills back.

It's an elegant defence -- short and sweet. I'm pleased. Sometimes big companies find it easier and simpler to just cut a four- or five-figure cheque to get rid of a nuisance suit like this. But it's clear Warman pushed them too far; he already negotiated for two apologies and got them. The Post can sense that paying more danegeld to Warman doesn't make sense.

They're done apologizing. They didn't want a fight; they did everything reasonable to avoid one, even swallowing their pride and accepting Warman's incredible denials at face value. But now that Warman's suing, they're fighting back.

Warman added the Post to his suit because he thought they'd be a soft touch with deep pockets. But now they're coming at him for full costs. I think they'll get it, too,

| | |

Here is professor Alexander Tsesis.

tsesis.jpgHe is the American professor on whom Canada's Conservative government relied so heavily in their 50-page legal brief in support of censorship.

You'd think that the Canadian government would be able to find a Canadian to make the arguments that Tsesis made, but it's hard to find someone who will shovel so much complete drivel with a straight face. I mean, how often do you come across this, written stone-cold sober:

black people would not have been the main victims of slavery in the antebellum American south without the support of extensive mass mythology about their alleged inferior qualities.

and:

[Hitler fomented] a mass delusion that Jews were responsible for bad times, and as a result, a Holocaust could be perpetrated against them without general opposition.

So Blacks were enslaved and Jews were murdered not because their real rights were destroyed by governments, but because of "mythology" and "delusion".

As I noted in my earlier post on this subject, it's no surprise that the only other political client that this moonbat has is Sen. Ted Kennedy. I wonder if Tsesis got that gig by writing a scholarly article that Mary Jo Kopechne died because those murderers at Oldsmobile didn't equip their cars with SCUBA gear.

It's not weird for Kennedy to hire an obscure leftist American professor -- birds of a feather, etc. But it's weird for the Canadian government to do so. They even repeatedly call him "Dr." Tsesis, though his c.v. reveals no basis for such a title. Maybe the team at the Department of Justice just wanted to hire someone who got his law degree at the Illinois Institute of Technology, just for the novelty of it.

So that's the Conservative government's expert.

By contrast, here is professor Anuj Desai.

desai.jpgTake a look at Desai's biography.

Desai doesn't have a contract with Sen. Kennedy to recommend him. But he does have a math degree from Harvard, an International Affairs degree from Columbia and a law degree from UC-Berkeley, where he was editor of the California Law Review. He clerked for two courts in Washington, D.C., and has worked or lectured in Taiwan, South Africa and Holland -- not to mention at the U.S. State Department.

For some reason, he couldn't find time to do what Tsesis brags about in his resume: writing the memorable A Snapshot into the life of a hobo, published in Xpressions. But not all of us are destined to soar with the eagles.

Why do I mention all of this? Because Blazing Catfur actually did some digging into Tsesis' scholarly reputation in America, and found it to be, uh, mixed.

The man the Conservative government loves so much that they gave him an honourary doctorate is considered to be a buffoon in his home country.

I'm not going to duplicate the excellent work that Blazing has done, which you can read here. Blazing wrote to Desai, who has torn Tsesis' work to shreds (or, as Blazing put it, New York Post style, "Tsesis' thesis torn to pieces"). I'll let you read it from Blazing directly. Maybe the first, very polite sentence from Desai's reply will tempt you to read the rest:

Dear Sir/Madam

I'm not aware of anyone else who has directly addressed Tsesis, in part because, as you imply, he is not particularly well-known here in the U.S...

Go read the rest!

By the way, despite (actually, because of) the appropriately negative reception the Department of Justice's memo has received, I believe that we're winning this battle. In fact, the timing of the 50-page obscenity was perfect -- they had been working on it for more than a year; their filing of it now only serves to raise the temperature on the issue. In effect, it's a challenge to Rob Nicholson and the Conservatives by their bureaucrats: Who's the boss? I hear that's the Prime Minister's favourite thing to hear from leftist 'crats. We'll see.

Look, I know the concept of "the worse, the better" is dark. But that legal brief was the lawyerly equivalent of Barbara Hall's outburst -- a provocative, embarrassing, self-destrutive act from the other side of this debate. Legal briefs like that were going to be filed anyways; a hundred examples of this sort of thing has been happening for decades without anyone paying attention. Now we're paying attention.

Look at the reaction to it: I've received over 100 comments in a day to my post on the subject, precisely because it's so outrageous. And I imagine that the Conservative caucus -- and Nicholson and Harper -- have heard from 100 people, too.

The public pressure is building. I can't even keep up with all of the Op-Eds, news stories and radio interviews on the subject these days -- you've got to go to Free Mark Steyn to read it all. This is part of the denormalization.

The legislative reform will follow, as surely as politicians love votes.

I'll repeat my earlier prediction: I believe we'll see the first concrete steps towards reform before the end of 2008.

And, if I may daydream a bit, I predict that, in the future, it won't be the guilty white liberal Marxist "Dr." Tsesis who is hired by Canadian DoJ lawyers. It will be Professor Desai, a man of high scholarly achievement who, like Keith Martin, just happens to be more of a minority than Richard Warman, Dean Steacy, Barbara Hall, Alexander Tsesis or any of the other human rights hucksters out there who claim to speak for minorities.

How would we know if the Alberta HRC went on strike?

| | |

On February 13, 2006, the Western Standard magazine, of which I was the publisher, printed eight of the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, to illustrate a news story on the subject.

On February 15, 2006, an anti-Semitic imam named Syed Soharwardy filed a "human rights" complaint against the magazine and me, with the government of Alberta's human rights commission. You can see that semi-literate, hand-scrawled fatwa here.

On March 30, 2006, I filed a written response to the complaint, assuming there was someone with enough sense at the HRC to throw out Soharwardy's complaint as a nuisance suit. I was wrong.

On January 11, 2008, some 600 days later, the HRC summoned me to an interrogation at the hands of their "human rights officer", Shirlene McGovern.

That was four months ago.

So we're at more than 800 days since the HRC first received Soharwardy's complaint.

So you can imagine my amusement today when my lawyer told me that the HRC asked him for a copy of my videotape of that interrogation.

Uh, what have they been doing these past four months? Did Officer McGovern not take notes?

Have they not seen the YouTube clips I uploaded to the Internet? 565,000 other people did. But not our intrepid bureaucrats. They're no so good with this Inter-nets thing. So I'll send it to them on a CD. Though a VHS would probably be better for them. Or maybe a Betamax.

As the Alberta HRC boasts in its annual report, its case load of complaints has actually fallen by 15% in the past year. Albertans just aren't bigoted enough for them, it seems. But it takes the HRC 7% longer to dispose of complaints -- up from 382 days to 410 days. That's a net productivity decline of 22% in a year. And their goal for next year: 435 days. Yes, the Alberta HRC actually wants to be less "efficient".

(Imagine if the HRC was actually being used for its original purposes of helping people, say, kicked out of an apartment in wintertime because of their race. What good would "help" a year later do? But the HRCs long ago stopped pretending to be shields to protect people -- now they're swords to attack people for the crime of political correctness.)

So the average case takes 410 days. I'm at 800 days and running -- and my formal hearing hasn't even been scheduled. The only way I know my interrogators are still alive is that they called my lawyers to get a copy of my videos.

(Could you imagine if a real police officer grilled a criminal suspect for 90 minutes, and then four months later sheepishly called up the suspect and asked sweetly for a copy of that suspect's notes on the interrogation? Imagine the peals of laughter!)

OK, you lazy, unprofessional, incompetent, corrupt, anti-Semitic slackers. I'll send you a video of my own interrogation -- and a bill for it. And I won't even take 800 days to do it. 

 
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-05-13-0011/

Me on CFRB Radio this afternoon?

Just got a call from John Moore's producer. They want me to talk for a few minutes after 4PM EST, about that dumb Department of Justice document.

Ugh. Oh well, you can't really say no to this XXX. Hope I don't act too stupid. Moore gets on my nerves but I have a feeling he may be semi-ok on this issue. [UPDATE: I was right, he gets it. That wasn't entirely horrible. And the two callers were properly outraged.]

John Moore And Kathy Shaidle · 9.21 MB
 
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1181608#1181608
 Only $110.00 to go and we've hit the target Hurray
 
CHRC: CAFE Motion - Apprehension of Bias

560 posted on 05/14/2008 11:27:15 AM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Keystone Cops Ask Levant for Help -- From the producers at the "colorful scrips that keep writing themselves", this one has to rank very near the top. The Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) doe not have enough evidence to proceed with their prosecution of Ezra Levant, and as such, have asked Levant to provide them with copies of his video of his day with Officer McGovern.

Un-effing-believable.

read Levant's post here about their request.
 
Bad news for Marc Lemire and for freedom around the globe

561 posted on 05/14/2008 4:05:20 PM PDT by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
We need another $3000 to keep the legal boat afloat [ 1 ... 4, 5, 6 ]
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1181796#1181796
 That, and another PayPal donation brings us to: $3495
 
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/

Restaurant owner can't afford to fight HRC complaint by lazy pothead

A Burlington businessman brought to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal after he told a medical marijuana user not to light up in front of his family restaurant has given up fighting the complaint because he couldn't afford the legal fees.

"The financial burden, the burden on me and on my family was too much," Ted Kindos, owner of Gator Ted's Tap and Grill, said yesterday after reaching a settlement.

Kindos said his lawyer told him it could cost up to $60,000 to continue fighting the complaint; it was scheduled for eight days of hearings at the Human Rights Tribunal beginning yesterday. Kindos said he has already spent $20,000. (...)

Neither Gibson nor Kindos would reveal details of the settlement, although Gibson did say he got what he originally asked for. It was reported in February that he sought $20,000 for mental anguish and for Kindos to pay for annual training and retraining of his staff on human rights policies.

If you're well enough to spawn two children and sit in hot tubs all day, let alone go out to eat, you aren't sick enough to be on "disability", let alone to smoke "medical marijuana."

Canada sucks.


562 posted on 05/15/2008 2:48:39 AM PDT by backhoe ("It's so Easy to spend somebody else's Money..."[ My Dad. circa 1958 ])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Dear Mr. Poilievre,
Great letter, great blog too.
 via
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/
 
Stillman: Truth is no defence. (Harper, you can’t handle the...
 
CHRC Seeking Hate Tip Line ...an informal secret police in Canada made up of minority groups and leftist thugs.

563 posted on 05/15/2008 1:38:16 PM PDT by backhoe ("It's so Easy to spend somebody else's Money..."[ My Dad. circa 1958 ])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Steyn: The fish rots from the head commissar down --Canada needs to come to its senses, fast.
We have undergone not just a coup but a de facto socialist revolution.  We need our country back, there is no place for us to go and become refugees.
 
Steyn, Levant, etc. : - Saudi Canadian HRCs ?
 
Mark Steyn: I'm Starring in One of Those Movies

564 posted on 05/15/2008 3:56:28 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CANADA vs FREE SPEECH: IN A NUTSHELL– “The constitutional question - plus: Reactions to the Attorney-General’s polytechnic Marxist claptrap”; and “The fish rots from the head commissar down …. (steynonline)
 
 It's 1938 all over again
 
Be Prepared [ 1, 2 ]
 
CHRC - Goldberg Files Part I
 
Should a coup be thrown in Canada?
 

Buzz

| | |

It's tough to gauge political momentum in Ottawa, especially from 3,000 kilometres away. But I think that the campaign to abolish section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the thought crimes section, is positively buzzing.

A lot of little things are happening at once, like vibrating molecules bumping up against each other. As Debbie Gyapong reports, Keith Martin has written to all the MPs on the Justice Committee, asking them not only to review section 13, but also the corruption at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

(Here's a list of the Justice Committee's members. It's chaired by Art Hanger, the Conservative MP for Calgary Northeast. Why not take a moment to write to Hanger to encourage him to dig into the CHRC -- if I know Hanger, I don't think he'll need a lot of convincing. You can e-mail him here.)

At the same time, the mainstream media is fully engaged in the story of human rights commissions and their abuses. Reporters like Joseph Brean are now regularly tracking the story and weighing in from time to time (as in this newsy update, pegged to Mark Steyn's Toronto visit). And Peggy Wente continues her series on the subject with a devastating critique of Barbara Hall's latest adventure at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, on top of her last salvo about the CHRC's half-million dollar award to a sensitive wannabe mountie. Wente's column is read by a lot of folks who don't usually surf the conservative blogosphere.

Look for coverage to ramp up again in two weeks as Maclean's and Steyn head into trial at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. I predict front-page reporting in the National Post, the Globe and Mail and the Vancouver Sun, and editorials of thoughtful outrage from coast to coast.

Last week's new human rights complaint, filed against the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, will be an ongoing fountain of news stories and editorials, too. If there were still any doubters, this latest attack on the free press makes it clear that section 13 and its provincial equivalents are a menace to anyone with an opinion -- not just to "neo-Nazis" or "conservatives". The fact that this complaint, like the one against Steyn and me, was filed by a radical Muslim should also disabuse Canadians of some illusions. A crack in our national armour of liberty has been found, and the jihadists are focusing all of their attacks on it. Steyn has, of course, a must-read Maclean's article on this troubling trend. 

There has been an interesting crescendo of legal activity, too. Maclean's magazine came out, all guns blazing, telling the Canadian Islamic Congress that they will never "settle" the CIC's complaint against them. In other words, when Maclean's loses at the B.C. Tribunal in two weeks, they'll appeal to a real court. Maclean's is the kind of litigant with the resources to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It was very encouraging to see them exhibit the will to match.

The National Post, too, joined the legal fight this week. Like Maclean's, they could have chosen to pay some danegeld to extricate themselves from Richard Warman's lawsuit; instead, they decided to fight. That decision was clearly a principled one, since a $10,000 settlement offer would likely have been all that was needed to get a relieved Warman to discontinue the action against them. The Post will spend much more than $10,000 fighting. It's impressive to see a display of principle like that. (Though it is pragmatic, too, in the long run. If the Post were to get a reputation as a legal pushover, there would be a long line of shake-down artists lining up at their door).

All of these things are happening around the same time; all of them are jiggling and jostling the molecules in this complex story. 

But the chemical reaction really heated up when the Department of Justice released its outrageous legal brief in support of section 13. The kind of junk arguments in that memo -- that slavery and the Holocaust wouldn't have happened had there been hate speech laws; that the legal defences of truth and fair comment ought not to apply to "hate speech"; that Jews rely on hate speech laws for their self-esteem, etc. -- are the sort of thing one encounters all the time at human rights commissions. But what made this so stunning was that it was a memo written by two of the Justice Minister's own lawyers, Simon Fothergill and Alysia Davies, not some arms-length commission. These weren't CHRC nutbars. They were Rob Nicholson's own nutbars. And 50 pages really lets a guy and a gal express their nuttiness well.

That memo caused a buzz on my own website, spiking traffic, and not just from outraged readers (including appalled conservatives and Conservatives). Judging from my visitor statistics, plenty of folks in Parliament, the Justice Department, the Federal Court of Canada and various human rights commissions were very interested in the public reaction the memo got -- including that it got a public reaction at all. I understand that Blazing Catfur, who has done a particularly good job at rebutting the junk law in that memo, has received a spike in nervous visitors from both the Justice Department and the CHRC, too.

But the memo (which you can read here if you have the stomach) has caused a ruckus bigger than the blogosphere. I have had two reporters -- who haven't reported on HRCs before -- e-mail me to get background on the memo. One reporter -- to his credit! -- didn't even believe the memo was real, asking me for corroboration that it wasn't a "forged document". That's exactly how I reacted to so many of the insane details about the CHRC when I first encountered them: I simply didn't believe they were real. (I mean, if a Hollywood screenwriter came up with this, it would be rejected by test audiences with a "yeah, right!") 

I'm told that Nicholson's memo has been e-mailed around Parliament Hill, not just amongst reporters, but amongst government MPs and even cabinet ministers. It has moved the embarrassment from the confines of the CHRC -- which could always be disowned as an arms-length nuthouse -- into the bosom of one of the most important ministries in the Conservative government. Simon Fothergill and Alysia Davies work for Rob Nicholson; they spoke in his name.

Put yourself in Nicholson's shoes for a moment.

Three months ago, when this issue was starting to percolate into his political consciousness, he put out some talking points for Conservative MPs, the purpose of which was to throw the hot potato to someone else. That's standard operating procedure for any government, let alone a minority government: put out fires, don't start them. Here is some of his spin:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are independent agencies that administer the Canadian Human Rights Act, according to procedures specified by the law, without interference from the government.

and

The Department of Justice continues to monitor the Commission and Tribunal to ensure that our human rights system remains effective.

But those talking points just don't work anymore -- it's not an "independent agency" that's in the mess, it's the Justice Minister, because of Fothergill and Davies.

And, when example after example of the CHRC's own corrupt processes are brought to your attention -- not just by the mere public, but by Keith Martin -- how do you still cling to this old talking point:

If asked about the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and its process: Refer letter writer to the CHRC’s website which has very detailed information pertaining to its mandate, discrimination and harassment, dispute resolution and much more.

 

No, I think the problem has spread from the CHRC into the Justice Department. I think it's becoming an embarrassment that can't be sloughed off on others. HRCs are becoming denormalized -- and if Nicholson doesn't do something about them on his watch, he risks having his own government become tainted by them. I think he'll act -- even if it takes some gentle encouragement from caucus, cabinet and even the Prime Minister. It was Stephen Harper himself who, in 1999, told B.C. Report magazine:

 

Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack o­n our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society… It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.

 

I think this campaign has momentum. And we haven't even heard from the Privacy Commissioner yet. I stand by my prediction that we will see real changes before the year is out.

 

Because There's Always A "Next"

"No, those who scare me are those who (not entirely unlike the Nazis) are in positions of authority and responsibility and think that this gives them a vantage point on what kinds of speech should and should not be acceptable. It's not that I care deeply if some truly marginal and deeply resentful fool gets caught in the sights of some kind of hate police and penalized. It's that in creating such a precedent for thought policing, both cop and citizen naturally ask, well, who's next?"


Posted by Kate at 1:20 AM | Comments (0)

I am slow to this topic; many other bloggers have already commented on this document and the Canadian government's use of the "hate speech" “expert” Alexander Tsesis, starting with Ezra Levant (here and here; a good place to find links to others is Blazing Cat Fur). But I have been otherwise occupied and just couldn't jump quickly into the fray. My comments are in the way of a first impression that come to me without a wide reading of the critics of Tsesis (see Cat Fur).

 

Reader Tips

"The persecution of a national news magazine and political websites by the CHRT, the libel suits against bloggers - that’s fine with the Liberals. They are firmly behind that - but to prevent a Liberal from using the auspices of parliament to question a man who is sueing him in a civil court - that’s one step too far."

Who's kidding whom? If he appeals this to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, there's a better than even chance he'll end up with high speed.

Yes, Canada does.

No more apologies. The Post is calling Warman's bluff.

Yours in the comments.


Posted by Kate at 1:17 AM | Comments (2)
 

Spanking Siddiqui

"Perhaps Mr Siddiqui might be a less opaque. There is no ‘ongoing debate in Canada over when freedom of speech crosses the line into hate.’ When the likes of Hamas, Hizbollah and the policies of the Arab world are given credibility, the question of hate is not in question. What is in question is just how much hate is acceptable- and the answer to that is quite clear: Canadians have a very high tolerance for hate if it is well camouflaged."


Posted by Kate at 5:56 PM | Comments (9)

565 posted on 05/16/2008 4:22:16 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Warman Wednesday was a HUGE success! Thanks, Mark Steyn!
 
CHRC Scumbags have new page to defend Section 13
 
Human rights commission orders Quebec city to stop praying
 
Breaking ! CHRT Denies CCF Intervener Status
 
Churches shouldn't be running our social services (BARF!!!!)...
 
CHRC - Goldberg Files Part I [ 1, 2 ]
 
CHRC files – Goldberg Files Part II
 
CHRC files – Goldberg Files Part III
 

Dutch Cartoonist Jailed

For this.

Artizans.jpg

Correction: The cartoon shown is from the Halifax Chronicle Herald, who are also being dragged before a HRC for publishing it. No jail time, though.

Yet.

Posted by Kate at 5:20 PM | Comments (43) "And I thought we liberated Holland. I'm starting to think that it's reached the point where violence is needed to shove a stake in the heart of leftist Political Correctness and leftist speech suppression."

SoCon Or Bust asks;"If they think the price is steep now, what’s it going to cost us when we have to fight to keep Sharia out later on?"

Break it to SoCon gently. Islam's sharia is here in Canada now. In addition, the Canadian version of Islam's sharia is the Canadian Human Rights Act, thanks to the socialists: PET, Big Bertha Wilson, Tommy Shoyama latterly of Saskatchewan, et al. The compact between Islam and the left has been made. The end result is now apparent; the loss of our freedom of speech.
The enforcement arms of Islam's sharia/CHRAct are the HRCs/tribunals; the commissars are Lucy, Hall, Worn, et al.
The price is being paid now. It will take a prodigious effort to cast off the chains which have been forged by the left-Islamic alliance.

And the elites of this country think people like SDAers are the problem . . .


566 posted on 05/17/2008 3:24:40 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Kevin Sorenson is the Conservative Member of Parliament from Crowfoot, Alberta.

What's Crowfoot like? Well, in the 2004 election, Sorenson received 80% of the vote in his riding. In 2006, that moved up to 82.5% when that NDP family up and left. Without checking Elections Canada, I'm guessing the remaining 17.5% of votes were write-ins for an Alberta independence party of some stripe.

I remember speaking at a Reform Party BBQ there, back in 1998, at Big Knife Provincial Park. I can testify that there were no tofu hotdogs on the grill.

I have received an exchange of correspondence between Sean McCormick, a constituent of Crowfoot, and Sorenson. Sean's letter is a good, old-fashioned broadside. He told me he's a little sheepish about the tone he used but, if I know Crowfoot, Sean's letter is probably the most liberal and wishy-washy thing that Sorenson's office has received in years.

I was going to just excerpt from the exchange (which was also copied to Rob Nicholson and Stephen Harper) but I really don't want to leave out a single word of Sean's missive:

Dear Sirs,

As a voter living in the Crowfoot riding in Alberta, I am writing to express my dismay over the revelations of wrongdoing and corruption by Human Rights Commissions both at the provincial and federal levels that Canadians have been witness to these past few months. I am disgusted and angered by what I have seen. This fiasco runs contrary to my values and spits in the face of my grandfather, a war veteran who served this country in WWII.

We've seen dishonest and flagrantly illegal behavior on the part of Human Rights Commissions and their employees. That Richard Warman continues to be allowed to make Section 13 his own personal plaything destroys any notion of our country having a working justice system (Mr. Nicholson, I'm speaking to you if you can hear anything from that cave you've been hiding in).

This is the ONLY issue I'm voting on come the next election. My vote goes to the candidate/party that is doing the most to shut down these HRC boondoggles, or at the very least, repeal Section 13 of the human rights act. I am also willing to volunteer my time and put my money (the maximum contribution allowed by law) behind the candidate that best represents my values on this issue. I normally vote along conservative lines, but I'm willing to cross the floor on this issue, even if that means voting for one of those granola-crunching Green Party freaks.

So far the Liberals are in the lead for getting my vote thanks to the efforts of Dr. Keith Martin. If you want my vote and support back, you know what you have to do.

Sincerely,

Sean McCormick

The bulk of Sorenson's reply is the form letter authored by Rob Nicholson's office back in February -- a big dose of blandness designed to lull and numb. But buried amongst that politically correct hay was Sorenson's own sharp little needle:

I want you to know that I also have grave concerns with these troubling actions of the Commission, and look forward to receiving a copy of the response you receive from Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson.

Nice. I know that response will not satisfy most red-blooded Crowfoot voters. But it's good enough for me, for now. Sorenson is the chair of Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee; that's not quite a cabinet position, but it's a high enough rank that he knows he has to be careful about mowing the Justice Minister's lawn.

I'd put Sorenson down pretty firmly on our side of the ledger. He doesn't just have concerns, he has "grave concerns"; he calls the CHRC's actions "troubling"; and he claims he's "looking forward" to Nicholson's reply. I'm sure he is, actually -- he's obviously not satisfied with Nicholson's three-month-old talking points that are obsolete to the point of being insulting.

I'm not sure that Sorenson has gone far enough to win Sean's vote -- and donation. I'd say Keith Martin's private member's motion puts the Liberals in the lead. I'm pretty sure Sorenson isn't going to lose Crowfoot over this issue. But I'm equally sure that Sean speaks for about 82.5% of his neighbours. Probably more.

P.S. Gentle reader, why don't you take literally 30 seconds out of your busy day to write an encouraging letter to Sorenson? Just click here for his e-mail address.

P.P.S. If you haven't yet written an e-mail to your MP, why not? It's pretty easy, as Sean shows. You can find your MP's e-mail address very quickly: here, if you know your riding's name or MP's name, or here, if you just know your postal code. Send me the exchange, and I'll post it. If you get a snail-mail letter, please send it to me in .pdf format, or e-mail me a note and I'll tell you how to fax it to me.

Athanasios Hadjis: "I'm lazy"

| | |

As I reported two weeks ago, the Canadian Constitution Foundation applied for intervenor status in Marc Lemire's constitutional challenge to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the thought crimes section.

It was a breakthrough: a highly-regarded, mainstream civil rights organization weighing in on behalf of Lemire. The CCF is a registered charity, with a sterling record of defending minority rights, ranging from Japanese-Canadian fishermen to a Nisga'a chief. Not only is the CCF comprised of true constitutional experts -- it even has Eugene Meehan, the former president of the Canadian Bar Association on its board of advisors -- but it is politically mainstream. It can't be sloughed off as some neo-Nazi front -- the opposite, in fact.

No wonder their application for intervenor status was summarily rejected.

Today, Athanasios Hadjis, the chair of the tribunal hearing the matter, threw out the CCF's request to join in as an intervenor. Hadjis's brief ruling is a repulsive blend of arrogance, laziness and prejudice. Let's be honest: Hadjis is bored, and doesn't want to waste time going through the motions of a fair hearing, and the CCF means he potentially has hours of extra reading to do.

Throughout the March 25th hearing, Hadjis repeatedly sighed "we're done" -- even when the lawyers of the case weren't done. I wasn't there, so I don't know how many times Hadjis looked at the clock, but I'm sure it was in the dozens. But can you really blame Hadjis? The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate for section 13 thought crimes. They're just going through the motions anyways. Can't they just hurry up, so he can declare Lemire guilty?

Hadjis's ruling is laughable, and the CCF should immediately appeal it to the Federal Court. Take paragraph 6:

The administration of this case has been to say the least, unwieldy and challenging.

Hadjis is right. He has run a mockery of a hearing. A dozen examples of his incompetence come to mind, ranging from the withholding of transcripts from the respondent, to Hadjis's continuing refusal to compel the prosecutors at the Canadian Human Rights Commission to hand over their document disclosure. The trial is done, and the respondent has yet to see the full case against him.

(Question: when does serial incompetence become corruption? Answer: when the respondent's rights are violated, and Hadjis doesn't give a damn. That was long ago.)

You've got to admire Hadjis's use of the passive tense: "this case has been... unwieldly". Yes, that's like writing "mistakes were made" -- it's wonderfully vague. It was Hadjis's job to make the hearings work. He failed. I'm not quite sure why the respondent should pay for that by having a prospective ally denied.

Or look at Hadjis's excuse in paragraph 8:

...interested party status will not be granted if it does not add significantly to the legal positions of the parties representing a similar viewpoint.

Oh, really? Is there really a difference amongst the positions taken by three of the intervenors against Lemire -- the Canadian Jewish Congress, the B'nai Brith and the Simon Wiesenthal Center? They're so cookie-cutter, they even file joint affidavits -- as in this affidavit, that denigrates Canadian Jews as being psychologically insecure. Yet all three of them received Hadjis's approval. That couldn't be because they're all on the side of the prosecution, is it?

Or: is it because, before Hadjis received his patronage appointment, he was vice-president of Canada's Hellenic Congress, and he formed a coalition with the Canadian Jewish Congress? Did he approve the CJC's application because they were old friends, but the CCF wasn't?

Also in paragraph 8 is this line:

If the CCF has any specific arguments that if feels may be relevant to the constitutional issue, nothing prevents it from sharing them with the Respondent and any of the existing interveners so that they may be put before the Tribunal by these participants' more than able counsel and agents.

Oh, really? So the CCF can sit in the gallery, and pass notes to Lemire's lawyer during the breaks? That's awfully sporting. But let's look frankly at the last six words there: "more than able counsel and agents". The fact is, arrayed against Lemire are not only the entire resources of the federal Justice Department, but the eight-figure budget of the CHRC with a 170-person staff; and the other intervenors against him -- including two lawyers from the enormous firm Blake Cassels & Graydon.

On the other team we have Barbara Kulaszka, a sole practitioner, representing Lemire himself; Paul Fromm, a non-lawyer; and occasional participation from Victoria lawyer Doug Christie. All are working essentially pro bono -- they couldn't even afford to pay for transcripts.

It's impressive how well that rag-tag team has done in the face of such overwhelming odds. But I don't think that a neutral observer would say that Lemire's team is "more than able" to match the force against them.

Pound for pound, it just hasn't been a fair fight. Which is exactly why Hadjis doesn't want the legal eagles from the CCF -- or anyone else, like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association -- coming in. Not just because, with the likes of Eugene Meehan on board, the CHRC's case would be torn to ribbons. But also because Eugene Meehan and the others at the CCF have a perfect reputation politically. Unlike Fromm, Christie and Kulaszka, they aren't outside the political mainstream. Hadjis wants to keep Lemire marginalized, both legally and politically.

The most telling line in Hadjis's phone-it-in ruling -- issued on a Friday, to minimize media scrutiny -- is the last line:

I note that none of the participants has objected to the proposed intervention of the CCF... 

So let's get this straight. No-one other than Hadjis thinks it's a problem having the CCF there. No-one else thinks it will be too much of a hassle; no-one else thinks the case will be inordinately delayed or prejudiced; no-one else is arguing that the CCF is redundant.

Richard Warman, the nominal complainant himself, doesn't object.

It's lazy-bones Hadjis, who frets again about his own management skills.

I'd call for Hadjis to be impeached as a judge but, of course, he's not a judge. He's chief kangaroo in a kangaroo court.

He's already made up his mind. Lemire is guilty. Why waste time.

Fire. Them. All.

UPDATE: I see that Hadjis has released other rulings today, including this one, denying Lemire full disclosure of the case against him, including the disclosure specifically required under Rule 6 of the tribunal's own rules.

This is the problem of trying to fight a rogue, corrupt organization like the CHRC/CHRT from within. It's impossible, when the other side not only controls the rules, but changes those rules if you somehow manage to win under them.

An appeal to a real court is a possible remedy, but Canadian courts generally defer to administrative tribunals, even if they're wrong. I believe that a court challenge is necessary, and might even win; but I believe that the better strategy is the one that we've been following to date: denormalize the HRCs in public, and make it possible for legislators to reform or abolish them. There's no point playing a rigged game. When men like Hadjis themselves are the problem, it's unreasonable to think that men like Hadjis will fix the problem.

It's up to Rob Nicholson, Jason Kenney and even Stephen Harper to fix the problem.

h/t BCF


567 posted on 05/17/2008 7:20:23 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Keith Martin responds to Justice Dept. brief-- I've spoken to members on the Justice Committee and there's a great deal of support across party lines to deal with this because members on the Justice Committee recognize that the removal of Section 13-1 and an investigation of the Canada Human Rights Commission is in support of that fundamental human right, the right to freedom of speech. And they recognize that it is our responsibility to defend this right, a right that Canadians bled for and fought for over two world wars and that it is our responsibility in this House of Commons to defend that right.
 
CHRC files – Goldberg Files Part IV

568 posted on 05/17/2008 12:59:19 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
HRC Watching Us
 
 
Hmmm the CHRC is working overtime, they have been on my site for 1/2 an hour. Imagine a civil servant so dedicated that they come in on the Saturday of a long weekend.

Or do we have them running scared?

You can see the Stats Log here:

http://tinyurl.com/5adjdc

569 posted on 05/17/2008 4:25:30 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/

A model letter to an MP about the Human Rights Commissions

Like many people I've heard from, Sean is donating to our legal defense funds rather than to the Conservative Party, and he's letting them know about it:

As a voter living in the Crowfoot riding in Alberta, I am writing to express my dismay over the revelations of wrongdoing and corruption by Human Rights Commissions both at the provincial and federal levels that Canadians have been witness to these past few months. I am disgusted and angered by what I have seen. This fiasco runs contrary to my values and spits in the face of my grandfather, a war veteran who served this country in WWII.

We've seen dishonest and flagrantly illegal behavior on the part of Human Rights Commissions and their employees. That Richard Warman continues to be allowed to make Section 13 his own personal plaything destroys any notion of our country having a working justice system (Mr. Nicholson, I'm speaking to you if you can hear anything from that cave you've been hiding in).

This is the ONLY issue I'm voting on come the next election. My vote goes to the candidate/party that is doing the most to shut down these HRC boondoggles, or at the very least, repeal Section 13 of the human rights act. I am also willing to volunteer my time and put my money (the maximum contribution allowed by law) behind the candidate that best represents my values on this issue. I normally vote along conservative lines, but I'm willing to cross the floor on this issue, even if that means voting for one of those granola-crunching Green Party freaks.

So far the Liberals are in the lead for getting my vote thanks to the efforts of Dr. Keith Martin. If you want my vote and support back, you know what you have to
do.



570 posted on 05/18/2008 3:25:24 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Conservative Party fundraiser: "I agree with you"

| | |
I received an e-mail from a conservative activist whose name would be known to many readers of this blog. The activist asked me to share this story, but not to disclose other identifying details. I thought it was interesting:
 
I got a phone call from a Conservative fundraiser today, asking me if I still supported the party. I said yes. The fundraiser said there may be an election as early as June 16 and asked would I consider giving again to help them win a majority government?
 
I said that I would be giving all the money that I would normally give to the Conservatives to the bloggers and others that are being crushed by human rights commissions. I said I was disappointed with the Tory government's not standing up against the way human rights commissions are crushing our fundamental freedoms. I mentioned the Justice Department brief that showed government support for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
 
I said I would not be giving any more money to the party until it took a stand.  I said I knew Stephen Harper and his party had their hearts in the right place but they had to act. 
 
Well, to my shock, the fundraiser said,  "I agree with you."  
 
The fundraiser also said, "You are not the only one."
 
Other Conservative donors are telling the Tories they won't give them any money until they act on this.
 
According to the latest filings with Elections Canada, the Conservatives raised over $5 million in the first three months of 2008, compared to less than $900,000 for the Liberals. (Interestingly, the NDP were second, with $1.1 million.) A boycott of donations, such as the one mentioned above, and in the cases of Ward Benedict and Sean McCormick, below, is not going to bring the party to its knees. But it will certainly get the party's attention, which is the point.
 
The Conservatives -- indeed, all parties -- don't just use their fundraising calls and letters to raise money. They also use them as an opportunity to communicate with members and supporters, to take the pulse of their base. The kind of anger that would cause life-long supporters and donors to threaten to cut off the Tories is something that certainly will be fed back to the Parliamentary caucus. The subject has obviously come up often enough that the particular fundraiser in this case had encountered it before.
 
I think this is a sign that the Conservatives have finally been seized with this issue. They didn't really want to be; until now, they were happy to let Keith Martin, a Liberal, be the leader, and for the conservative blogosphere to thump the tub, and for pundits to weigh in. But when the Conservative government issued its 50-page defence of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its prosecution of section 13 thought crimes, it was no longer a neutral observer -- it became part of the problem. 
 
Keep at it -- I think we're coming close to the tipping point. And with a spring election all but called off, the government has some time to fix the problem, and to redeem itself. 
 
P.S. Another long-time party activist sent me copies of his simple but powerful letters to the chair of the Conservative Fund, the Prime Minister and a tough on to the Justice Minister. I've redacted his name, and will omit his letter to his MP so as not to identify him.
 
By the way, in case it's unclear, I think the Conservative government is going to do the right thing here. I think they just need to know how important this issue is. That was always part of the plan, remember: denormalize the HRCs to build public pressure, to make it possible for political action -- in that order. It's been a nutty six months for the government -- they truly thought they were going to the polls on three occasions. Bringing up a new, uncharted issue like reforming or abolishing HRCs just didn't fit with the election script. I think that Stephane Dion's serial surrenders, combined with the growth of the issue, spiked by the Nicholson memo, means things are about to reach a critical mass.
 

Russ Hiebert is the Conservative Member of Parliament from the gorgeous riding of South Surrey -- White Rock -- Cloverdale. He's also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Western Economic Diversification.

On May 12, Ward Benedict, one of Hiebert's constituents, wrote this e-mail to him, the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister:

Dear Sirs:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/justice-minister-rob-nicholson.html

After reading Mr. Ezra Levants disection of MP Nicholsons Ministries just released legal brief, I am writing to let you know that until the Conservatives step in and get actively involved in eliminating Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights act, I will not be contributing another dollar to the CPC.

I understand that it is a sensitive issue that could easily be spun by the media to reflect poorly on the CPC, but if maintaining the status quo to avoid getting bloodied up a bit is your solution, then we might as well have a Liberal government in power.

When the Conservative Party takes solid and corrective positions on issues like this, I am encouraged and happy to fund the Party. (and have contributed significantly in the past

As I wrote to Mr. Gerstein earlier, I will be sending any dollars I would normally send to the CPC, to Mr. Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and Kate McMillan to assist them with the legal fees they will have to incur to fight the free speech battles they are involved in as a result of bad law and a corrupt CHRC.

For shame sirs, for shame.

Sincerely,

Ward Benedict

To which Hiebert's constituency assistant replied:

Mr. Benedict,

 

Thank you for your comments. We have discussed this issue many times with Mr. Hiebert and are in agreement with you regarding your opinion on the Human Rights Commission.

 

I am happy to record your comments, but am not able to comment further on it at this time.

 

Kathy Jary

Constituency Assistant for RUSS HIEBERT, MP

 

On the one hand, I'm a little bit disappointed that the letter was signed by Hiebert's assistant, rather than Hiebert himself. On the other hand, the reply was apparently e-mailed back within eighteen minutes. I'll take that as an indication of the office's enthusiasm on the subject.

 

I'm slightly confused by the letter: it agrees with Ward's tough talk, but declines to comment further. OK; perhaps, as a Parliamentary Secretary for an unrelated ministry, Hiebert knows he ought to refrain from policy freelancing in someone else's portfolio. But if he agrees with Ward's tough talk, that's a pretty serious rebuke of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

 

I'm glad Hiebert is on board, and it's not too surprising -- he's an exceedingly bright MP who thinks a lot about policy. The fact that he's a lawyer means he's likely very sensitive to the corruption and breaches of natural justice that are rampant at the CHRC. Hiebert is also a member of Parliament's Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee. It would not surprise me one bit if the CHRC's abominable approach to all three of those subjects found itself hauled before Hiebert's committee. In fact, I'd bet on it.

 

I look forward to Hiebert adding more substantively to his assistant's reply on his behalf. But I accept her comments as the plain truth: I'm sure that Hiebert and his staff have indeed discussed the matter "many times", and that they are "in agreement" with Ward's view that the CHRC is a national shame.

 

Friends, take a moment to send Hiebert an e-mail of encouragement -- just click here. And, if you have any similar correspondence with your MP that you'd like to share, please e-mail it to me, or if it's via snail mail, please send it to me as a scanned .pdf, or a fax.  

Our sister site's take:

Conservative Party fundraiser: "I agree with you"
 
Parl Sec: "are in agreement with you" about CHRC
 
 


571 posted on 05/18/2008 5:58:13 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Tory MP: HRC cases "scurrilous"; supports Keith Martin's bill
| | |
StantonBruce_CPC.jpg

Bruce Stanton (pictured here) is the freshman Conservative MP from the Ontario riding of Simcoe North. His constituent, David Tracey, wrote a series of letters to him, starting back in January. David didn't get a substantive reply, but he kept at it, again and again, until he finally announced he was withdrawing his support for Stanton.

That got Stanton's attention!

Here is a copy of their e-mail exchange. My favourite part, needless to say, is where Stanton calls the human rights charges against Mark Steyn and I "scurrilous cases". I agree! He ends his letter to David with an encouraging word: "I support Keith Martin's Bill".

But Stanton makes a factual error: he says that the cases against Steyn and me have been brought in provincial jurisdictions, and thus Stanton (and the federal Conservative government) cannot do anything about it.

But, in fact, the complaint against Mark Steyn was filed in no fewer than three jurisdictions (thus inventing a new abuse of process that I will dub "triple jeopardy"). One of those jurisdictions is indeed the Canadian Human Rights Commission, a creature of and subject to the federal Parliament. You can see a copy of that federal complaint here.

Look, it's easy to lose track of all the human rights shenanigans -- there's so much baloney out there, even Richard Warman, Canada's complainer-in-chief, can't seem to remember all the details of his own cases. I'm not upset that Stanton has mixed up his BCHRT with his OHRC and his CHRC. But now that he knows Steyn's "scurrilous case" has in fact been seized by the CHRC, I look forward to him doing something about it!

Of course, the real solution is not for Stanton to meddle in any particular case, whether or not it's scurrilous. The real solution is for the abusive, corrupt law itself to be dealt with -- and Stanton should do that whether or not Steyn's case proceeds. Right now, the Conservative government is not neutral on the matter: Rob Nicholson's 50-page defence of the section 13 thought crime provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act has made this a very live and very current issue for the government, and that brief doesn't mention Steyn.

That's the point here, folks. We're not just upset about political censorship because Steyn and me and other conservatives have been charged under those laws. We're upset about those laws no matter who is charged under them, because we don't believe that political censorship, by the government, is appropriate in a country whose anthem contains the words "the True North, strong and free."

I'm putting Stanton down on our side of the ledger. Anyone who supports Keith Martin's bill, and calls the cases against Steyn and me "scurrilous" is on our team. But I sent a note back to David, encouraging him to point out to Stanton that he needs to do more than just point fingers at abusive provincial HRCs -- the federal Conservative government runs the most abusive HRC of all.

Please take 30 seconds to write a note to Stanton, here. Tell him he's on the right track, but he needs to bone up on the CHRC's own scurrilous conduct, too.


572 posted on 05/18/2008 4:01:18 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHRC - Hadjis files - Part I
 
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/

ET -- phone HRC!

I had better tread carefully today, for I am going to write disparagingly about an entire class of sentient beings -- and we should all know what has happened to Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan, Jonathan Kay, Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Mark and Connie Fournier, Marc Lemire, and a bewildering, quickly growing list of other Canadian writers hauled before the so-called "human rights" commissions, and shaken down with frivolous but financially ruinous sue-and-stall court litigation, on the suspicion that they may have entertained "hateful," politically incorrect thoughts.

The group I intend to slur today are the Extraterrestrials. I'm not sure how the courts will interpret "hate-speech" and "hate-thought" towards this group, which is not yet specifically protected under any of Canada's awkwardly-worded "rights" codes. Arguably, any attack on Extraterrestrials could be taken as personal attacks on members, former members, outriders and hangers-on of the "human rights" commissions themselves, and therefore provoke the next round of vexatious lawsuits.

Still, if Canada is to recover free speech and freedom of the press, journalists will have to be brave and bold, and I'm prepared, like a Boy Scout, to do my bit. I don't care what the personal consequences to me -- they can sue me, they can throw me in prison (I've already been hauled before the Ontario Press Council) -- but I'm going to speak out. I'm going to tell you exactly what I think about Extraterrestrials.
I don't think they exist.


I guarantee that David Warren will get more hate mail about this column than just about any he's written this year. I'd pay good money to read it, too.




573 posted on 05/19/2008 2:44:49 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHRC files - RCMP to Investigate CHRC ...a criminal complaint against the Canadian Human Rights Commission for theft of an innocent woman’s internet connection.
 
Help the Canuck 6-- buy & download this ebook:

I could blog full time for one year...

if each of my daily blog readers bought a copy of my new e-book, Acoustic Ladyland.

If you hate shipping fees and that long wait between ordering your books and getting them, then this e-book is for you. You buy it online then download it as a PDF, so you get to enjoy it right away.

PLUS, Mark Steyn says you should read it:

 
 
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/

Jonas: "Going to bat for Mark Steyn's freedom of expression..."


"...is like going to bed with Gina Lollobrigida. Anybody can do it. The challenge to liberty's libido is going to bat for a James Keegstra's freedom of expression, or an Ernst Zundel's. Defending the Charter rights of crude racists and Holocaust deniers is a test of liberal virility. It's a test we failed.


574 posted on 05/19/2008 12:29:25 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 A Return to Tolerance (Part 3 of 3)
 

Good news from the prairies

| | |

Saskatchewan has announced that it will follow Alberta's lead, and begin electing its senators. That's heartening to Westeners who have felt that the construction of Confederation -- effectively a unicameral system dominated by Ontario and Quebec -- was to our disadvantage.

It wouldn't shock me if B.C. made the same decision soon. B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell has been a Blue Liberal, and has shown an interest in democratic reform on the provincial level. Add to that the fact that half of B.C.'s six senate seats are now vacant -- and Stephen Harper has frozen appointments of non-elected senators -- and you've got a lot of positive reasons for B.C. to make it a Western trifecta.

Electing 18 Western senators out of 105 won't make a big difference, at first. But it will create an interesting dynamic in the Senate, where 18 politically legitimate legislators push up against a mass of patronage appointees. It will even look interesting, for the average age of elected senators will likely be 20 years younger than the appointees who currently occupy the upper chamber.

I believe that senate elections are only the first step to meaningful senate reform; the number of senators for each province will have to be adjusted, either in our constitution, or otherwise -- such as by leaving some provinces' excess seats permanently unfilled. But either way, the logjam must first be broken. Brad Wall's bold Sask Party is helping to do that.

Not everything in the world comes back to human rights commissions, but there is a connection here. Some months ago I mused about where legislative change might come, amongst Canada's 14 HRCs. Besides the federal Conservatives, I listed Wall's Sask Party. Not only are they conservatives with little patience for the politically correct madness of the HRCs, but Saskatchewan's HRC has been particularly abusive of its powers, especially in regards to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Perhaps that combination -- a bold new government with lots of political capital to spend, plus a particularly abnormal HRC -- means they'll beat the federal Conservatives to the punch, and be the first jurisdiction to rein these beasts in.

The fact that Saskatchewan's new Justice Minister, Don Morgan, was an enthusiastic subscriber to the Western Standard might just help, too!

Canada's Elected Free Speech Honour Roll [ 1, 2 ]

The list now seems to be 7 MP's:

1. Liberal - Keith Martin

2. Liberal - Dan McTeague

3. CPC - James Rajotte

4. CPC - Lee Richardson

5. CPC - Kevin Sorenson

6. CPC - Jason Kenney

7. CPC - Bruce Stanton


575 posted on 05/19/2008 3:58:14 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHRC Files - RCMP to Investigate CHRC Part II
 

RCMP launches investigation into CHRC tactics

| | |

siren.gifThe Royal Canadian Mounted Police have begun an investigation into alleged criminal conduct by members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The conduct in question was revealed at an extraordinary hearing on March 25th, a hearing the CHRC desperately tried to keep closed to the press.

An officer of Bell Canada, appearing under a subpoena, testified that the CHRC had hacked into a private citizen's Internet account, to cover their electronic tracks as they surfed anti-Semitic websites under the alias "Jadewarr". You can read the transcript of the hearing here -- a transcript the CHRC did not release to the public.

The victim of the CHRC's illegal hacking, Nelly Hechme, told reporters that she was "completely shocked" by the news. Canada's Privacy Commissioner, who has jurisdiction over the CHRC, is now investigating the matter.

The March 25th hearing marked a watershed in the campaign to rein in Canada's human rights commissions. Reporters feasted on sordid details of the CHRC's "anti-hate" squad signing up to white supremacist Web sites, and posting bigoted comments. Those revelations embarrassed the CHRC and its handful of political supporters, and the Privacy Commissioner's investigation could lead to real political consequences.

But not even the CHRC's most passionate critics could have imagined that the Mounties would be investigating the CHRC.

According to this letter written two weeks ago by the Ottawa Police Service, a criminal complaint filed against the CHRC by Marc Lemire has now been referred to the RCMP's Integrated Technological Crime Unit. Here is the key excerpt from that letter:

After a full consideration of all aspects of the matter, it is our opinion that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have discussed this matter with the RCMP and the matter has been assigned to Cpl Stephane Turgeon.

I expect that the RCMP will be in touch with you...

So what happens now?

Can the Conservative government really keep using its old talking points, including these two, to avoid dealing with the issue?

·         The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are independent agencies that administer the Canadian Human Rights Act, according to procedures specified by the law, without interference from the government.

·         The Department of Justice continues to monitor the Commission and Tribunal to ensure that our human rights system remains effective.

Just how bad does it have to get before the government stops saying that the CHRC follows "procedures specified by the law"? We've got the Privacy Commissioner and the RCMP investigating now. What does it take to get the government's attention -- a NATO airstrike?

 

And how about the claim that the government is "monitoring" the CHRC to ensure that it "remains effective". Effective at what? Hacking Internet accounts? Shredding their records and deleting their hard drives? Staying out of jail? How exactly about the CHRC's conduct could be called "effective"?

 

Question: when the RCMP investigates CHRC staff, will the CHRC pay for their criminal lawyers? If so, is that an indication that those CHRC staff hacked the website in the course of their duties?

 

Until two weeks ago, the Conservative government had plausible deniability about the CHRC's corruption. But not any longer. The Justice Department's 50-page defence of the CHRC's prosecutions under section 13 moved the government from "neutral" into the "pro-CHRC" camp. That was bad policy. And now an RCMP investigation means the government has to do much more than just defend a bad law -- it means it has to defend a scandal. That's bad politics.

 

The Conservatives have had an excuse for not cleaning up the CHRC's stables: for six months, they've been preparing for an imminent election. Now that Stephane Dion has all but acknowledged that won't happen at least until the fall, it's time for the Conservatives to act, and to act swiftly.

 

I've got a three-word action plan when it comes to the CHRC:

 

Fire.

 

Them.

 

All.

 

"Close their doors,

and open their files..."

( Mark Fournier )

 

British Columbia's Bill 42

Read more here on Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act.

Posted by Kate at 12:01 AM | Comments (10)
"People aren't stupid - they understand that the BCTF (the teachers' union), the BCGEU (government employees) or the BC Federation of Labour have an axe to grind. If Gordo is afraid of policy-based criticism, he should stop enacting stupid policies; if he thinks his policies are good, he should be willing to defend them."

576 posted on 05/20/2008 2:20:46 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHRC damage control
Have you filed a Law Society Complaint against Lucy Warman?
 
 The original Bete Noire
 
Meanwhile,

Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

-- Sounds as if the City of London has been infiltrated by the Church of Scientology cult.

577 posted on 05/20/2008 7:13:50 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Jadewarr, Son Of Encryption: Updated

Ezra has the story and the links;

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have begun an investigation into alleged criminal conduct by members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The conduct in question was revealed at an extraordinary hearing on March 25th, a hearing the CHRC desperately tried to keep closed to the press.

An officer of Bell Canada, appearing under a subpoena, testified that the CHRC had hacked into a private citizen's Internet account, to cover their electronic tracks as they surfed anti-Semitic websites under the alias "Jadewarr". You can read the transcript of the hearing here -- a transcript the CHRC did not release to the public.

The victim of the CHRC's illegal hacking, Nelly Hechme, told reporters that she was "completely shocked" by the CHRC's conduct. Canada's Privacy Commissioner, who has jurisdiction over the CHRC, is now investigating the matter.


As usual, there's a round-up of recent CHRC commentary at Free Mark Steyn

Previous entries.--

It's 1:36 AM.

Rin Tin Jadewarr

Jadewarr Steps Out To The Corner Store

Jadewarr, Son Of Encryption

A glimpse in the Star Chamber - part II

Posted by Kate at 10:29 AM | Comments (6)

578 posted on 05/20/2008 9:21:03 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
charset=iso-8859-1">

CTV National contacts Lemire over RCMP/CHRC

Blazing Cat Fur has posted an update in the spirit of public minded concerns.

579 posted on 05/20/2008 11:46:01 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1278/128/

The Mounties meet the Jade Warrior
Tuesday, 20 May 2008

Looks like Attorney-General Rob Nicholson may have picked the wrong week to sign up with Jennifer Lynch, QC and the Stormfront members of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have begun an investigation into possible criminal conduct by the CHRC. Ezra Levant has more. And here's some background from me on the "human rights" Stormfront boys' shenanigans that started the investigation. (Incidentally, the CHRC called up Maclean's and demanded apologies over this column, but none were forthcoming.)

Will these lively developments form part of the discussion at what reads like the world's dullest schedule for a seminar on Canada's "human rights" commissions? Don't hold your breath - not with panel topics like "Can HRCs be made more effective?" - ie, can we separate even further from the norms of Canada's legal inheritance?

In other news, Point de Bascule, the lively Quebec website, noticed a revealing line in Le Journal's story on the Quebec commission on "reasonable accommodation" (of minorities and whatnot):

L'idée d'un projet de conquête islamiste a peut-être quelques fondements en Europe, mais pas au Québec.

Or in English: "The idea of an Islamist project of conquest has perhaps some basis in Europe, but not in Quebec."


580 posted on 05/20/2008 12:00:36 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: All

CTV's Mike Duffy Live

| | |

I was invited on CTV's Mike Duffy Live today to talk about the RCMP's investigation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission's conduct. You can see the clip here.

Watching that clip, I'm reminded of how insane the facts are here, and how just a few months ago I would have written off anyone describing such malfeasance as some sort of conspiracy theorist or other nutbar.

I think, in fact, that is going to be the CHRC's spin here: not to try to explain themselves (how do you explain hacking into a private citizen's Internet account? How do you explain strutting around the Internet, pretending to be a Nazi, spewing anti-Semitic, anti-Black and anti-gay venom?) but to just deny everything, and hope the charges against them sound too surreal to be believed.

That's the first possible theory to explain the CHRC spin doctor's comments in the clip before me: the CHRC is just going to brazen it out. It wouldn't be the first time they've lied to the public -- or under oath, for that matter.

The only other explanation I can think of that squares the CHRC's flat denial with the incontrovertible facts here is that the CHRC is going to argue that they, as an organization, didn't do anything wrong, and didn't approve of anyone doing anything wrong -- and that any bad behaviour was the act of a rogue individual. Perhaps their fall guy will be someone the CHRC has already thrown overboard, like Richard Warman, their former investigator who was let go in 2004, or Giacomo Vigna, the CHRC lawyer who was fired from the Lemire case in 2007.

If that's their strategy, I just don't think it will work -- as we learned from the March 25th hearing, CHRC management knew all about Jadewarr and other abusive practises. They never did anything to stop it -- and it's a touch late, now that the RCMP are calling. 

Lucy, Look What Choo Started!

The RCMP investigation into alleged misconduct by Canadian Human Rights Commission employees goes national on CTV News tonight*.

A big thanks to all of you who have pushed this story behind the scenes with your local media and politicians, in your opinion and editorial columns, and to Mike Duffy, who has been the pointy end of the spear poking at the MSM in recent weeks.

Update - *my information (by way of Mike Duffy) indicated that Bob Fife would be reporting on the RCMP investigation this evening. I didn't catch all of the National, but the part I did had no mention of it.

Posted by Kate at 9:00 PM | Comments (19) "

Duffy had Ezra Levant on today, briefly explaining how the HRC has actually, itself, posted offensive statements on blogs to try to 'attract' statements from people who Really Feel That Way...rather than pretend (as the HRC people will claim they are doing).

AND, how the HRC tried to disguise its postings by hacking into private people's internet lines. This was harder to explain...

AND, how one person in particular, our friend Lucy, was an ex-HRC staff member and was filing claims of 'being offended' both during his tenure and afterwards, and receiving tax-free settlements as a result.

Duffy let him talk - it's getting out. "

Ezra disses the corrupt Canadian Human Rights Commission on Mike Duffy of CTV

Here's the video link, Thanks to Mike Duffy.

Check out the CHRC's version of Baghdad Bob who opens the clip with a less than convincing declaration of innocence.

Send Mike an e-mail of thanks! duffy@ctv.ca

 
CHRC files - BCCLA Application to Intervene
 

According to the Lying Jackal if you support Marc Lemire you’re a Nazi. Party membership just increased as the BC Civil Liberties Association applied for intervenor status in the Marc Lemire Constitutional challenge.

Update: four_horses points me to the decision of the CHRT in Richard Warman v. Eldon Warman 2005 So the question of a penalty pushing the CHRA off into criminal law has, in fact, been raised and by a sitting member of of the Tribunal no less. Bravo to Dr. Paul Groarke, the Member, who raised this question in the absence of any submissions from the respondent (who had boycotted the hearing).

CHRC files - Dept of Just tries to hide the trail

581 posted on 05/21/2008 6:49:45 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Time to fold up the tents on human rights commissions
 
Bad times for free speech - But axing Section 13 of Rights A...
 
MP Calls Canadian Government Defense of Human Rights Subsect...
 
a little song for Barb Hall and her Legal Drama Queens
 
And a word from the Pro-Censorship ( how dare you say that! ) crowd:
The case for censoring hate - Mark Freiman

582 posted on 05/21/2008 10:47:13 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mark-steyn-vs-the-sock-puppets/

Mark Steyn vs. the ‘Sock Puppets’

Warming up for his appearance before a human rights tribunal next month, Mark Steyn recently confronted his phony "accusers" on live TV. He got the better of them, but they will have the upper hand in court.

May 21, 2008 - by Kathy Shaidle

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

Mark Steyn is in the business of making predictions. The possible consequences of some of those predictions recently led him to make another one: “My career in Canada will be formally ended next month.”

How has it come to this?

On June 2, Steyn and Maclean’s magazine — the nation’s oldest newsweekly — are obliged to defend themselves against charges of “flagrant Islamophobia” at a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

The saga began two years ago, when Maclean’s published an excerpt of Steyn’s bestselling book, America Alone, which asks how the West’s changing demographic profile — specifically, the difference between Muslim and non-Muslim birthrates — will affect its future.

In December 2007, the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) filed Human Rights Commission complaints against Steyn and the magazine in three different jurisdictions, charging them with “exposing Muslims to hatred and contempt” for, among other things, accurately quoting a Norwegian imam who boasted that Muslims were breeding “like mosquitoes.”

The CIC demanded that Maclean’s print five pages of unedited Islamist propaganda in the interest of “fairness” and “balance.” Maclean’s refused. In fact, publisher Ken Whyte’s response to the group — that he would rather see the magazine go bankrupt than bow to their blackmail — outraged the CIC as much as Steyn’s original article.

The story soon became an international cause célèbre. Unlike many other Canadians who’ve been caught in the HRC’s clutches over the last ten years (and subsequently ruined), Steyn and his co-defendants are well-connected and eloquent, with relatively deep pockets and high profiles. Their case has helped expose a bizarre quasi-judicial set-up that’s part extortion scheme, part secret police.

Now the petitions have been signed and the op-eds written, and members of Parliament faxed and emailed. There seemed to be little more to do than wait anxiously for that first tribunal to start.

Then the paperback edition of America Alone was released north of the 49th parallel this month, complete with a cheeky yet ominous yellow badge on the cover that read “Soon To Be Banned In Canada.”

The undisputed highlight of the subsequent media blitz came when Steyn confronted his “accusers” for the very first time. On live TV.

(”Accusers” because the real complainant is Mohammed Elmasry, the CIC president and terrorism advocate; three young, photogenic, and properly “outraged” Muslim articling students are fronting for “ElMo” in public, and have therefore been nicknamed “the Sock Puppets” by Steyn’s supporters. One of these supporters, Tarek Fatah of the rival, moderate Muslim Canadian Congress, derisively calls the trio “the boy band.”)

These students had insisted for months that they “just wanted to debate the issues in public.” Yet when that opportunity presented itself, they refused to share the set with Steyn.

So in the middle of his interview, Steyn called to the students, who were hovering off stage, challenging them to make their charges to his face. After some shouting, chairs were rearranged and the “debate” finally took place.

The foreign-born students seemed embarrassingly unfamiliar with English common law, not to mention elementary literary devices like sarcasm and hyperbole. They read aloud samples of Steyn’s Maclean’s columns with as much venom as their wavering voices could muster. As usual, accurate quotations from Muslim leaders were singled out for particular scorn:

Signora Fallaci then moves on to the livelier examples of contemporary Islam — for example, Ayatollah Khomeini’s “Blue Book” and its helpful advice on romantic matters: “If a man marries a minor who has reached the age of nine and if during the defloration he immediately breaks the hymen, he cannot enjoy her any longer.” I’ll say. I know it always ruins my evening.

That “signora” is, of course, the late Oriana Fallaci, whose animus towards Islam preoccupied the last years of her life. After reading that passage of Steyn’s, Muslim student Khurrum Awan compared Fallaci to notorious Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, whose name remains a byword in Canada years after his conviction and deportation for “spreading false news.”

Host Steve Paikin was shocked, and asked Awan if he’d really intended to make that comparison. He had.

As time ran out on the shouting match, Steyn made a gesture toward reconciliation.

“Wanna go to dinner?” he asked.

“No!” Awan yelled back.

After this embarrassing performance — and those of the CIC’s lawyer Faisal Joseph (when he bothers to “perform” at all) — Steyn might be forgiven for looking forward to June 2 with confidence. He isn’t.

Canadian Human Rights Tribunals have a 100% conviction rate on “hate speech” charges. According to the BC Human Rights Code, decisions brought down by that province’s Human Rights Tribunals have “the same force and effect” as “a judgment of the Supreme Court.”

So, “when the British Columbia ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal finds us guilty,” writes Steyn, “they are statutorily obligated to issue a cease-and-desist order that will have the effect of preventing Maclean’s running any writing on Islam by me or anybody of a similar bent — even though the plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of a single fact or statistic or quotation.”

He continued:

So four weeks from now I’ll be banished from the Canadian media. … But a year or two down the line, many other subscribers to Maclean’s and the Chronicle-Herald and eventually the Globe and the Toronto Star will be wondering why there are whole areas of debate that no longer seem to get much of an airing in the public prints. In 1989, Muslims who objected to Salman Rushdie burned his novel in the streets of England. Two decades on, they’ve figured out that it’s more efficient to use the “human rights” commissions to burn the offending texts metaphorically, discreetly, offstage … and (ultimately) preemptively.

In many respects, the June 2 Tribunal’s guilty verdict will represent the ultimate triumph of those “progressive” “Trudeaupian” ideals that have been infecting the nation’s institutions for generations.

“At one point,” remarked Steyn after that televised “debate,” “I looked across at the Sock Puppet Three and thought: It’s not about who wins the argument. They’re the future of this country, and that’s that.”

Kathy Shaidle blogs at FiveFeetOfFury. Mark Steyn has called her new e-book Acoustic Ladyland a “must read.”

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/canadian-human-rights-racket.html

Canadian Human Rights Racket

So unacceptable on so many levels one doesn't know where to start:

Special thanks to Hunter for capturing this vid.

More @ Ezra's blog.


583 posted on 05/21/2008 4:11:03 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHRC - Is the political fix in?
 
Jadewarr’s “rather striking and odd testimony” --I must say I was really impressed with Doug Christie’s abilities. He didn’t get to question Steacy too much, as his time was limited, but when he got his chance, he lit right into the Jadewarrior and smoked out some very interesting information.
 
Doug Christie -- The allegations that Mr. Christie is a racist or Nazi are simply manufactured lies. Yes, his opinions can be controversial at times, and he consistently opposes group rights and race-based special interest groups, but last time I checked, that doesn't make one a racist.
 
CHRC - Hadjis files - Part III
 
Close the HRCs ...by Dr. Mark Mercer --"Beyond harming their victims, that human rights commissions are willing and eager to shut people up has created a chilly climate for expression in Canada. Our human rights commissions are a national disgrace. "

584 posted on 05/22/2008 4:28:51 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 
 
Fire. Them. All.
CHRC: Bigoted Comment of the Day
|
 
CPC Rajotte: HRCs "overstepped their original mandates&... -- There's a lot of really good stuff in there, that you just don't hear too often: freedom is an integral part of our national identity; special interests and lawyers have abused the system. I like Rajotte's description of Keith Martin's bill as merely a "first step" -- that implies that more reforms are needed.
 
CPC MP Grewal: "fundamental review by Parliament is nee...
|
|
 
http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128/
Not waving but drowning Print E-mail
Steynposts
Wednesday, 21 May 2008

Every so often, amongst all the support Maclean's and I get around the world from the US to Australia, I'm reminded of how few Canadians yet appreciate what's going on in their own country. The gentleman below, Peter Staniek of Montreal, is a regular reader and correspondent of SteynOnline so presumably he's more up to speed on the "human rights" commissions than the average Quebecker. Yet he writes to berate me for my "negative" "inappropriate" comment on this column in The National Post:

Mark, I am generally on your side of this situation - and I believe so is the National Post - for you to negatively comment on this fellow's article is not appropriate.

After all, Zundel and characters of their ilk, who publicly advocate a racist propaganda ought not be allowed permission to do so - never mind freedom of expression.

The article clearly stated that all we would need to do is to train and ecucate the folks at the HRC to act in accordance with their mission - and hopefully chastise them for their inappropriate zealousness - but not to demonize the institution as whole, after all it is also there to protect your own freedom of expression.

Hmm. "Zundel and characters of their ilk." Well, now that's an interesting expression. Who decides who gets admitted to the ranks of "their ilk"? The Human Rights Commissions. Can they be "trained and educated" as you suggest? Right now they're rogue agencies running around the web as Nazi fantasists spreading more "hate" than they actually prosecute and illegally hacking into private citizens' Internet accounts. And all they're concerned to do is protect their racket and (if Barbara Hall gets her way) expand it.

As to the idea that they're protecting my own freedom of expression, it's distressing to see a regular reader get things so upside down. No. They're taking away my freedom of expression. Next month the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will issue a ruling that will make it, in effect, illegal for me to be published in Canada. In denying me my freedom, they are, of course, also denying you - yes, you, Peter Staniek of Montreal, PQ - your freedom: the freedom to make your own judgments as a free-born citizen about what you read.

Question Print E-mail
Steynposts
Wednesday, 21 May 2008

Why does Richard Warman, a supposedly private citizen (albeit one greatly enriched by the decisions of the CHRT), receive his mail at the Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal?

Also: Read the letter. The Government of Canada (a G7 and Nato member) is whining that Marc Lemire (not a member of either G7 or Nato last time I checked) has all the procedural and operational advantages.

As Ezra Levant observes, the behaviour of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and their boss Attorney-General Rob ("Truth is no defence") Nicholson is now so insane that its very insanity is their best shot at persuading Canadians this can't possibly be going on. And then there's always fellows like this: "Expert" defends status quo. 

 
 

585 posted on 05/22/2008 4:45:02 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Sanity on censorship
 Published: Thursday, May 22, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=530424

In recent months, erstwhile ideological allies have been fighting a nasty battle over the issue of censorship in this country. The flash point is Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which--along with its provincial counterparts -- has empowered human rights commissions to investigate, and sometimes censor, conservatives who are alleged to have incited contempt against minority groups. These include Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, both of whom have been accused of "Islamophobia" by complainants.

586 posted on 05/22/2008 6:57:34 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHRC: Kaluszka - a Fundamental Change in the Case
 Lemire's lawyer, Barbara Kaluszka has responded to the Motion submitted by CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) to the CHRT.

source: http://blog.freedomsite.org/


Socon or Bust is carrying this as well, with introductory comments.

The following letter to the CHRT by Marc Lemire’s lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka, hits on some very important points. However,  as something that is becoming par for the course, the Human Rights Racket has some real bias problems when its judges are also so-called human rights activists in previous careers.  Pay attention to Kulaszka’s reference to the Tribunal judge in Lemire’s case, Athanasios Hadjis’, previous HR gig.

It’s quite disturbing that you have someone who presumes to sit as Judge in a case dealing with free speech vs. so-called human rights issues when his previous gig was joining in a coalition with one of the most interested parties to the HR sham, the Canadian Jewish Congress!  And if that is not the worst of it, the CJC is also an interested party to the Warman v. Lemire case, the same case Hadjis “presides” over!

The brazen judicial incest of it all is mind boggling.


587 posted on 05/22/2008 8:27:38 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: All

Steynianism 146

May 22, 2008 by binky

“The Trudeaupianization of the state is one reason why Conservatives wind up fighting every election within a Liberal frame. The policing of speech exemplified by Section 13 is a big part of that: it ensures that difficult issues can only be discussed within the parameters of “Liberal Values”. So the Nicholson brief doesn’t even make sense even in terms of self-preservation. But for now it’s the only public position a Conservative government is willing to take, and it condemns Canada to restraints on liberty incompatible with a free society.”

~ Mark Steyn ~

~ STEYN IN THE CORNER: THE INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS OF THE PC UTOPIA– “Islamophobia vs trannyphobia” …. (nrotc)

~ IN DEFENCE OF MARK STEYN: Where there’s Toronto Life, there’s hope …. (torontolife)

~ THE STEYN: “Moving Barackwards” …. (corner.nationalreview.com)

 

 I found the following website and thought you may find it to be of interest?

http://www.stopsection13.com/
 
BREATH OF THE BEAST– “I have watched as a group of bloggers- friends and allies of democracy- have been besieged by unprincipled, self aggrandizing, professional litigants who, using the Human Rights Commission, which was meant to be an instrument of help and shelter for the vulnerable has been turned around and made into a weapon to harass honest people into silence and to prosecute those who disagree with Progressive group-think” …. (breathofthebeast.blog)

588 posted on 05/22/2008 1:45:32 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Free Dominion files its defence against Richard Warman's lawsuit

| | |

Connie and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion have now filed their Statement of Defence against Richard Warman's defamation suit. You can see a copy of that defence here.

As readers will recall, Warman has sued the Fourniers, as well as Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals, Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury, the National Post and its editor Jonathan Kay, and me. You can see Warman's lawsuit here, and my analysis of it here. The National Post and Kay have already filed their defence, which I posted and discussed here.

The Free Dominion defence is a fascinating read. It's obviously a document written for the court of law, but it's also a powerful weapon in the court of public opinion. It's quite readable -- not too leaden with legalese -- and it tells a hell of a story. As I predicted when Warman first sued us, we might well be the nominal defendants in this case, but it's Warman who's really going to be on trial.

I don't propose to go through the entire defence here; I really do recommend that you read it. But I will point out a few interesting facts.

Paragraphs 20 to 56 give details of Warman's conduct -- ranging from his habits of posting anti-Semitic material on the Internet, to his conspiracy to assault an opponent (captured on video, here). I knew much of it, but not all -- until I read paragraph 31, for example, I didn't know that Warman had praised Ernst Zundel. That's weird conduct for a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator. I'll have to make that one of my CHRC Bigoted Comments of the Day.

Perhaps the most fascinating part of the defence, though, deals with the notorious Anne Cools post. Here's a snapshot of that post, in its full Canadian Human Rights Commission glory:

 

Cools post1.JPGParagraphs 57 to 77 of the Statement of Defence contain a lot details about this bigoted post that I didn't know, or only knew about vaguely. I didn't know that Richard Warman and the CHRC had filed a section 13 "hate speech" complaint against Marc Lemire for this post, but when Lemire brought a motion naming Warman as the secret author of the post and asking the CHRC to have Warman listed as a co-defendant in the complaint, both Warman and the CHRC quickly amended their complaint to exclude the post.

The post is clearly hateful -- it's racist, misogynistic and anti-immigrant. Why on Earth would Warman and the CHRC suddenly omit this one post from their complaint, unless they had something to hide?

I didn't know that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal accepted affidavit evidence from Bernard Klatt, indicating that the Anne Cools post was written by Warman. I didn't know that Klatt was recognized as an expert by the Tribunal. I didn't know that Warman didn't even cross-examine Klatt, or bring expert evidence of his own to refute Klatt.

Even more fascinating is paragraph 65 of the defence. When Lemire subpoenaed the Internet records from Rogers Cable relating to the Anne Cools post,

Instead of supporting the motion, however, the plaintiff vigorously opposed it. The plaintiff's actions were inconsistent with a person who was innocent of writing the message.

And I didn't know that Warman and the CHRC brought a motion

to quash the subpoena to Rogers Cable and for an order that Lemire be prevented from leading any evidence through a Rogers representative, Bernart Klatt, or any other witness

about the Anne Cools post. That's just bizarre. Wouldn't Warman and the CHRC be curious to know who wrote that? Wasn't Lemire -- at his own expense -- doing the CHRC's work for them, hunting the bigoted person who wrote it? As Hamlet's mother would say, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".

In the end, the Rogers subpoena came too late -- Rogers had deleted their old archives. Until that point, Warman had been actively engaged in the hearings against Lemire. When it was revealed that Rogers didn't have the files, Warman stood up, and left the hearing, never to return again.

Paragraphs 115 to 118 are interesting -- they claim that message boards, which is really what Free Dominion is all about -- are different than normal media, and thus defamation law should be applied to them differently, especially given the interactive nature of such sites, where rebuttals and corrections are made immediately. At paragraph 122, the defendants make the good point that Warman -- who, given his experience as a Stormfront member -- is a very experienced user of online chat groups, and thus could have simply posted a rebuttal on Free Dominion at any time, but chose not to do so.

The whole thing is a really interesting read, and accessible to non-lawyers. I encourage you to look through it.

Four of the seven defendants in this lawsuit have now filed their defences (the National Post and Kay filed a joint defence). Kate, Kathy and me will file ours shortly, though there may be a preliminary motion first.

I'll have more to say about the legal team assembled to fight against Warman's nuisance suit later -- it's pretty exciting. But for now let me point out paragraph 24 of the defence, where it is noted that in all but two of Warman's human rights complaints, the respondents were unrepresented by counsel. In those cases where respondents had counsel -- including Lemire's case -- it's pretty clear that the counsel were severely outgunned. And, of course, the respondents have to pay for their own lawyers; Warman's cases are all prosecuted using government lawyers at taxpayers' expense.

It's been pretty much the same with Warman's defamation nuisance suits, too -- typically turkey shoots against penniless shmoes who can't afford lawyers.

I don't think Warman has ever faced a defamation defence as well-written and comprehensive as this one. I don't think he's ever gone up against lawyers as experienced in defamation as the Post's lawyers. And when all the other defences are in, I'll talk a bit more about the rest of the legal team.

After years of one-sided bullying, a group of people are saying: "stop!" -- something no-one has ever really told Warman before. I think we're going to win.

We do need your help, though. Except for the Post, the rest of us have to dip into our own pockets to fend off this nuisance suit. If you want to help us fight back, please do. Each of us has PayPal buttons for our legal defences. Here's Connie and Mark's; here's Kate's; here's Kathy's, and mine is below. I know I speak for all of us when I say that if you can help us with our lawyers' bills, we'll keep our end of the bargain and fight like hell!

Thanks.

 
Is Rob Wells the next Richard Warman?
 
IN CANADA, signs of sanity on censorship at last.
 

The Public Policy Forum Could Use A New Booking Agent

In late breaking Twisting The Knife News - Mark Steyn's Monday appearance at the Fraser Institute has sold out.

At $500 a ticket.

Posted by Kate at 9:54 PM | Comments (8)

589 posted on 05/23/2008 2:32:12 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-05-23-0002/

Two of my co-defendants file their defense against Richard Warman

My copy arrived a couple of days ago, and I was impressed because I could actually read it. As Ezra Levant points out, it is so readable, so light on the legalese, that it "tells a hell of a story" -- and ordinary people trying to understand an issue like a good story, a digestable narrative.

This Statement of Defense is just that. Here's Ezra:

Paragraphs 20 to 56 give details of Warman's [alleged] conduct -- ranging from his habits of posting anti-Semitic material on the Internet, to his conspiracy to assault an opponent (captured on video). I knew much of it, but not all -- until I read paragraph 31, for example, I didn't know that Warman had praised Ernst Zundel. That's weird conduct for a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator.

Warman's complaint against us hinges mostly on the "Ann Cools" post. Again, here's Ezra:

Paragraphs 57 to 77 of the Statement of Defence contain a lot [of] details about this bigoted post that I didn't know, or only knew about vaguely. I didn't know that Richard Warman and the CHRC had filed a section 13 "hate speech" complaint against Marc Lemire for this post, but when Lemire brought a motion naming Warman as the secret author of the post and asking the CHRC to have Warman listed as a co-defendant in the complaint, both Warman and the CHRC quickly amended their complaint to exclude the post.

The post is clearly hateful -- it's racist, misogynistic and anti-immigrant. Why on Earth would Warman and the CHRC suddenly omit this one post from their complaint, unless they had something to hide?

I didn't know that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal accepted affidavit evidence from Bernard Klatt, indicating that the Anne Cools post was written by Warman. I didn't know that Klatt was recognized as an expert by the Tribunal. I didn't know that Warman didn't even cross-examine Klatt, or bring expert evidence of his own to refute Klatt.

(...)

I don't think Warman has ever faced a defamation defence as well-written and comprehensive as this one. I don't think he's ever gone up against lawyers as experienced in defamation as the Post's lawyers. And when all the other defences are in, I'll talk a bit more about the rest of the legal team.

After years of one-sided bullying, a group of people are saying: "stop!" -- something no-one has ever really told Warman before. I think we're going to win.

The other interesting thing about the Free Dominion statement is its (to me) original defense -- and one I agree with completely -- that the internet encourages and expects more hyperbolic, "out there" writing than traditional media, and that therefore the standards of "acceptable" speech are different in cyberspace.

To put it in my own language:

Warman came to play in our playground then wanted to change the rules. He could have easily played by "our" rules: logged onto Free Dominion or sent us all emails correcting our alleged "mistakes"; set up his own blog to refute them, or asked to guest post at his friend Kinsella's.

But he is fighting a cyberspace battle using stupid boring old fashioned lawsuits.

In other words, people who take advantage of the web's tolerance for hyperbole, anonymity and anti-PC language to entrap folks they don't agree with have a lot of nerve suing their critics for using those same tools!

Anyway, like Ezra, I was stunned to read some of the stuff in this statement of defense. Here's my "favourite" -- frankly, I was shocked by this:

42. Under the false identity "Axetogrind," the plaintiff [Richard Warman] posted in 2004 a copy of a confidential letter sent to the CHRC by a young woman, [EL] in settlement of a complaint the plaintiff made against her and in which she expressed her shame and denounced her previous [presumably neo-Nazi] beliefs. The plaintiff [Warman] posted the letter on the neo-Nazi VNN with the preface "With friends like these..." He did so without any regard for her safety or consequences she might suffer. 

Remember: Richard Warman is the guy who is suing us -- because we've allegedly harmed his reputation by talking about this stuff.

And yes, the process has just begun. My lawyer is preparing my own statement of defense right this very minute. (Ka-ching...)

As always, your donations to our legal defense funds are very welcome.

Read paragraph 42 again -- and consider helping us in our fight.

Thank you in advance.

Remember: through their own words, they will be exposed... 

UPDATE: Instapundit, he say:

It does seem as if most of the bigotry in Canada is being perpetrated by undercover "Human Rights" Commission operatives... MORE ON CANADA AND FREE SPEECH. Plus, filing a response to the inquisitors. Much more on the subject here.



590 posted on 05/23/2008 12:01:30 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Steyn Sells Out While Barney Rubble Bombs
 
CHRC Denied My Access to Info. Request
 
CHRC - Is the political fix in? [ 1, 2 ]
 Anyone interested in the above should read my comprehensive analysis here:

http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=842

And Ezra's summary about it here:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/04/richard-warman-misleads-the-ca.html
 



591 posted on 05/23/2008 3:06:40 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

George Jonas - Shakespeare had the right idea

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has posted literally hundreds of bigoted comments on white supremacist websites, like Stormfront and Vanguard News Network. CHRC staff became members of these groups under codenames, and then spewed forth bigoted venom for years.

I know that's hard to believe. I would not have believed it four months ago myself.

The CHRC, through its various codenames -- Jadewarr, Axetogrind, Pogue Mahone, Lucy, etc., etc. -- was responsible for more hateful comments on the Internet than almost anyone else in the country. They did it hundreds, perhaps thousands of times. And there is no evidence that they've stopped.

It's important that the public -- and Parliamentarians -- know about this corrupt, abusive, counterproductive behaviour, that also just happens to be against section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which the CHRC is supposed to uphold.

Today's CHRC Bigoted Comment of the Day is one published by Richard Warman on May 31, 2004, on the neo-Nazi webite Vanguard News Network. Warman was an investigator at the CHRC, and he used the codename Axetogrind. If you still can't believe this, you can read him admitting under oath that he was Axetogrind in this transcript here, on page 434.

Warman's bigoted comments were made in a discussion about a new National Socialist -- i.e. Nazi -- political group, called NSM. WN stands for White Nationalist; I have no idea what the other racist acronyms stand for -- other Nazi splinter groups, I presume. Here's what Warman, the CHRC staffer, added to the conversation:

...if people spent half the time building fellow WNs up rather than tearing them down we'd be dangerous. Unless your goal is to tear people down in which case go join Hillel or something and go to town!

NSM/NA/WR/EURO/ESS/ whatever, lets quit beeyatching at each other. We'll invite you to our first meeting here in Canada and we'll work it out over a beer. Except we drink real beer so you can only have one!

Let's look at that line by line. Warman identifies himself as a White Nationalist, and encourages unity amongst all White Nationalists. He tells them to build each other up. He's giving neo-Nazis a pep talk. But not just for idle purposes; he tells them they can be dangerous if they get their act together. Warman is telling neo-Nazis who spend their time harmlessly prattling on the Internet that their ideal should be not just to bicker, but to be dangerous.

This is your Canadian Human Rights Commission at work.

But look at that next line: if fellow white supremacists' "goal is to tear people down" -- they should join Hillel.

What's Hillel? I was a member of Hillel when I was a student. I'm going to a Hillel fundraiser on Monday. Hillel is the name of the leading Jewish youth group on campuses in Canada and the U.S. It's a social club, a charitable club, a place to make Jewish friends. It's like a junior Rotary Club, but Jewish. To say that Hillel's goal it to tear people down is to say that being young and Jewish is to tear people down.

That's anti-Semitic.

The man who spewed this venom is the man to whom the Canadian Jewish Congress gave a human rights award last year. Did they know about Warman's smear against Jewish youth groups? Did they know that while he was calumniating against Jewish youth, he was encouraging neo-Nazis to get organized, and to become dangerous? That he was telling anti-Semites to stop just typing on their computers, and to unite, and to start organizing themselves into meetings -- and to import U.S. neo-Nazis up to Canada?

Richard Warman vomited this anti-Semitic bile while on the Canadian taxpayers' dime, while he was employed as a CHRC "anti-hate" investigator. To this day, he is the CHRC's chief complainant under their section 13 hate speech section. He's got a few cases on the go with them right now. What the hell is going on over there?

And what the hell is going on over at the Department of Defence, where Warman now works as an investigator? If a Jewish soldier files a grievance, does Warman recuse himself?

The RCMP's investigation into alleged criminal conduct at the CHRC is important, and scandalous, and should be enough to euthanize their anti-hate bureaucracy right there. But the CHRC's stream of hundreds of bigoted remarks -- remarks that violate their own legislation -- is a national disgrace. 

Kenney: HRCs unaccountable, lack due process

| | |

KenneyJason_CPC.jpgEarlier this month, Jason Kenney, the Conservative cabinet minister and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, called the Canadian Human Rights Commission "dangerous" and "illiberal".

Here is a new interview with Kenney, where he reflects on a recent Quebec HRC edict ordering local politicians to stop praying. Key line:

Freedom of religion is a foundational principle in Canada and communities, in my view, have every right to exercise it as they see fit....

Elected local politicians are accountable to their voters, not to some unaccountable commission with quasi-judicial powers that doesn’t even have due process.

Right on. Now he should pass a note to the Justice Minister to that effect, during their next cabinet meeting.

Edmonton and Vancouver

| | |

Tomorrow (Saturday) I'll be attending the Canadian Association of Journalists' conference in Edmonton. You'll remember the CAJ as one of the first groups to come out guns blazing against section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the thought crimes provision.

The panel should be interesting -- I'll be appearing alongside Keith Martin, author of the private member's motion to scrap section 13. And Ian Fine, senior counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself. I have to give him credit for courage -- or is it gall? -- for agreeing to argue for censorship at a convention of journalists.

I understand the the public affairs cable channel, CPAC, will be televising the debate. I don't know if that will be live; it if is, we'll be on at 2 p.m. MT/4 p.m. ET. You might be able to find details here; I couldn't.

On Tuesday, I'll be speaking at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver. It's almost sold out, but there are still nine seats left as I write. You can sign up right online.

I've been committed to reforming the thought crimes provisions of Canada's HRC for a long time; it became a personal mission for me when the Western Standard and I were hit with such a complaint two years ago, for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. But it's really only been in the last week or so, when I discovered the true depth to which the CHRC had sunk -- when I saw the hundreds of bigoted comments they posted throughout the Internet -- that I realized the depth of their corruption, and the true scope of the problem.

Of course I will fight my own cases to their end. But after reading the bigoted grotesquery of the CHRC, and their calls for "dangerous" "action", I realize that I cannot stop until they are dismantled.

When one of the largest publishers of anti-Semitic, anti-Black and anti-gay propaganda in Canada is in fact an agency of the federal government, it's important that we not stop until the job is done.


592 posted on 05/24/2008 7:24:21 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 
 

~ SHAIDLE: LOOK WHO’S SPREADIN’ THE HATE! “The Canadian Human Rights Commission has posted literally hundreds of bigoted comments on white supremacist websites…”; “Dissent in Conservative ranks over unruly Human Rights Commission”; Busted! Liberal blogger who’s insulted me for years exposed as a liar; Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch …. (The Shaidle)

FREE DOMINION Responds to Richard Warman

=========================================

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/

Foxit 2.3 is free, allows copying to clipboard, and more, from PDF's.


593 posted on 05/24/2008 4:18:10 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I attended the Canadian Association of Journalists conference in Edmonton today, to speak on a panel about human rights commissions. Also on the panel was Keith Martin, the Liberal MP who has written a private member's motion to abolish the section 13 thought crimes provision, and Ian Fine, senior counsel at the CHRC.

The panel was moderated by Saleem Khan, who did an excellent job of keeping things orderly. (I admit that I was the only problem in that regard.)

The debate was taped by the public affairs cable channel, CPAC, but it obviously will be televised at a later date -- not live, as I had thought it might be. I'll let you know when it airs.

Martin went first, and he did a good job of outlining the problems with section 13. He spoke about how the issue came to his attention -- a student in his riding wrote to him and made a persuasive argument for reform. And he wrote about the encouraging support he's received from both Liberal and Conservative colleagues, though he did lament that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has tried to bring a cone of silence over the Tory caucus on the matter.

I went next; I think I tried to jam too much into my opening ten minutes, and I think I was too focussed on micro-details, such as the details of Richard Warman's anonymous, bigoted posts, and the details of the Internet hacking case that has led to the RCMP investigation into the CHRC. It was the wrong approach because, for many of the people in the room, this was the first time they had a briefing on the subject of HRCs and censorship. I should have stuck more with a big picture introduction to the matter -- the forest, rather than trees, or even individual leaves, which are better done on a blog.

Fine went next. In the main, his remarks were a bland, prepared statement. But then he said two things that I just couldn't sit still for: he denied that the CHRC had hacked into a private citizen's Internet account, and he claimed that anyone in the country could file a human rights complaint over hate speech.

Both of those assertions are untrue, and I interrupted his speech to say so.

I brought up the case of Andrew Guille. Guille had filed a complaint with the CHRC against a leftist group that posted bigoted remarks on its website. But because Guille's brother and sister were disliked by CHRC staff, and because the leftist group was favoured by CHRC staff, the complaint was rejected. Here's the internal CHRC document showing this corruption; and here are my comments on it.

That was perhaps too minor a point to bring up at a public event where most people weren't briefed on the basics, but it was impossible for me to sit still when the CHRC's senior lawyer just plain old lied. On reflection, it's possible that Fine didn't lie; perhaps he simply didn't know what his staff were up to. That's possible on the Guille matter, but surely not so on other instances of CHRC misconduct. (I challenged him at least a half-dozen times about Warman's bigoted posts, even reading out one particularly vile one several times. Fine sat in silence -- what could he say?)

But when I challenged Fine's denial that the CHRC hacked into Nelly Hechme's Internet account, he pushed back, denying not only the fact of it, but the fact that Bell Canada had testified to that effect on March 25th.

This was pure insanity, and I said so. I pointed out that Fine might like those facts not to exist -- and the CHRC certainly tried to keep those facts under wraps, attempting to ban media from that hearing, and then refusing to release a transcript of it. But both things did indeed happen over the CHRC's objections.

Fine dug in, saying there wasn't a shard of evidence; I said I had the transcript of Bell's sworn testimony right in front of me, and that while he could lie to the unbriefed audience, he couldn't lie to me. He challenged me to read that portion of the transcript, right then and there.

So I did. The details of the hacked account, as described by the Bell Canada security officer, Alain Monfette, under oath, are on page 5645 and 5646:

...the user then was connected at that time was identified as B1CJSW59, which is related to a phone number [phone number], which the account is under the name of Nelly Hechme, H-e-c-h-m-e, and the address of the account working -- in fact, the address where the phone number is working is [address], Ottawa, Ontario. The postal code is K1R 1C8. And the account was connected from, in fact, from December 7th, 2006 at 18:36:22 Eastern Time to December 8th, 2006 at 21:35:56 Eastern Time.

I read that out. I don't think five people in the room knew what the hell I was talking about. But, dear reader, should I really have stayed silent when Fine denied a critical fact about the CHRC's corruption?

I just don't understand the CHRC's approach of total denial. How can they deny what Bell Canada testified to under oath? How can they deny what is written in black and white on the transcript? It's one thing to deny that those facts meet the high burden of proof to be a criminal offence -- fair enough; that's for police, and then the courts, to decide. But to deny that any evidence exists, at all? If that were the case, then why would the Privacy Commissioner and the RCMP be investigating the CHRC in the first place?

I pressed Fine; at least he didn't deny that they were under investigation. He ended by promising that all of the investigations would amount to nothing. But merely wishing upon a star that one's troubles will go away is not the same as having a legal defence, or even some sort of counterspin. It was a weird performance by the CHRC's senior lawyer. I suppose he's had a stressful few weeks having his staff grilled by police and privacy officers; he just wants those mean men to stop asking him mean questions.

When Fine got back to his script, one of his most execrable arguments was that "the world" had limits on free speech, and the United Nations had limits on free speech, and that Canada should be in synch with the world -- and not the anomaly of the United States. This is similar to what Dean Steacy, the CHRC investigator, has argued: that "freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

Steacy made that fascist statement at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the one place outside of North Korea where it is an unremarkable thing to say; Fine tried to sound slightly less totalitarian, suggesting that we take our cues on freedom of speech from the UN's human rights leaders like Russia, China and Iran. I suppose that's a step up from Steacy's approach to not give it "any" value.

At another point in the debate, I tried to show the absurdity of banning any hateful words through a law that doesn't permit legal defences like truth, fair comment or even common sense. I pointed out that Fine himself had given an interview with the National Post in which he read out a bigoted remark, namely: "a n*gger will try to kill you just for a slice of pizza or a piece of chicken ... By Aryan standards, negroes are dangerous animals".

Fine read that to show the kind of hate the CHRC wants to fight. But that explanation, which is reasonable, is not a legal defence. I jokingly said to Fine that, since he uttered a comment that is "likely" to expose someone to "hatred or contempt", I should file a section 13 complaint against him. I said it unseriously -- I was pointing out the ridiculously arbitrary and overreaching nature of the law. But -- and I'll want to check this again on CPAC -- he actually looked ashen when I said it, as if he agreed with me that he had broken the law, and was ashamed of it.

I think in that moment, I glimpsed what made Ian Fine tick: he has drunk the anti-hate industry's Kool Aid without a drop of skepticism. I think he genuinely thought, just for a moment, that I was serious when I said he was a bad man for having said the word n*gger, even in the context of anti-racism. I think he's been immersed in a groupthink environment, with zealots, where diversity of opinion, let alone criticism, is non-existent. I think he genuinely believes that his little anti-hate squad is saving Canada from turning into an Arctic version of Rwanda.

I think that's why he froze up when I pressed him on Richard Warman's online bigotry -- it just didn't compute for him; it doesn't make sense in his unified theory of the world. I think it's why he's in denial about the hacking charges. I think it's why he was silent when I pointed out that, without Warman's serial complaints, section 13 would fall into disuse -- surely a sign that Canada is not beset with the problems for which he offers himself as the solution.

I think it's a bit of a cult over there, and for thirty years no-one has dared to question them -- and the past four months has been terrible.

I'm not the only one to call the CHRC's self-image and world view "bizarre" -- Joseph Brean of the National Post used that exact same word in his story about Fine's first attempt to explain the CHRC's behaviour. In that interview, as in today's debate, Fine simply asserts that his critics are armed with "misinformation". Mere assertions don't pass for arguments, though -- except, of course, in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which has given Fine a 100% conviction rate. I think Fine's wiring overheats when he is presented with dissonant information.

There was a stunning moment at the end of the debate. It caused groans in the audience, and both Martin and I quickly jotted it down to make sure we got it right: one journalist in the audience asked Fine not just to give the "official" line, but to tell the crowd what he personally thought about section 13 and other censorship. His answer: "there can't be enough laws against hate."

If Ian Fine had his way, section 13 wouldn't be abolished. It wouldn't even be maintained. It would be expanded. He said he wouldn't rest until there was "no hate" left.

Wow -- legislating an end to hate. Why not legislate an end to war, hunger and broken hearts, while you're at it?

That's nutty utopianism. Which is fine for old Marxists in universities. But it doesn't work so well when it's married to the power of the state -- the power to exact large fines, to issue lifetime publication bans and gag orders, and to grind respondents through years of abusive hearings.

I pointed out that there were plenty of Ian Fines in Weimar Germany in the 1930s, and that in fact, as Mark Steyn has reminded us, there were 200 hate speech trials in the pre-Nazi era. They didn't stop hate -- they gave hate a forum. And when Adolf Hitler took over, they gave Hitler a turn-key law to point at his enemies, too.

I'm not sure if I'm being too hard on myself; after every debate, I think of things I should have said but didn't, or did say but shouldn't have. It was an honour to be asked to speak on such a panel, and a surprise to be able to face such a senior officer of the CHRC.

I'm not sure exactly how much the audience learned; I think they heard fragments, not a coherent story. But they're journalists; if anyone can figure it out, they can. But what I learned is that the CHRC simply doesn't know how to handle its new, hostile political environment. A month after Brean's story of their "bizarre" media strategy, they're still using that same playbook: deny any corruption, despite an RCMP investigation; claim that freedom of speech is un-Canadian; and lust for more power, more social engineering, and limitless "laws against hate".

Fine's speech must have received high-fives around the CHRC office when he rehearsed it. What it lacked in intellectual rigour, it more than made up for in unquestioning certainty, and a lust for power. That would have appealled to the CHRC. But I think the journalists in that room left with a sense of unease.

CHRC gave March 25th Lemire Transcript to a reporter! [ 1, 2 ] --Marc Lemire was told that there would be no transcript of his March 25, 2008 tribunal hearing. He was told that all he could have is a recording and that no transcript was being made.

However, Ezra has announced that he just received a 'beautifully transcribed' copy of the tribunal hearing from a reporter who received a copy from an operative in the CHRC who was trying to defend their little racket!!

Here is a link to the transcript: Link

And, here is a link to Ezra's report: Link

Funny blog post about the Kinsella/Cherniak girl-fight -- if you don't like bad language or scantily-clad woman-pics, don't click on the link! If you can overlook that, this guy nails those two perfectly!

EnjoyEverySandwich


594 posted on 05/25/2008 3:22:28 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: All
Shaidle/Sullivan Bitch-fest - 'Net Radio Tonight -- We had a lot of fun tonight getting to talk to Kathy Shaidle, Connie Fournier and Wendy from Girlontheright. Let no one think that Canadians are just taking this assault laying down. The battle has been joined, and again I'll say that this site is like a gathering around the liberty tree.  Here is the link to the archived show. It will be forever accessible, so feel free to listen to it whenever you'd like!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalvindication/2008/04/23/Political-Vindication-Radio
 

Richard Warman is the former Canadian Human Rights Commission "anti-hate" investigator who is also its most frequent complainant under its anti-hate provisions. In any other quasi-judicial commission or tribunal, that would be an unacceptable conflict of interest. Warman started filing his complaints with the CHRC while he still worked there. His co-workers would handle his complaints. Not surprisingly, he hasn't lost a case yet -- and he has been awarded tens of thousands of dollars in tax-free cash for his pain and suffering.

Mark Steyn summed it up well yesterday: Warman voluntarily joins neo-Nazi groups, is a prolific bigot on them, and then collects tens of thousands of dollars for his pain and suffering of having to endure neo-Nazi bigotry. And then he repeats the whole money-making process again, and again -- and he always wins.

(Question: what would happen if Warman sued himself? When I saw a case called Warman v. Warman, I thought that he just might have done so!)

Here is one of Warman's bigoted posts, this one written by him on March 22, 2005, on the Stormfront "white nationalist" website, to which Warman had signed up as a member. Warman wrote the post using one of his many neo-Nazi alter egos. In this case, it was Pogue Mahone. I know that's hard for any sane person to believe, so I post again a transcript of Warman admitting under oath to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that he was the online Nazi, Pogue Mahone.

As you can see, it's a typically nasty conversational thread; this one is discussing whether a particular neo-Nazi is white enought to be an Aryan. Warman doesn't think he's white enough. Here's what he says (NS stands for National Socialism, also known as Nazism):

Theres a reason it's called "White" Nationalism and why the founders of NS excluded sexual deviants that are a like a Cancer to our movement...

So gays are a deviant cancer?

Is this gutter the level to which our Canadian Human Rights Commission has fallen?

Is this rats nest of bigotry the organization that the Conservative Justice Minister has so ardently defended in his 50-page legal argument?

Warman uses the phrase "our movement" -- he's telling Stormfront members that he's a white supremacist neo-Nazi, too. He's telling them that they can take it from him, real neo-Nazis don't tolerate anyone who's not purely white. And then he brings up homosexuality, apropos of nothing. He just wants to show what a good bigot he is.

He doesn't just denounce homosexuality; he does so in a vile way. They're a "cancer". This is from Warman, who claims to be a member of EGALE, the gay rights lobby. Then again, Warman purports to support the Canadian Jewish Congress -- they certainly have hitched their wagon to him. That hasn't stopped Warman from posted anti-Semitic comments, either.

Just reading these transcripts makes me feel dirty; what kind of person would spend hundreds of hours surfing bigoted websites, and participating in them, writing hundreds of posts in drag as a neo-Nazi? That's not just politically scandalous for the CHRC, and a clear violation of the CHRC's own section 13 anti-hate law, it's also psychologically troubling. What kind of person would do such a thing for work and in then for pleasure -- in his own words, for "fun"?

I'm not interested in being Warman's psychologist -- I have neither the training nor the stomach for that. Sigmund Freud could have written an entire book about a member of EGALE going online as a gay-hating neo-Nazi woman (Pogue Mahone claimed to be female). The mind boggles.

What I'm interested in is legal and political accountability. Warman spewed forth this bigoted venom while at the CHRC, and now that he is employed with the Department of National Defence. I wonder what Warman would do if, in his capacity as a DND "director of special grievances", he discovered that a soldier had been calling gays deviants and a cancer.

Would he drum such a bigot out of the army? Or would he whisper "hey, I'm that girl Pogue Mahone from Stormfront -- nice to meet a fellow gay-bashing white nationalist"?

By the way, this particular Warman post is the one that I read out several times at yesterday's debate. I put it to the CHRC's Ian Fine that this was the character of his former employee, still his current biggest customer/complainer. Not surprisingly, Fine sat in silence.

Fire. Them. All. 

"This website should be read by all Canadians so that they can see where their tax money goes."

"Section 13 is their livelyhood and an unlimited tax free piggy bank for Warman, without their "Imagined Rampant Hate" they'd have to get jobs that don't pay so well, that might not be 9 to 5 with weekends off and the perks are the best one can get. This isn't about hate or racism anymore it's about a group of elite activist retaining their jobs and retainers to continue sucking the public tit. How can our PM remain silent?  Immoral and unethical and unacceptable to decent people.

"Warman admits that he was responsible for having Tremaine fired. "

Review the transcripts:

http://tinyurl.com/5y72ct

 


595 posted on 05/25/2008 1:52:21 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Hell hath no fury

May 26th, 2008

Connie has had just about enough of Michael Murphy’s bullshit.

Kathy once wrote that “You can always get another job, but you only have one conscience.” If Murphy stands by everything he has ever written, then I’m sure there will be no loss of sleep.

Some of you (the ones that hate me) will gleefully remark that I am unemployed. I assure you, it had less than nothing to do with my writing. But if it ever came down to the choice between my words or my work, I would choose my words.

Big City Lib Busted - exposed as liar - well he is the Lying Jackals uh, friend

Honor system abuser, BigCityLib, aka Michael J. Murphy of Toronto reports that he in fact did NOT make the [Oregon Petition Project] list. By his own admission he lied about his background and falsified documents to try to have his name added, but apparently the petition screening process found his deception and denied his application.

Heh.

RCMP investigation of CHRC makes front page news in Washington, D.C.

| | |

Ian Fine might be blase about the RCMP's investigation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (and the Privacy Commissioner's investigation, and Richard Warman's bigoted Internet posts, and just about every other scandal over at Fine's bunker), but the CHRC's troubles are big enough news to make the front page of the Washington Times newspaper today.

Now all we need is a Canadian newspaper to cover the story, too! (Kudos to CTV's Mike Duffy for scooping the whole country on the RCMP investigation last week.)

You can read Washington Times story here, written by Canada's own Pete Vere. I like his lede sentence:

One of Canada's oldest institutions and one of Canada's newest innovations are locking horns.

The Canadian Mounties have been asked to investigate a criminal complaint against the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), popular Canadian blogger Ezra Levant reports.

The complaint comes in response to accusations that investigators with the commission had hijacked the Internet account of an unsuspecting third party in order to post Internet messages to neo-Nazi Web sites.

and this detail was a deft touch:

Ironically, the investigation comes at a time when the Mounties are appealing a Tribunal decision against them.

The Tribunal recently ordered the Mounties to pay $500,000 to Ali Tahmourpour, a police cadet who accused the Mounties of discrimination after being expelled from their training program. The Tribunal also ordered the Mounties to give Mr. Tahmourpour another chance to join.

I have to give a lot of credit to Canada's mainstream media for their excellent coverage of the CHRC's troubles so far. Not just Op-Ed columnists, but the growing roster of shoe-leather reporters who have written news stories on the file, including Joseph Brean and Kevin Libin at the National Post, Colin Perkel from Canadian Press and Charlie Gillis from Maclean's. Perhaps they already have stories in the works about the RCMP investigation.

The RCMP's mere physical presence at the recent execution of an Elections Canada search warrant at Conservative Party headquarters generated a week's worth of front page stories -- even though, in fact, it wasn't an RCMP raid, or a criminal matter, at all. By contrast CHRC actually is under criminal investigation, according to this letter -- and so far, only Duffy has talked about it (and, I think, radio hosts Rob Breakenridge and Tom Young).

I can think of a lot of questions I'd ask, if I were a reporter. Who in the CHRC has been interviewed by the RCMP? How many times? Is the CHRC cooperating? Where were the interviews held? Has the CHRC retained criminal lawyers or other outside counsel? Have any CHRC staff? When did the interviews happen? Are they still ongoing? What documents, if any, did the RCMP take? Did they take any computers or other equipment? Have they interviewed former staff, such as Richard Warman? Have they interviewed CHRC lawyers, such as Giacomo Vigna? Have the RCMP obtained a search warrant? Has it been executed?

Each of those questions could be asked in the context of the Privacy Commission investigation, too.

I wonder which will happen first: a political solution to the problem of the CHRC, or a legal/criminal solution. And I wonder which one the Conservative government would prefer. 

TelegdiAndrew_LIB.jpg

Andrew Telegdi is the Liberal MP from Kitchener-Waterloo. He is the vice chair of Parliament's Citizenship and Immigration committee.

A partisan Conservative constituent wrote to him saying that the problem of Canada's abusive and corrupt human rights commissions was his single issue in the upcoming election campaign, and that he would vote for whichever candidate -- even the Green Party -- would reform the commissions. Here is a copy of that e-mail exchange. Some excerpts (I've put some of my favourite parts in bold):

...My reason for emailing today is to express my dismay over the revelations of wrongdoing and corruption by Human Rights Commissions both at the provincial and federal levels that Canadians have been witness to these past few months. I am disgusted and angered by what I have seen. This fiasco runs contrary to my values and spits in the face of all freedom loving Canadians.

 

We've seen dishonest and flagrantly illegal behavior on the part of Human Rights Commissions and their employees. That Richard Warman continues to be allowed to make Section 13 his own personal plaything destroys any notion of our country having a working justice system...

Please be advised this is the ONLY issue I'm voting on come the next election. My vote goes to the candidate/party that is doing the most to shut down these HRC boondoggles, or at the very least, repeal Section 13 of the human rights act. I am also willing to volunteer my time to support the candidate that best represents my values on this issue. I am a lifelong Conservative voter, but I'm willing to cross the floor on this issue...

To which Telegdi replied:

...like you, I am alarmed that these cases could potentially harm our principles of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and due process in law.

 

That is why I am supportive of my fellow Member of Parliament, Dr. Keith Martin's efforts with his Motion M-446.

 

...I agree with Dr. Martin that section, 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is worded weakly and as such has enabled the commissions to move into an entirely different area of investigating, prosecuting and fining people who communicate anything that someone else takes offence to.

 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines us as Canadians and makes Canadians who came from all over the world equal before the law. We have the Charter to protect our human rights and civil liberties and the word and spirit of the Charter is a central guiding principle in drafting laws. That is why I support Dr. Martin's motion to repeal this section as it infringes on those rights that we as Canadians hold so dear.

 

There's a lot to be said for both letters. The long-time Conservative who wrote his e-mail certainly knew how to get Telegdi's attention. Telegdi has slowly but steadily increased his vote tally over the last several elections, but the offer of a vote -- and a campaign worker -- is a serious offer.

 

And Telegdi's response was spot on -- referring not only to the threat to free speech, but also to the CHRC's lack of due process.

 

I imagine that most of my readers are from the Conservative side of the aisle. But, as Keith Martin, the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada and so many others have demonstrated, this is a non-partisan issue. It's about our fundamental rights as Canadians. So with that in mind, I would invite you to send Telegdi a note of encouragement, even if you disagree with him on every other political issue. Click here to send him an e-mail.

 

We're building a rainbow coalition here, and it's coming along. Another Liberal joining our quorum is something to rejoice about -- there are still plenty of Liberal MPs who remember that their party's name comes from the latin word for freedom.


596 posted on 05/26/2008 2:48:22 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

This is the fourth installment of my new blog feature called “Bigoted Canadian Human Rights Commission Comment of the Day”. But this one is more than just a bigoted post to a neo-Nazi website written by the CHRC’s star complainant and former employee, Richard Warman. It’s a bigoted post to a neo-Nazi website that put a 19-year-old girl’s life in danger.

Liz Lampman graduation.jpgSome background: Elizabeth Lampman (pictured at left) was a girl who got introduced to some bad people through her former boyfriend. He was a white supremacist, and she followed along. Richard Warman hauled her before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for “hate speech”. There’s no telling what violence a 90-pound teenaged girl could have done to our democracy.

Unlike some of Warman’s other targets, Elizabeth didn’t dig in and fight. She wasn’t committed to the neo-Nazi ideology – she had gone along with her boyfriend, and he was just an ex-boyfriend now, so her dalliance with his views was done, too. Elizabeth, unlike some of Warman’s other targets, really didn’t care much about the broader principles of censorship and free speech. She just wanted to go back to a normal life again.

She was just out of high school, and she wanted to get her life back on track.

So she did what the CHRC claims it wants people to do: she recanted. She changed her mind about the slogans she had been mindlessly repeating. In a “mediation” session with the government, she wrote a heart-felt letter, a scan of which you can see here. Here is the text of it; it’s really quite touching:

July 31, 2004

C/O Canadian Human Rights

Att’n Nancy LaLonde

Senior Complaints Analyst

I apologize for offending you or anyone else with the websites that I was associated with. I am no longer affiliated with those beliefs or the movement and haven’t been for awhile. I realize how wrong it was and completely removed myself from it… I was not raised to be that way. I was raised in a Christian family, and was taught to help others in need and love everyone regardless of race, religion or culture. My parents taught us we are all equal. I was led astray by an ex boyfriend and now realize the mistake I made in following him and being associated with him and his beliefs. That isn’t me. I was the girl in grade school who befriended the new girl when nobody wanted to play with her because she was black.

I was wrong in following that crowd and am sincerely sorry for anyone I may have hurt or offended through my actions. I am truly ashamed for having strayed so far from the good things I was taught. I am in the process of regaining my parents trust and this is a step in that direction. I hope you will accept my apology for my past misdoings.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Lampman

That’s a beautiful letter. It was a private letter, a letter sent to the CHRC as part of a compromise, whose rules guarantee that such letters are confidential. But as the RCMP and Privacy Commissioner’s investigations tell us, the CHRC just doesn’t give a damn about the privacy of mere citizens.

Formal section 13 “hate speech” charges against Elizabeth were dropped. But that didn’t satisfy Richard Warman. He had spent all that time undercover as a neo-Nazi, he managed to smoke out Elizabeth’s real identity, he managed to reel her in, like the skilled fisherman of Nazis he was, he had her on ice, heading into the CHRC’s anti-hate cannery. Another victory would be his – and perhaps some well-earned, tax free money for his “pain and suffering”.

And then… Elizabeth was let go! How unfair to him! He had fought with a prize swordfish for countless hours, and then someone threw her back out to sea! Elizabeth got away. Damn that Elizabeth! Damn her contrition! Warman had been robbed of his opportunity to do “maximum disruption” to her life.

But he wasn’t done yet. If Warman couldn’t get his pound of flesh from her using the CHRC, he could always do so using one of his many Nazi disguises. And so he did.

Elizabeth’s letter was sent to the CHRC and Warman – no-one else. And on October 22, 2004, Warman did what he often did: he pretended to be a Nazi called Axetogrind, and he published Elizabeth’s letter on the Vanguard News Network, the neo-Nazi website. Here’s what he wrote on that website:

PM Hale hasn't even finished his fight, but already we've seen many 'leader's' in the Church run for the exit. With friends like these...

www.onepeoplesproject.com/lampman.pdf

We should all keep our fingers crossed for PM Hale on the 15th.

Warman had leaked Elizabeth’s letter to an “anti-hate” website, which dutifully posted it for him to that link, above. (That link no longer works.)

Warman posed as an outraged neo-Nazi betrayed by Elizabeth, linking to the letter he pretended he had "discovered", telling his fellow VNN members that they should be outraged, too.

The very next neo-Nazi who commented on the website followed Warman’s suggestion. He wrote:

Talk about kissing Jew Boots!

Friends, that’s called spreading hatred. Not something that’s “likely” to spread hatred. It actually did spread it. Warman broke a confidence, broke the CHRC’s rules, broke his lawyer’s professional code of ethics, and broke section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

And he managed to get neo-Nazis denouncing Jews again.

(The rest of the post refers to Matthew Hale, a neo-Nazi leader who was sentenced to 40 years in an American jail for trying to arrange an assassination of a judge. Warman shows his support for Hale – “we should all keep our fingers crossed” for Hale’s legal appeal, clearly approving of Hale’s conduct. And while praising someone convicted for plotting a murder, he happens to reveal Elizabeth’s private disavowal of neo-Nazism.)

All of that is scandalous. But none of that is particularly remarkable at the CHRC, which has become a culture so rotten that they proudly hired a police officer thrown off her force for corruption.

If Warman couldn’t get his vengeance through the CHRC, perhaps he could get some of the neo-Nazis over at VNN to do his dirty work for him.

Was that a real risk? Could Elizabeth really get hurt? I don’t know; personally, I think that Warman and others who make their living fighting against “hate” have a vested interest in telling the rest of us that there is a lot of dangerous hate out there, so we’d better give them money and power to fight it. I’m skeptical. But Warman and the CHRC and the Canadian Jewish Congress tell us that these Internet neo-Nazis are a real danger – not just blowhards. If they really believe that, then Warman deliberately and knowingly put Elizabeth in jeopardy of violence.

A 19-year-old girl.

Nice.

Here’s what Warman had to say about it, under oath, before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. See page 992 of the transcript:

MS KULASZKA: …I want to put to Mr. Warman that someone in good faith wrote that letter and the next thing she knows you posted it all over the Internet on a site where she recants beliefs that probably many of these people believe in. Did it ever occur to you that this might lead to some problems for her? You're a person who is very concerned about your security. How about her security?

MR. WARMAN: You've asked a bit of a compound question, so the overall answer is no.

MS KULASZKA: You weren't concerned about her security?

MR. WARMAN: No. Again, you asked a compound question, so if you wish to break it down then I'll respond to it. But if you are just continuing with it as a global five-part question, then is answer is no...

MS KULASZKA: Did it ever occur to you that you could put her security in jeopardy?

MR. WARMAN: Sorry, can you refer me --

THE CHAIRPERSON: Page 12.

MR. WARMAN: No, I don't believe it's the type of letter that would do that.

MS KULASZKA: Then you don't believe the people who frequent this forum would ever do anything to jeopardize her security, correct?

MR. WARMAN: That's not what I said.

MS KULASZKA: The truth is, Mr. Warman, you didn't care, correct?

MR. WARMAN: If that's a real question and not a rhetorical, the answer is no.

 

There are other stunning parts of the transcript -- how the CHRC's lawyer, Giacomo "Serenity Now" Vigna, tries to shut down questioning about Elizabeth; how Tribunal chairman Athanasios Hadjis is, well, his usual biased, confused, lazy self. And there's Warman's convenient "forgetfulness" about who he leaked the letter to -- he couldn't recall. It really is worth a read.

Warman put a woman's life in jeopardy for kicks. She was no longer a "suspect" or an "accused" or a threat of any sort. The CHRC was done with her. But he wasn't. There was no purpose to his post other than raw, punitive vengeance.

That’s the hero of the Canadian Jewish Congress. That’s the ethical standard of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That’s the man who continues to work at the Department of National Defence, as their director of “special grievances”.

Fire.

Them.

All.

"Close their doors, and open their files..."

 
Mounties Probe E-Mail Hijacking
 
CHRC files – Goldberg Files Part VI
 
THOUGHTS ON "HUMAN RIGHTS" AND FREE EXPRESSION. They seem increasingly at odds, which suggests that "human rights" aren't about, you know, "rights" at all.

597 posted on 05/27/2008 3:20:29 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
An Open Letter to P.M. Harper on Canadian HRCs
 
Star Chambers All Around Us
 
CHRC - Jocko's Vignette
 
http://steynian.wordpress.com/

The Sad Thing About It All

Word has it via Steve Paikin that the SockPuppets– the Osgoode Hall Law students involved in the Human Rights Complaint against Mark Steyn via Maclean’s Magazine– are having trouble getting hired as lawyers.

Imagine that.. appear to be against free speech; consort with controversial lawfare Jihadists; repeat yourself like a broken record on TV, radio, magazines and newspapers over and over and over again; appear to completely miss the legal consequences of your project and misunderstand the basic legal traditions of Canada.. and bingo!

The sad thing about it all is that anybody with half a brain could probably have given some proper media-advice, message-points, and some coherent development of the argument in a constructive manner, given so much attention. Sorry, no freebies from FreeMarkSteyn– and besides, Khurrum & Company, you had your chance– and proceeded to set it on fire, bash it with an old boot, then fling it over a cliff for good measure.

Our Skoolz

What ARE they teaching in school these days? Actual mastery of content? How to do stuff? Common sense? Reasoning?

These kids are the promised wunderkind: the walking talking fruit of Trudeaupian socialism & multiculti grievance-mongering, plus the dumbing down/ radicalization of the education system over the past 40+ years. ‘Skills’ without wisdom; an infinite sense of confidence & entitlement without accomplishment; and a warm blankie of niceness over all.


598 posted on 05/27/2008 4:07:10 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHRC's imaginary friends in danger!
 
SzaboPaul_LIB.jpg

Paul Szabo is the Liberal MP from Mississauga South. He is also one of the few Liberals who chairs a Parliamentary Committee -- namely, the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee. You can imagine that a man immersed in those topics is naturally sensitive to the corruption at the Canadian Human Rights Commission which touches upon all three elements of the committee's mandate.

It would not surprise me if the CHRC was subpoenaed to appear before this committee, in addition to the current RCMP and Privacy Commissioner investigations.

Szabo recently wrote a short but powerful letter to a constituent about the CHRC:

Keith [Martin] is a good friend and I will be supporting his initiative. Your assessment of the CHRC is also shared by many MPs.

Put him in the "good guys" side of the ledger! But you have to read the letter sent to Szabo to understand what he means by "your assessment" of the CHRC. Here's the constituent's assessment of the CHRC that Szabo says many MPs agree with:

I'm writing to convey my disgust at the conduct of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Everything about the agency, from their hundred percent conviction rating under section 13, to their illegal use of an innocent woman's computer, to the absolutely vicious hate messages their staff post on the internet is an affront do decency and Canadian values.

These servants of the Crown are circumscribing public discourse and I believe they are actually increasing the racial tension they are meant to be fighting.

I urge you to support your courageous colleague Keith Martin when his motion to eliminate section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code comes to a vote.

The law does not allow for truth as a defence, since it hinges on what might happen in the future. It does not belong in Canada.

This is the only issue I will be voting on in the next election, and I will support the candidate that is most in favour of abolishing/limiting this threat to our democracy. I hope that is you.

That's an excellent summary of the situation. In addition, I think a powerful, to the point letter like that has a better chance than most to get noticed by an MP, and get a real -- not form letter -- answer.

I'd like to ask you, dear reader, to take a moment to send Szabo a letter of encouragement. I don't care if you're not a Liberal; this isn't a partisan issue. It's an issue that affects anyone who believes in free speech -- and Szabo obviously does. Please click here to send him your felicitations.

My letter:

The Honorable Paul Szabo:
I am dropping you a note at the behest of this:
 
I'd like to ask you, dear reader, to take a moment to send Szabo a letter of encouragement. I don't care if you're not a Liberal; this isn't a partisan issue. It's an issue that affects anyone who believes in free speech -- and Szabo obviously does.

Source link:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/liberal-mp-many-mps-regard-chr.html

All I can say is that anyone with the slightest acquaintance with English Common Law, the Magna Carta, or Canadian and American ( I'm a Yank ) traditions of free speech should be shamed and appalled by the Stasi-like machinations of these laughably-misnamed commissions and tribunals.

There are two "must read" blogs to keep up to speed on the latest revelations:

http://ezralevant.com/

http://steynian.wordpress.com/

Everything I can locate regarding these cases and the suit against my friends at Free Dominion are located here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929538/posts

A lawsuit has been served against our Canadian "sister" site, Free Dominion.
Free Dominion ^ | 11-23-07 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

Posted on Friday, November 23, 2007 06:43:25 AM by backhoe

Yes, I am "the heavy equipment guy"-- and I urge you to investigate this affront to freedom and democracy.

Name: ( XXX_Censored! )

Address: ( XXX_Censored! )

To recap- an excellent summary of the situation:

Keith [Martin] is a good friend and I will be supporting his initiative. Your assessment of the CHRC is also shared by many MPs.

Put him in the "good guys" side of the ledger! But you have to read the letter sent to Szabo to understand what he means by "your assessment" of the CHRC. Here's the constituent's assessment of the CHRC that Szabo says many MPs agree with:

I'm writing to convey my disgust at the conduct of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Everything about the agency, from their hundred percent conviction rating under section 13, to their illegal use of an innocent woman's computer, to the absolutely vicious hate messages their staff post on the internet is an affront do decency and Canadian values.

These servants of the Crown are circumscribing public discourse and I believe they are actually increasing the racial tension they are meant to be fighting.

I urge you to support your courageous colleague Keith Martin when his motion to eliminate section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code comes to a vote.

The law does not allow for truth as a defence, since it hinges on what might happen in the future. It does not belong in Canada.

This is the only issue I will be voting on in the next election, and I will support the candidate that is most in favour of abolishing/limiting this threat to our democracy. I hope that is you.

http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/

Any Canadian citizen can file a complaint with the Commission. We do not have discretion to turn people away.

Once a complaint is filed with the Commission, we have a responsibility to process it fairly and in accordance with established procedures. In most cases, this involves conducting an investigation. Only then can Commissioners decide whether there is enough evidence to warrant further inquiry or whether the complaint should be dismissed. ian fine

This would explain why my complaints re anti-antisemitism in Le Devoir (April 17), anti-Sihkism at the the CBC (April 18), and Islamic Holocaust Denier site Islamunity.com (April 22) have not even been acknowledged by Mr. Fine’s Commission.

I cannot imagine that “established procedures” include not bothering to acknowledge receipt of complaints filed by Canadian Citizens.

But, hey, I would not have believed they included posting hate messages under web aliases or wardriving peoples WiFi or lying under oath…but apparently they do.

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/

Your "Progressive" Future: CHRC Horrors

I haven't done much commenting on the CHRC scandal, other than to express my disappointment in our government (that'd be the CPC), for not stepping in and castrating the CHRC. It'd take an absolute partisan loon to not recognize that the organization is a pariah ... an off the rails example of government bureaucrats gone mad. The Harper conservatives say they won't step in because they must deal with the CHRC at arm's length ... yet the same Harper government sees nothing wrong in doing battle with Elections Canada. Ok?

Nevertheless, the following story is so over the top, I've got to direct you to it. It involves Canada's number one human rights champion (gag), one Richard Warman, who is a serial litigate before the CHRC ... not to mention, a former employee.

Dear Richard has dragged many victims before the commission and has exacted financial rewards from most. In the case in question here though, his chosen target was so contrite and so genuinely apologetic, that she escaped the CHRC without being "fined". That, left Richard Warman empty handed ... oh my.

So, what did he do ... he willfully endangered her.

The details are at Ezra Levant's blog ... here's a teaser:

If Warman couldn’t get his vengeance through the CHRC, perhaps he could get some of the neo-Nazis over at VNN to do his dirty work for him.

Was that a real risk? Could Elizabeth really get hurt? I don’t know; personally, I think that Warman and others who make their living fighting against “hate” have a vested interest in telling the rest of us that there is a lot of dangerous hate out there, so we’d better give them money and power to fight it. I’m skeptical. But Warman and the CHRC and the Canadian Jewish Congress tell us that these Internet neo-Nazis are a real danger – not just blowhards. If they really believe that, then Warman deliberately and knowingly put Elizabeth in jeopardy of violence.

A 19-year-old girl.


599 posted on 05/28/2008 2:27:06 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHRC's Newest Victim - Free North America / Bill Whatcott
Several weeks ago, with Bill Whatcott's permission, I sent an Access to Information request to the CHRC for all of the information they have on Bill Whatcott.

I received the package last night and I have made it into a pdf document which is available here.

The first thing I noticed is that the pages are so heavily redacted they are nearly useless.
 
MPs: you will be quiet
 
Feds limiting free speech, pundit says

600 posted on 05/28/2008 12:20:08 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 901-930 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson