Monday, March 31, 2008

EDMONTON JOURNAL: Freedoms lost in name of free speech

Freedoms lost in name of free speech

Time to take human rights commissions out of hands of misguided zealots


Lorne Gunter

The Edmonton Journal

Sunday, March 30, 2008


All you need to know about how rotten the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is -- how undemocratic and anti-freedom it has become -- is that in hate-speech complaints, the commission has a 100-per-cent conviction rate.

No one who has ever been hauled before it for allegedly uttering hate speech has ever been acquitted.

Such a rate is impossible for a democratic institution because the state is never always right and the defendant never always guilty. This happens in dictatorships where those in charge control every aspect of the judicial system and there is no impartiality or independence. But it should not happen in a purportedly open, unprejudiced tribunal.

In one way, the conviction rate of the CHRC should be no surprise since the commission is both investigator and judge. One division probes complaints while another conducts the hearings. There is a veneer of independence, a thin gauzy curtain between the two sections, but nothing even remotely approaching the separation of responsibilities in the more formal judicial system.

At the CHRC, it's as if the court that will eventually hear a case is also in charge of the police officers conducting the investigation and the prosecutor who will present the evidence, as well as deciding whether the accused is guilty as charged.

Nice little arrangement.

It gets worse, though.

This week, during final arguments at a CHRC hearing into hate-speech complaints against Marc Lemire (who is typically portrayed as a white supremacist, but who insists he is just a "certified computer expert who ran a website critical of immigration and the CHRC"), it was revealed that commission investigators are not above entrapment, telecommunications fraud and invasion of an innocent person's privacy to harass suspects into a conviction.

After years of investigating Lemire, CHRC investigators had too little proof that he was a hatemonger to proceed to a hearing. So they began logging onto his website under an assumed name, "Jadewarr," and posting provocative comments in hopes of obtaining racist replies they could then use in their case again Lemire.


Rest at:



Saturday, March 29, 2008

EZRA LEVANT: A day in the life of Canada's kangaroo court

I've read the blogosphere's several accounts of Tuesday's Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing in Ottawa in the Warman v. Lemire case, and it's on that basis that I've formed my first impressions. You can read some of those reports here, here, here, here, here, here, here and from the defendant himself here. I've also seen two newspaper stories, this one from the National Post's Joseph Brean, and this one by the Ottawa Citizen's Don Butler.

I'd prefer to review the actual transcripts of the hearing, but from what I've read, there will be no transcripts made, only an audio recording.

No transcripts

Let's start there in our analysis: This matter has been proceeding for four years; to investigate and prosecute this case, the CHRC has not only deployed the full weight of their own government staff, but they've retained a series of expensive private sector lawyers as well, such as the comical Giacomo "Serenity Now!" Vigna. I'd conservatively estimate that $2-million in taxpayers' money has been spent to date, but this being a government enterprise, the true number might be closer to $5 million. A half-dozen interveners, including the federal government, have sent lawyers, too, even if they merely sit in the hearing all day, not saying a word. And, of course, the Tribunal itself has been seized with this matter for well over a year, with about 20 days of hearings to date, in at least two cities.

Why was Tuesday's hearing the one day that won't be transcribed and published? Why was a trifling savings of a court stenographer -- who costs, what, a third of what a lawyer bills? -- chosen as the one area of economy to find? Is the Tribunal, with the unlimited resources of the government, out of cash?

The Tribunal's decision to nix transcripts is transparently biased: the one day that the hunters became the hunted -- where the CHRC itself was being grilled -- was the one day that accurate, typed, searchable transcripts were omitted. Try to "search" an eight-hour audio recording for a key word, as opposed to searching a written transcript. Try to hear words that are spoken quietly; try to learn the spelling of unusual names of words; try to skip to important matters and avoid others. It's yet another irregularity in a system where arbitrariness and capriciousness have replaced the rule of law.

That's offensive to anyone, like me, who cares about the openness of our legal system. But it's more than just offensive -- it's unfair to any defendant who will now not be able to rely on such transcripts for his appeal when he's convicted.

One day only!

So the one day in which there will be no transcripts is the one day the CHRC is on the defensive. But why was Tuesday's hearing limited to just one day?

Again, this matter has been grinding on for four years, more than a year of which was in the Tribunal. Richard Warman, the nominal complainant, was given four days for his examination in chief -- that is, four days to make self-serving comments, with Vigna leading him along. Why the sudden impatience? Is it because, with the CHRC's own conduct on trial, it's just not as much fun as shooting white supremacist fish in a barrel?

According to several blog reports, the Tribunal chair, Athanasios Hadjis, was visibly impatient, repeatedly saying "this case is closed". In real courts, it's up to the two sides to announce "we rest our case," not for a bored judge to merely declare it. But don't bother Hadjis with such trifles. He's not a judge, so why should he pretend to act like one?


(Well worth the read!)

Rest at:


Thursday, March 27, 2008

*** "Human Rights" Operatives Hack Unsecured Wireless Access point to Post Hate Messages!

CHRC Operatives Hack Unsecured Wireless Access point to Post Hate Messages!

Innocent woman targeted due to CHRC dirty tricks

March 25, 2008 has been the single worst day the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ever suffered in it's 25 year history of thought control. The hearing is over the Constitutional Challenge filed by Marc Lemire of the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

After 10 months of litigation due to absurd claims of "national security" by a panic stricken CHRC, and a blizzard of legal motions, Marc Lemire won the right for a subpoena of the records of Bell Canada to reveal the subscriber information of "Jadewarr" an account used on the White Nationalist website that attempted to entrap Marc Lemire. A few months ago it was revealed that the "Jadewarr" account was used by numerous CHRC employees, but primarily by a Senior Investigator named Dean Steacy.

The last activity of "Jadewarr" on Stormfront was: Dec 8, 2006 at 3:29pm.

The IP address used by "Jadewarr" was:

Alain Monfette, director of the law enforcement support team for Bell Canada, was the first witness called by Marc Lemire pursuant to a subpoena. With him was the answer to a mystery and the opening of a new one.

The Bell Canada subscriber using IP address on Dec 8, 2006 (connected for the entire day) was: Nelly Hechme. Of Laurier Avenue in Ottawa.

During later testimony by Dean Steacy, he testified to having no knowledge of who Nelly Hechme was or how that person got access to the "Jadewarr" account on Stormfront. Just what on earth was going on. The IP address and everything matched. What is going on here?

Until, the National Post's Joe Brean called Nelly Hechme and asked what she knew about this. The poor Nelly was shocked. I am sure it's a pretty odd day when the National Post calls and asks if your a government agent posting racist messages on the Stormfront website, especially when you have no idea what Stormfront even is.

She told the National Post on March 25, 2008:

"Reached by phone last night, Ms. Hechme, 26, told the National Post she has no connection to the tribunal, has never known any of the investigators, and has never accessed a Web site as Jadewarr. She said that in the relevant period in 2006 she did have a Bell Sympatico account with a wireless connection that was not password controlled, meaning anyone within range of her apartment could have accessed the internet with it."


Computer Expert Marc Lemire explains:

A: 344 Slater Street = CHRC Headquarters

B: 570 Laurier Avenue = Innocent Victim of CHRC dirty tricks

Nelly Hechme lives at 570 Laurier Ave West in Ottawa, Ontario.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is at 344 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario. About 1 block away, across an open field.

570 Laurier is the street that runs behind the offices of the CHRC.

A quick mapquest shows that from the CHRC offices to Nelly Hechme's house is about a block or more. An EASY distance for a wireless signal to travel. Especially over an open field.

Panoramic View of the Scene of the Crime

[Large version: CHRC Office | Open Field | Victims Apartment]

This is shocking: this means that not only were CHRC employees sneaking around on almost every message board in Canada and posting offensive messages to entrap those they go after, BUT they hacked into an unsuspecting innocent person's unsecured wireless access point who lived down the street. The the CHRC infiltrators surfed messages boards to post racist messages on websites such as Stormfront.Org.

What a scandal. This is a complete travesty.

I attempted to call Nelly Hechme to let her know what happened and how the CHRC has dragged her into this, but her phone number "no longer accepts incoming calls"

Talk about ENTRAPMENT. The CHRC uses fake names (Such as Jadewarr and OdensRevenge), through stolen internet access from an unsuspecting innocent person to entrap those they deem racists.

People should be criminally charged for this!

344 Slater Street, Ottawa. Canadian "Human Rights" Commission headquarters

Picture of the innocent victims condo, in Ottawa


Biased and Unfair | TRUTH is NO Defence | 100% Convictions | Lifetime Speech bans


Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge

Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law

and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

· Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Marc Lemire

152 Carlton Street

PO Box 92545

Toronto, Ontario

M5A 2K1


Tuesday, March 25, 2008


Under persistent questioning from Barbara Kulaszka, Dean Steacy admitted that, under the legislation, there is no exemption for investigators postiing "hate" on the Internet.


Margot Blight cut into Doug Christie's time, repeating no less than three times, "as I recall" during a windy objection to his request that redacted documents from Harvey Goldberg's correspondence be revealed.


"On behalf of this witness, Ms Blight said there was no formal relationship between the CHRC and police departments," but this document reads: "The Commission has signed an MOU with the RCMP." This was from January, 2006.


Steacy answered that the MOU dealt with other matters at the Commission. "We don't have an MOU with the RCMP involving Sec. 13.1. It has nothing to do with Sec. 131. It deals with prevention." Mr. Christie then confronted Mr. Steacy with an April 18 memo to Harvey Goldenberg from a blacked out name: "CHRC officers in charge of investigating hate message complaints have outlined a few issues that might be the subject of potential working group's activities [including] improving access to the provincial and municipal-level information; obtaining more direct access to CPIC and/or improving efficiency and speed in sharing information."


Mr. Steacy admitted he's taken a course in "investigating hate-related cases."


In another heavily blacked out document from May, 2006 Harvey Goldberg suggests a blacked out name from the Canadian Jewish Congress who might be able to provide expert testimony in a Sec. 319 case about "hate" on a website  .


"Is it the case that the Commission sits down with representatives of the police forces of London, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and the OPP, CSIS the Department of Justice to discuss Sec. 13.1" does this not trouble you," Mr. Christie demanded.


"No, it doesn't," Mr. Steacy responded.


"If there are a number of people using pseudonyms and you don't know who they are, but the website is controlled by a Canadian, does this not concern you?" Mr. Christie asked.


"Do you have any central registry of pseudonyms" of investigators, Mr. Christie and was told no.



Mr. Steacy said there was no such provision.


"So, it's possible," Mr. Christie continued, "that you could prosecute someone for running a site where someone under a pseudonym was posting hate."


"I guess," Mr. Steacy agreed.


"I understand what you've done is use the services of London Police Department to gain access to the encrypted hard drive of Mr. Scott Richardson's hard drive. You didn't have a search warrant for that."


Mr. Steacy had to agree.


"Did you ask Const.. Wilson if he informed the  Justice of the Peace when he obtained the search warrant that he would distribute this information to other bodies?" Mr.. Christie continued.


            Mr. Steacy had to agree that he had not.


            Only four people have the password to "Jadewarr."  Mr. Steacy said he had different assistants in December, 2006 who would have had the password to "Jadewarr". The assistant was posting at 3:00 in the morning..


Asked by Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression how, as a person blind since 2004, he could do his job in what is essentially a visual medium. Mr. Fromm was immediately attacked by Commission lawyer Margot Blight for attacking the witness.


"Not so said Mr. Fromm, it's a perfectly valid question: How does he do his job?" Comments were made about "special accommodations for Mr, Steacy."


It turns our from Mr. Steacy's testimony that he relies on screen reach software which tells him what symbols are. He prints off pages and his assistant reads them to him and, where there's a question about a symbol, the assistant is referred to a compendium Mr. Stacey prepared.



Mr. Steacy admitted that he had previously testified that monitoring of website was "complaint driven."


            He began to stumble when questioned about his spying on the conservative website called He joined as "jadewarr" on April 5, 2006. "Was there a complaint when you joined?" Miss Kulaszka asked.


            He said there was a complaint from one Marie-Line Gentes, which has since been withdrawn. However, Miss Kulaszka pointed out that her complaint was not filed with the Commission until             September 29, 2006.


            "Were you investigating at this point?" Miss Kulaszka asked.


            "No," said Steacy. However, headed, "I did some initial work at the intake stage," he tried to explain, indicating that there might have been an informal letter or phone call. Interestingly, at the "intake" stage of Marc Lemire's complaint about the RCMP, where the complaint was rejected merely because it had allegedly been sent on two-sided paper.     Miss Kulaszka pointed out that the posting by a Mr. Whatcott of Saskatchewan which Miss Gentes would subsequently complain about was not posted until two weeks after Dean Steacy signed up


He couldn't recall the last time he was on freedominion. Barbara Kulaszka then confronted him with evidence that he had visited the site on January 18, 2008. He went on the website, he said, because he'd been informed by someone, who he couldn't recall, that his spying had been discovered and mentioned on freedominion.


            Miss Kulaszka reminded him that, in a report urging the Commission to not accept Chris Guille's complained about CAERS website Recommnet for being vexatious and that a Stromfront poster named "Fenrisson" advice that dissidents file complaints with the CHRC was "well known in neo-Nazi circles."


            Apparently, an unnamed legal representative from CAERS had brought the name Fenrisson to his attention,


            The same allegation that Fenrisson had posted information urging people to make complaints to the CHRC was passed on to investigator Sandy Kozak and was used to dismiss a complaint against Mr. Warman.


            Mr.. Steacy stated he began to investigate who Fenrisson was: "I interacted with him. I can't remember if it was a PM."


            "You thought it might be one of the respondents from CAERS," Miss Kulaszka queried.


            "No, I thought it was one of the complainants, but I testified last Spring it was one of the respondents. I meant Mr. Kulbashian, or Mr. Guille or Mr. Lemire or Mr. Fromm." Mr. Fromm has never, in fact, filed a Sec. 13.1 complaint.


            Citing "privacy issues, when Mr. Steacy was asked about other people contemplating complaints against, he said: I refuse to answer. If I could remember their names, I wouldn't tell you.


The defence team learned that there are no CHRC guidelines as to the sort of material investigators may post in their spying activities.


Miss Kulaszka asked whether anyone at the Commission had done a study of whether people had been entrapped by posts they'd make or other investigators or complainants like Mr. Warman had made. Mr. Steacy said he wasn't aware of any.


"Given the fact that nobody knows who anybody is, it could well be someone complaining against themselves," Miss Kulaszka joked when referred to he case of Warman (Richard) v. Warman (Eldon). In this case, Richard Warman had used the pseudonym marydufford. [Warman is fond of impersonating women on line, as is communist Shane Ruttle Martinez, another Commission witness..)


Mr. Steacy, although he'd investigated the Warman v Glenn Bahr case, said he was not aware that Sgt. Stephen Camp, was estate. Interestingly, at that hearing, Warman objected to Mr. Fromm's question whether officer camp was "Estate", "on the ground that that goes to the issue of the police investigative techniques.


Mr. Fromm had then objected; "Excuse me, How is Mr. Warman privy to police investigation techniques."


Mr. Steacy's testimony pointed to the chummy relationship between the Commission and some police force hate squads." For instance, the London "hate squad" had obtained a warrant seized  James Scott Richardson's hard drive. Sgt. Terry Wilson turned over a copy of the computer hard drive to Mr. Steacy on his request.





            "Mr. Steacy's assistant is not here today," said Margot Blight, referring to the Oriental woman who had led him in and assisted him at the last hearing..


            Before the examination could continue, Margot Blight, the Commission's lawyer, complained that the defence was seeking to introduce new evidence on the Anne Cools issue. Mr. lemire has charged that Richard Warman posted a scurrilous attack on the Black Canadian senator under one of his numerous assumed identities.


"Do Commission employees sign up accounts on Stromfront under pseudonyms such as 'jadewarr.,?' asked Miss Kulaszka.


"Yes," Steacy admitted. "It a short form for 'Jade Warrior' from a novel I         read as a teenager."


"Why did you do this?" she asked.


"So that I could get on to sites I was investigating."

"My understanding is that you can't get everything unless you've signed up."


"Did you private message people?" she asked


"I don't recall," he said,


"How many posts did you make," she asked.


"I don't remember," he stated..


"Do you know who Nelly Hachne is?" Miss Kulaszka asked in regard to the owner of the address to which the IP of the "Jadewarr" post was registered.



"I have no idea who that is," Steacy insisted.


"When did you join Stormfront, when did you become a member?


"I don't remember the exact date."


"Would you agree it was February, 2005" she pursued.


"Why did you join?"


"Because I was doing an investigation," he replied.


Miss Kulaszka took him to a Stormfront thread begun my Mr. Lemire about a complaint initiated before the Commission about officer Stephen Camp of the Edmonton Police Service. Lemire also pointed out that the CHRC had refused to accept a complaint about racist jokes posted by some RCMP officers about Indians. Lemire pointed out that the CHRC's preferred targets were "white working class" dissidents


"My complaint about police postings was returned by investigator Dean Steacy because it was two-sided, even though it was FAXed," Mr. Lemire had posted."


Mr. Steacy admitted he had been an investigator of Mr. Lemire's complaint about the RCMP and Peel Regional Police.


"You replied as the 'anti-hate advisor' of the CHRC to Mr. Lemire that the criteria had not been met."


Then, Miss Kulaszka asked why Mr. Steacy would ask on Stormfront as "Jadewarr" why he would. ask Mr. Lemire why he was complaining against the RCMP. "Why not just ask him yourself?" she continued.


That past was in September, but you'd rejected his complaint in May, she countered.


            "You were one of the investigators who recommended that complaints by [rightists]

 Alexan Kulbashian and Andrew Guille be rejected."


            "Yes,," Steacy admitted.


            "You were trying to find out whether Mr. Lemire's complaint was being made to be vexatious." Miss Kulaszka asked.


            "I guess so," he admitted.


"Why would you post this as you'd already told him the complaint did not fall within the Act?" Miss Kulaszka continued


Miss Kulaszka asked whether, had Mr. Lemire answered Mr.Steacy's post, and denounced favouritism from Rcihard Warman, that this might be "retaliation" under the Act.


Steacy refused to answer a hypothetical complaint.


Mr. Steacy claimed not to know how much money Mr. Warman had made from his complaints and complaints of retaliation.


"Who helped you set up this account ass 'jadewarr'?" Miss Kulaszka asked.


"My assistant," he explained..


Steacy admitted telling other investigators including Sandy Kozak of his Internet spying,


He also admitted to signing up as "jadewarr" on the Freedomsite and as Oldenrevenge (Odinsrevenge@gmail.com0 on Stormfront

Although he was not the investigator of the Freedomsite complaint, he signed up with an account on the Freedomsite. Steacy had been an investigator of the case for just a couple of months.


"Why would you sign up whn you could view the site as just a guest?" Miss Kulaszka asked.


"Did you post on the freedomsite?" she asked.


Mr. Steacy could not recall, nor could he recall whether he had told Richard Warman about his spying.


He admitted to signing up on BCWhitepride, freedominion, Recomnetwork and VNN..He had signed up as "jadewarr" on all and to having posted on BCWhitepride.


"I had interaction with two individuals who seemed to be behind BCWhitepride tying to find out their mailing address."


Dean Steacy indicated thathis manager John Chamberlain at the Commission knew of his spying. He stated that he had come up with the idea of such spying.


While he stated that he had never discussed his spyhing with Richard Warman, Mr. Warman was aware that "jadewarr" was him.


Apparently, other investigators knew of the "jadewarr" membership and e-mail address. Everyone who knew of the account, knew what the password was – my assistant, Sandy    Kozak and John Chamberlain."..


The reports of what we're doing is contained in the investigation files.


Miss Kulaszka asked whether Mr. Warman knew the password. In a cagey answer, Mr. Steacy said he didn't know but coujldn't be certain that he might have.




A quick Google search revealed that *** Laurier Avenue, West is a pricey Ottawa condo in the $600,000 range with monthly condo fees of $660.

After a short break Paul Fromm, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, an interested party or intervenor supporting Mr. Lemire in this case rose and noted: "For the 20th straight day the complainant Mr. Warman is not in attendance."

"What investigation would you do to identify the identity of a responedent in Sec. 13 cases?" asked Miss Kulaszka.

"WHOIS and virtual identity search," Miss Rizk replied.

"Were these the two research methods Mr. Warman taught you?" Miss Kulaszka asked.

"Yes," Miss Rizk replied.

"Was he the only one who taught you?"

"Yes, he and a colleague Nancy Lalonde," Rizk responded.

Miss Rizk indicated that she had received this training in the fall of 2003, incidentally when her then colleague Mr. Warman filed his complaint against respondent/victim Mr. Lemire.

Miss Rizk indicated that this were "her first full Sec. 13 investigation."

"Do you remember how you checked about the 'Immigrant Poem'?" She sadi she'd gone on and did not find it.

The fur began to fly when Mr. Christie, rose on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League, to ask whether Mr. Warman ever told her that he and others sometimes post on sites like Stormfront.

Miss Margot Blight on behalf of the Commission repeatedly objected that the questions could only be those asked the last time and objected to under Sec. 37.

"This is a relevant question as to investigative techniques which we were not allowed to ask last time," Mr. Christie insisted.

"We have evidence that the complainant Mr. Warman coached Miss Rizk, the investigator in this case," Mr. Christie argued. "We know the Mr. Warman, police and others posted on sites like Stormfront."

She said Mr. Warman had not told her that he had posted on She also indicated that she had not sought to indentify any of the people posting on Stromfront..

March 25 - Morning Session. BELL CANADA

Mar 25, 2008 09:59:00 AM

OTTAWA, March 25, 2008.

"The first witness I'll be calling is Mr. Alain Monfette of ," victim Marc Lemire's lawyer Barbara Kulaszka led off this morning's hearing. She asked Mr. Monfette, the Director of Law Enforcement co-ordination for 's security. He had been asked.for the registration information of IP

"I am not able to disclose this information about our customer. It is confidential if we are to disclose the name and address of our customer, without a Court order.," he answered. The Tribunal member of judge Athanaasios Hadjis then ordered the disclosure of this information.

The user was identified with phone number 613-236-7831 registered to Nelly Hechme located at *********. The account was connected from Dec. 7, 2006 to December 2006..

Next Miss Kulaszka recalled former Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator Hannya Rizk, some of whose answers had been cut short by Giacomo Vigna's invoking of the seldom used Sec. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, which is used to prevent the divulging of information that might endanger the safety of a person or national security. Mr. Lemire challenged this effort to hide information in Federal Court in January 15, 2008. On the eve of the hearings, the Commission folded and provided almost all of this information. Now the Marc Lemire defence team wanted to get these answers formally on the record under oath..

Monday, March 24, 2008

PRESS RELEASE: Expect Fireworks -- Evidence of Government Dirty Tricks on the Internet at Rights Tribunal Hearing

Where:      Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Hearing Room #1

                   160 Elgin Street, 11th Floor

                   Ottawa, Ontario


When: March 25, 2008 – 9:30am



"Expect fireworks, tomorrow," warns Paul Fromm Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, "when a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal resumes hearings into a complaint against webmaster Marc Lemire."


Two controversial investigators will be back on the witness stand after the Commission, facing an appeal in Federal Court in January, withdrew a little used provision of the Canada Evidence Act, Sec. 37, which prevents the divulging of information likely to endanger a person's life or national security.


"We now know these objections were bogus and an example of the Commission's culture of secrecy," says respondent Marc Lemire. "Last week for the second time in a year, the Commission sought to exclude the press and public from hearings where Commission employees are testifying."


"We now have evidence which we want them to admit to under oath, that Commission 'investigators' have adopted false identities, pretended to be 'racists' and signed up under phony names, even before a complaint is filed," adds Fromm whose organization is an "interested party" intervening on Mr. Lemire's behalf.


Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman who has filed over 25 complaints with the organization he once worked for as an "investigator" himself uses phony names while trolling controversial sites on the Internet and has signed some of his posts "Heil Hitler."


"What we've uncovered," says Mr. Lemire, “is a Commission out of control.” They use complainants like Mr. Warman, a former employee, with an admitted personal political agenda of "maximum disruption" of his political opponents. They use an admitted communist who stole a young woman's Internet photos and then passed himself off as this woman. There's a wholesale Commission campaign of dirty tricks against Canadian Internet users," he warns.


Mr. Lemire has launched a challenge against the constitutionality of Section 13, the Internet censorship, section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. "Section 13 has to go," he says. "Either we get the Courts to rule it a total violation of the Charter guarantees of freedom of speech or Parliament should repeal Section 13," Lemire explains. Indeed, Keith Martin a Liberal MP from British Columbia, has recently introduced M-446, a private member's bill to repeal Section 13.


 Mr. Lemire notes that:


·        Under Section 13, over the 30 year history of the Act, no victim has ever been acquitted


·        Section 13 makes not just statements "likely to expose" privileged minorities to "hate" but also to "contempt" an offence. The Tribunal rulings show that any criticism of these minorities is considered "contempt."


·        Tribunal "members" or judges are not chosen for their balance of objectivity but for their bias. Indeed, they must have a special interest and experience in group rights as opposed to individual rights. And it's the victim's right to freedom of expression that is on the line in these cases.


·        Dean Steacy the lead Commission investigator who will be examined again on Tuesday, has already testified that he gives no weight to freedom of expression as "it is an American concept"


·        A recent ruling by Athanasios Hadjis who is presiding over the Lemire case, ruled that posting certain Scriptures from the Bible on the Internet was an offence because they might expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt.




-- 30 –


All the evidence to be used on March 25 hearing is online:


A live blog of the hearing will be available at:


Constitutional Challenge of Section 13:





Issues before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal


CHRC using the account “Jadewarr” on the White Nationalist website and FreeDominion website

The CHRC stopped all questioning of this infiltration account.  “Jadewarr” was used to engage Marc Lemire and others online. This is part of a larger scheme, with the Edmonton Police hate crimes unit posting outright discriminatory messages on using the name “Estate”. Evidence before the Tribunal shows “Jadewarr” was Senior investigator Dean Steacy.


The relationship between the CHRC and Police

The CHRC has been trying to elevate itself to a police agency.  They only have statue remedial powers, but through a series of police agreements they have access to highly secured police databases such as CPIC. As well Motor Vehicle records, phone records, police powers of search and seizure.  We want to know the extent of the relationship and how its been used


The CHRC silencing critics during the Same-Sex Marriage debate

In 2003-2004 the CHRC had filed 5-6 complaints against users on AOL Online, who were critical of homosexuality and opposed to same-sex marriage.  We want to know the names of the respondents and what effect the CHRC had in prosecuting only critics of same-sex marriage


The CHRC’s investigative techniques

Throughout the course of Marc Lemire’s hearing, it has become clear the CHRC has used shady tactics to go after those they don’t like.  This includes using tools to reveal the identity of online users, such as WHOIS and Visual RouteWe want to know how they used those tools and why



All the evidence to be used on March 25 hearing is online:




The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Active and Past cases: 46  |  Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37


·         NOT A SINGLE respondent have ever won a section 13 case

·         98% of cases have poor or working class respondents

·         90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers

·         $99,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.

·         35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.



Groups and Writers that Support Repeal of Section 13:


Liberal MP Keith Martin

Liberal MP Dan McTeague

Ezra Levant

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy)

Catholic Insight Magazine

Catholic Register

Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

Victoria News

PEN Canada

CDN Association of Journalists

Mary Steyn (Macleans Magazine)

Calgary Herald

Western Standard Magazine

London Free Press

B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune

Sask Leader-Post

Deborah Gyapong

Calgary AM770

Globe and Mail

National Post

David Warren (Ottawa Citizen)

Eye Magazine (Toronto)

Toronto Star

Toronto Sun

Interim Magazine

Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday

Winnipeg Free Press

Oak Bay News