BREAKING: Government to launch inquiry into CHRC "investigative techniques", section 13

By Ezra Levant on May 30, 2008 2:21 PM

 

The Conservative government has introduced a motion to Parliament's Justice Committee proposing an investigation into the abusive, corrupt practises of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion specifically refers to public "concerns" about the CHRC's "investigative techniques" and their "interpretation and application" of the section 13 thought crimes provision.

The resolution, which you can read here in both official languages, was put forward by Rick Dykstra (pictured at left), the Conservative MP from St. Catherines, Ontario, with the knowledge and approval of the Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson. Here is an e-mail from Nicholson, sent to a voter just today, in which you can read his change of approach. An excerpt from Nicholson's letter:

I would like to inform you that my caucus colleague Mr. Rick Dykstra has tabled a motion that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine and make recommendations with respect to the CHRC, including its mandate, operations, and interpretation and application of provisions relating to section 13 of the CHRA, which addresses hate messages. I look forward to that review.

Jason Kenney, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, was also instrumental in getting this issue onto the government's agenda.

Here's the text of it:

Whereas concerns have been raised regarding the investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") and the interpretation and application of section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act (the "Act"); and

Whereas the Commission operates independently and reports to Parliament;

Be it resolved that the Justice and Human Rights Committee examine and make recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in particular:

a) review the mandate and operations of the Commission;
b) review the Commission's application and interpretation of section 13 of the Act;
c) Solicit and consider oral submissions from the Chief Commissioner and oral or written submissions from other interested persons or organizations;
d) Submit a report, including any proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act arising out of the results of the Committee's inquiry.

The government's proposed inquiry comes on top of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's announcement last month that she is investigating the corrupt and abusive conduct of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. And earlier this month, Ottawa police referred a criminal complaint about the CHRC to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are now conducting a criminal investigation.

 

Rest of article at: http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/government-to-launch-inquiry-i.html

 

-- Freedom Booklets -- Hate Laws Debunked. Challenging the Internet Censors. In Defence of Freedom.

-- Freedom Booklets --

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/booklets.html

Hate Laws Debunked Exposing the junk science behind "hate" legislation Pages: 43 - $15 Neuroscientist Dr. Persinger destroys the myths that “hate” causes psychological damage. Includes his expert report and stunning testimony

---

Challenging the Internet Censors Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act Pages: 43 - $15 The constitutional challenge filed by the Lemire defence team. Chapters on what the CHRC is and the threat it poses to freedom and liberty

---

In Defence of Freedom Marc Lemire Vs. The Canadian "Human Rights" Enforcers Pages: 67 - $20 Details the case of Marc Lemire and his battle against the Human Rights Enforcers. Contains the amazing defence filed and important documents

---

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

Canada

Attorney General Rob Nicholson opposes the intervention of the BC Civil Liberties Association in support of Constitutional Challenge of Internet censorship

 

Attorney General Rob Nicholson opposes the intervention of the BC Civil Liberties Association in support of Constitutional Challenge of Internet censorship

 

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/may28-08_AG_opposes_BBCLA.html

 

Conservative Attorney General of Canada Rob Nicholson is opposing the intervention of the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), which is one of Canada’s leading defenders of free expression. The BCCLA applied for Interested Party status in support of the Lemire Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 - Canada's notorious thought crime / pre-crime provision.

In a letter dated May 27, 2008, Simon Fothergill speaking on behalf of Rob Nicholson, wrote that the Attorney General of Canada is opposed to the BCCLA's intervention on the grounds that "grounds advanced by the BCCLA in support of its late request to intervene are substantially the same as those advanced by the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF)" [See full letter from the Attorney General]

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal threw out the application of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, claiming they were making substantially the same arguments as Marc Lemire.  This is of course not true at all, but of course Truth doesn't bother the Tribunal in the least.

Journalist and Blogger Ezra Levant summed up the situation very well in a recent blog posting on his very popular blog located at  EzraLevant.com:

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.

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.

[Rest of Ezra Levants article at: http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/athanasios-hadjis-im-lazy.html]

 

 

________________________________________________

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://www.StopSection13.com

 

 

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, Writers and MPs that Support a Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

 

Liberal MP Keith Martin Liberal MP Dan McTeague Conservative MP James Rajotte Conservative MP Bruce Stanton Ezra Levant Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy) Catholic Insight Magazine Catholic Register Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

PEN Canada CDN Association of Journalists Mark 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 Victoria News

 

 

 

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html

 

 

WASHINGTON TIMES: Mounties probe e-mail hijacking

 

---

Article published May 26, 2008
Mounties probe e-mail hijacking

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080526/CULTURE/617722375/1015

 

Mounties probe e-mail hijacking

May 26, 2008

By Pete Vere - SAULT STE. MARIE, Ontario - 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.

CHRC investigator Dean Stacey admitted under oath during a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) hearing that he had joined the Web sites and posted under the password-protected name "Jadewarr."

While the tribunal upheld the commission's initial refusal to discuss its investigation tactics, a higher court forced the disclosure upon appeal.

An employee with Bell Canada — Canada's largest telecommunications company — was subsequently subpoenaed. The employee then connected the "Jadewarr" pseudonym to the personal Internet account of Nelly Hechme — a 26-year-old woman living near the commission's main office in Ottawa.

Miss Hechme was horrified to learn her Internet access had reportedly been used without her knowledge or consent, she told Canadian news media.

She was particularly shocked by the linking of her account to Web sites promoting hate, as well as the revelation that the reported perpetrators worked for a government agency. Miss Hechme's Internet access had been encrypted and could not have been easily hacked, she said.

The incident has sparked an investigation from Canada's privacy commissioner.

In response to Mr. Stacey's testimony, a criminal complaint was filed with the Ottawa Police Service. The municipal police force turned the investigation over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the federal law enforcement agency popularly known as the Mounties.

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.

LEMIRE CASE: Hadjis Bias? Heck they are ALL ARE! Systemic BIAS exposed due to "sensitivity to Human Rights"

 

Here is the submission written by courageous defender of free speech – Barbara Kulaszka. In a submission on how the entire Tribunal is biased, she lays out the foolishness of having members “sensitive to human rights” and what that really means for victims like me.  This submission is in response to a motion by the Canadian Association for Free Expression for Member Hadjis (“judge” in Lemire case) to recuse himself for Bias due to (among other things…) a history of working with one of the interested parties that has intervened against Lemire (Canadian Jewish Congress)

 

 

 

May 21, 2008

 

Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405

 

To the Tribunal:

 

This is the response of the motion filed by the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.:

 

1.     Reasonable Apprehension of Bias:

 

The motion by CAFÉ raises the problem of the inherent and systemic bias of members of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.  People are appointed to the Tribunal because they have “sensitivity” to human rights pursuant to section 48.1 of the CHRA.  Thus, the activity of the Chair in this case working with ethnic organizations and being part of ethnic organizations is not seen as a negative but as a reason why he would be appointed to this position.

 

There is a “human rights industry” and people who are part of this milieu are appointed to the Tribunal.

 

This does not mean that members are bad people or malicious towards others but it leads to a bias that simply is not recognized by its members.

 

Making arguments for freedom of speech in this milieu is like someone going to a feminist conference and arguing for the benefits to society of women staying home, making nutritious food for their children from scratch and home-schooling them. They would not be laughed out of the conference, they would be tarred and feathered as “dangers” to the progress of women’s rights. The feminists would not recognize their own biases or arrogance.

 

The respondent supports CAFÉ’s submissions that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias because of this, but he also recognizes that all members of the Tribunal would have equally biased backgrounds as a result of the appointment requirements. There is therefore no benefit to another member hearing either the motion or the case.

 

However, the actions of this Tribunal since January have caused increasing concern to the respondent.

 

The entire burden of arguing for a resumption of the hearing was put on the respondent.  Only one day was scheduled for the hearing.  A massive disclosure was made by the Commission after March 25^th, yet this Tribunal constantly reiterates that the “case is done.” 

 

The Commission announced blithely at the March 25^th hearing that it had a policy of not disclosing the fact that investigators were using pseudonyms and signing onto message boards, including the Freedomsite, in contempt of the Tribunal’s rules, yet the Tribunal has continued to insist that final arguments will be due in two weeks even as disclosure is still being made and rulings on redactions not issued.  The Chair has done so in the face of the respondent’s stated intent to the Tribunal that he reserves the right to move for further evidence after receiving the original unredacted documents.

 

I note for the record that I received more disclosure from the Commission last week.

 

The refusal of the Tribunal to allow the Canadian Constitution Foundation to have interested party status was also deeply prejudicial to the respondent and to the Canadian public. Section 13 is a violation of freedom of speech, as held in Taylor. The CCF could have greatly assisted the Tribunal in the resolution of whether it is justified under section 1 of the Charter today.

 

This case became in essence a new case when the Commission decided, in the face of a judicial review before the Federal Court, to reveal that it has been using pseudonyms to post messages on message boards and to contact respondents and, further, to reveal its relationship with police services.

 

This resulted in the opening up of new disclosures and new avenues of evidence regarding issues which go to the heart of the constitutional arguments.  The Commission is exchanging information with the police in a manner which could violate the rights of Canadians under section 7 and section 11 of the Charter.

 

The respondent is entitled to pursue this evidence, both through disclosure and the calling of evidence.

 

It is the hope of the respondent that the Tribunal will recognize that the Commission’s failure to abide by the Tribunal’s rules regarding disclosure in all of the section 13 cases, and the revelation of this fact on March 25^th,  is a fundamental change in this case that must be dealt with.

 

…

  ----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://www.StopSection13.com

 

Have The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission become just like the Nazis ?

 

The Nazis	The Canadian Human Rights Commission
The Nazis targeted one race	The CHRC targets only working-class Whites, whose beliefs they disagree with
The Nazis used unfair courts and tribunals while limiting any possible defence	Not a single person has ever won a case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (over 40 cases…)
The Nazis targeted the poor	98% of victims the CHRC attacks are poor. 90.7% of victims are so poor they are not able to even hire a lawyer to represent them.
The Nazis used all means at their disposal to silence their opponents.	The CHRC shall “…try by persuasion, publicity or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices…” Section 27(h) - Canadian Human Rights Act
The Nazis used the Gestapo to attack political opponents	The CHRC has benefited from the Police raiding people’s homes for alleged “hate”.  No criminal charges come but the CHRC uses the seized material against victims before the Tribunal
The Nazis would get people fired from their employment over their beliefs	A recent victim of the CHRC (Terry Tremaine) was fired from his position at the University of Sask. for his political beliefs.
The Nazis used Krystalnacht (Night of broken Glass) to attack their enemies	Paul Fromm, Canada’s largest defender of CHRC victims, had his house attacked by a crazed mob of radicals and is constantly physically attacked

 

 

 

CHRONICLE HERALD: Bad times for free speech - But axing Section 13 of Rights Act would begin to warm up chilly climate

Bad times for free speech

But axing Section 13 of Rights Act would begin to warm up chilly climate

By MARK MERCER

Canadians heard a long time ago, at least as long ago as 1990, that they are not free to speak their minds as they see fit. 1990 was the year the Supreme Court of Canada ruled constitutional Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 13 says that it is "a discriminatory practice" to communicate "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

It is under s. 13 that a complaint against Maclean’s magazine has been filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It’s indirectly because of s. 13 that provincial and territorial human rights commissions see fit to consider complaints about what people have said or written or drawn – as in the current complaint against The Chronicle-Herald for publishing an editorial cartoon that offended some readers.

Now none of us wants that any group of people is vilified. We don’t want our ears bruised by racist epithets and we don’t want to witness displays of contempt. And yet one doesn’t have to be a free speech absolutist to see what is wrong and dangerous with s. 13. It is addressed to any matter that "is likely to expose" a person to hatred. What you say need not actually expose anyone to hatred. It need not even be intended to expose anyone to hatred.

 

Rest of article at: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1057238.html

 

 

Kulaszka Hammers Attorney General of Canada over false claims: In a Bizarre submission - Conservative Rob Nicholson's daft spokesman cries "unfairness"

Kulaszka Hammers Attorney General of Canada over false claims

 In a Bizarre submission - Conservative Rob Nicholson’s daft spokesman cries “unfairness”

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/may20-08_kulaszka_hammers_AGs_bizarre_submission.html

 

In another pathetic missive from the Attorney General of Canada, Conservative Rob Nicholson’s representative – Simon Fothergill (AKA Frothing’at’the’gills), cries the blues to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal over the claim that the respondent [ Marc Lemire] has been able to see their “moonbat” inspired closing argument.  

Simon Fothergill’s has become somewhat of a laughingstock in the Blogosphere [here] [here] [here] [here] [here] [here] [here] over the legal argument he submitted to uphold Section 13 - Canada’s notorious thought crimes provision.  Journalist and fellow “human rights” violator, Ezra Levant tore to shreds, the piece of socialist garbage passed off as a legal argument.  Based on the testimony of “hate law” über-advocate dr. Tsesis (whom Levant call the “nutty professor” and my all time favorite “moonbat”) and former B’nai Brith activist Karen Mock (whom Marc Lemire called a “hysterical zealot”)

  In today’s letter, Mr. Fothergill states:

  The Attorney General of Canada is a respondent to the constitutional challenge brought by Mr. Lemire to ss. 13, 54(1) and 54(1 .1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Attorney General has a right to reasonable notice of the case we are expected to meet, and to a reasonable opportunity to respond.

 Due to the late issuance of the Tribunal's decision to postpone the deadline, Mr. Lemire now has the benefit of the Attorney General's initial submissions when preparing his initial submissions, together with a further opportunity to reply by June 25, 2008. By contrast, the Attorney General will not receive Mr. Lemire's initial submissions until June 9, 2008, and will then have only until June 25, 2008 to reply. 

 The existing imbalance will only be exacerbated if Mr. Lemire is given until the end of August to file his initial submissions in relation to the constitutional issues.

 We reiterate that the Attorney General is a respondent to Mr. Lemire's constitutional challenge, and yet we find ourselves in the position of having filed our initial submissions while Mr. Lemire's initial submissions are not required until June 9,2008.

Given the real risk of unfairness [WTF!], and the already protracted nature of these proceedings, the Attorney General of Canada opposes Mr. Lemire's and other parties' request for a further postponement of the dates for filing written submissions and for presenting oral arguments.

(emphasis added)

See the full letter by Rob Nicolson’s – Attorney General of Canada staff

 

 [Can you imagine the NERVE…   the Attorney General complaining about a “real risk of unfairness”.   And this coming from the morons that want to make sure Truth and Intent are NO defence… DUUUH… unfairness... indeed]

   

Barbara Kulaszka Demolishes Attorney General

   

May 20, 2008

TO: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,

160 Elgin St. , 11^th Floor,

Ottawa , ON K1A 1J4

 

Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405

 

To the Tribunal:

I have the letter of Mr. Fothergill of today’s date, for the Attorney General of Canada, regarding my request for rescheduling final submissions to the autumn.

I must correct Mr. Fothergill, who writes that the “Attorney General has a right to reasonable notice of the case we are expected to meet” and complains that due to the Tribunal’s decision to postpone deadlines, “ Mr. Lemire now has the benefit of the Attorney General’s initial submissions when preparing his initial submissions”.

The exact opposite is true.

The respondent filed his initial motion on the constitutional issues on December 6, 2005, over two years ago. The motion and supporting argument is some 24 pages long.

It is the Attorney General and opposing parties who have had the benefit of knowing the respondent’s position for two [and a half] full years before having to make a response.

Richard Warman and the Commission and the Attorney General and the Canadian Jewish Congress and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre knew exactly what the respondent was arguing and therefore what evidence he was interested in obtaining during the hearing. 

It was because of this initial motion that the Attorney General and the other interested parties intervened in the case.

The arguments which I will be filing will be Supplementary to the initial 2005 argument and will be based on the evidence from the hearing and the issues arising from such evidence. But the basic arguments made in 2005 remain unchanged as the basis of the respondent’s case.

The Attorney General has suffered no prejudice whatsoever.

Today I received the application by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association for interested party status.  This is Canada ’s most active and important civil liberties association today.

None of the material complained of on the Freedomsite remains on the site. I remind all parties that most of the material was removed even before Mr. Lemire had notice of the complaint. The rest was removed in an unsuccessful effort to resolve the matter after the complaint was received.

This case involves major constitutional issues and has disclosed evidence of violations of Canadians’ rights by the Commission. There is no need for a rush to judgment when the evidence is incomplete and major civil liberties associations are applying to provide this Tribunal with their submissions and expertise.

I would urge the Tribunal to set aside the dates set for June until all matters concerning disclosure, further calling of evidence and interested party applications are resolved.

 

Yours truly,

Barbara Kulaszka

 

  ----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://www.StopSection13.com

 

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, Writers and MPs that Support a Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

 

Liberal MP Keith Martin Liberal MP Dan McTeague Conservative MP James Rajotte Conservative MP Bruce Stanton Conservative MP Russ Hiebert Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson Conservative MP Lee Richardson Ezra Levant Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy)

PEN Canada CDN Association of Journalists Mark Steyn (Macleans Magazine) Calgary Herald Western Standard Magazine London Free Press B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune Sask Leader-Post Deborah Gyapong Calgary A M 770 Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

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 Victoria News Catholic Insight Magazine Catholic Register

 

 

 

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

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 

Canada