Wednesday, December 30, 2009

SHANOFF: Freedom of expression makes gains in 2009


Year-End Review 2009: Part 2

Here's the second half of my year-end review of the top legal stories/developments for 2009.

Winnipeg Sun | December 27, 2009

1. Chalk 2009 up as another good year for freedom of expression in Canada.

Last Tuesday the Supreme Court of Canada gave the media a new defence with which to defend defamation lawsuits. It's called the "responsible communication" defence and allows the media to defend itself even if some of the facts reported can't be proven to be truthful. It won't allow the media to run roughshod over reputations but it should encourage more investigative reporting.

2. A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did the unthinkable. It declared that Section 13, the hate speech section, of the Canadian Human Rights Code, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let's hold our applause for the decision as it's been appealed to the Federal Court of Canada and we still have a patchwork of 11 human rights codes in Canada leading to the strange situation where the same complaint may be filed in multiple jurisdictions. Section 13 is currently under review by Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

You can catch Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, both previous subjects of unsuccessful hate speech complaints, making their submissions to this Committee earlier this year on YouTube.  [YouTube videos are at:   Part 1 | Part 2]

While there's reason for optimism that we will be rid of Section 13 one day, there is still a large movement to have the United Nations impose a ban on defamation of religion. That's scary stuff.

Defamation laws are there to protect people, not ideas or beliefs. Our rights will be diminished if we have to contend with defamation of religion laws. But then, section 13 comes pretty close to having homegrown defamation of religion laws.


See full article at:


Friday, December 18, 2009

BCF: $45,580.39 of your tax dollars spent hauling CHRC Kommissar David Langtry between Manitoba & Ottawa

$45,580.39 of your tax dollars spent hauling CHRC Kommissar David Langtry's ass between Manitoba & Ottawa

A beleaguered taxpayer suggests David Langtry the eminently expendable Ersatz Human Rights Kommissar be relieved of his entitlements. Couldn't they have hired someone who might at least endure residing in Ottawa, rather than haul Langtry's ass half way across the continent so he can "go to work"? Langtry is on the public tit till 2012-07-31 at a salary class of GCQ 6 $ 163,000 - $ 191,800.

Guest Post by Gary K.

On June 16, 2006, The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Vic Toews, Q.C., appointed David Langtry to the position of full-time Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Langtry (that would be Lynch’s underling) was elevated to the position of Deputy Chief Commissioner on August 3, 2007.

Langtry’s carbon footprint is so frickin’ large, it would make Al Gore green with envy. Did you know that the taxpayer’s of Canada pay all of his travel and accommodation expenses for him to travel from his home in Manitoba to Ottawa, on a weekly basis, so that he can “conduct regular business at Commission headquarters?” Uh?

Recently, I compiled a spreadsheet with embedded links that refer back to the CHRC website reflecting Langtry’s expenses for the period commencing late June 2006 – Dec 2007.

A few weeks ago, Lynch testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. She stated emphatically that the commission’s work was very important to all Canadians. Is it Jenny? Then tell us why your deputy commissioner only worked 174 days during the entire year of 2007. We can see the enormous amount of “hate”, “discrimination” and “social inequalities” there is to combat out there when your “full-time” commissioner only works “part-time” hours extracting a “full-time” salary from the taxpayer’s of our nation - generously supported and backed by members of our elected officials to fulfill a politically-correct mandate. Now we see why the CHRC needs to continuously increase their “expanding knowledge”, Jen. You need seek out more work for your under-burdened, over-blown bureaucracy. Right?

So, what did Langry’s total travel and hospitality expenses cost taxpayer’s of this nation in 2007? Answer: $73,024.40. And from this total expense, how much of it was used to ferry his ass from Manitoba to Ottawa on a weekly basis to go to work? Answer: $45,580.39. I should mention that it still continues to this day. That’s right. Canadian taxpayer’s have been contributing to his frequent-flyer miles program for three and a half years. Did I mention that he only worked 174 days in 2007?

Pay particular attention to these dates entered on the spreadsheet (11/16/2007– 11/22/2007). Mr. Langtry was attending a “National” Human Rights Institutions forum and relieved the taxpayer’s for a mere $8,305.34 of their collective funds. Where was this “National” forum held? Moncton? Saskatoon? Ft. McMurray? Puce, Ontario? Nope. It was held in Uganda. When did Uganda become a frickin’ province of our Confederation?


Thursday, December 17, 2009

Mark Steyn comments about Human Rights legislation in Canada

Mark Steyn on Human Rights and hierarchy of victims


Mark Steyn looks back at 2009

Mark Steyn discusses some of the big issues of the year.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation | CounterPoint | December 14, 2009

Michael Duffy: Mark, I understand you've had some problems of your own in the last year or two, in fact you've written a book about them called Lights Out, to do with free speech issues in Canada. Can you tell us briefly what happened there?

Mark Steyn: Yes, I found that an excerpt from my previous book America Alone was published in Maclean's which is Canada's biggest selling news magazine. It's a very mainstream magazine, it's not extreme or right-wing or anything else in any way at all, and it became the subject of three complaints from the Canadian Islamic Congress. Essentially I was subjected to triple jeopardy because they filed complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

And those words, by the way, 'human rights commission', are quite relevant to Australians because there's been a lot of talk in your country recently about having a Canadian style system of human rights commissions. I regard them as an abomination. All the key protections of common law, the presumption of innocence, truth as a defence, the right to due process, the right to confront your accuser in open court, all these things go by the board under a human rights commission system, which is essentially a hierarchy of fashionable victim groups.

So, for example, if a gay group sues Christians, gays trump Christians in the victim group hierarchy. If a Jew sues an anti-Semite, Jews trump anti-Semitism in the victim hierarchy. It gets a bit more complicated if, for example, it was a Muslim suing a gay, then the hierarchy of fashionable victim's rights gets more complicated.

Michael Duffy: What about if a Muslim sues a Jew? Who's on top there? Or hasn't that been resolved yet?

Mark Steyn: That is a very interesting point because when Jewish groups under the Canadian system, for example...when Jewish groups have tried to bring prosecutions against inflammatory imams who say that all Jews should be killed...if you were a knuckle-dragging white skinhead who belonged to, for example, the Manitoba Ku Klux Klan or whatever, the human rights commission would come down on you like a tonne of bricks. But an imam, an inflammatory imam in Montreal, for example, published a whole book saying the Jews should be killed, homosexuals should be killed, the whole thing, and the human rights commission didn't want to go after them.

So they'll go after nobodies, they'll go after some so-called white supremacist living in his mom's basement in the middle Saskatchewan, but they won't go after some of the principal sources of anti-Semitism in the world today. And that's why I think if we're going to have these things be part of the legal system at all...and I really would rather not, I'd rather...if an imam says something stupid or offensive, I'd rather expose him to mockery and social censor rather than actually attempt to criminalise his speech. I don't think that does any good and I think one of the most disturbing signs in Canada, in Britain, in Europe, has been the ease with which free societies suddenly decide that they want to criminalise opinions that they don't agree with. It's one of the most disgusting trends in the developed world today.

Michael Duffy: Yes, some of the human rights commissions came after you anyway. Just briefly, what was the outcome of that?

Mark Steyn: Well, we had a one-week trial in British Columbia which was in many ways hilarious. It's quite something to sit in a court room and watch an expert witness who has been flown in at great expense discuss the tone of your jokes for a full day. This is something I wouldn't have expected to see outside the very obscure corners of minor literary magazines, but it happened. And the reality is that it's only because I was there in court mocking it and coming out of the court room and giving interviews to radio stations mocking not just my accusers but mocking the so-called judges, that essentially we were acquitted on political grounds because the human rights system felt that it couldn't take the heat.

In fact after we were acquitted, clearly we were guilty under British Columbia human rights law because essentially if someone feels offended by you, you are guilty. It's an emotional system. If a gay feels offended by a Christian quoting Leviticus, the Christian quoting Leviticus is by definition guilty because we have elevated the human right not to be offended into a bedrock human right. I think particularly in multicultural societies that governments are very comfortable with this because they regard themselves as the sole legitimate arbiter of acceptable public discourse between different social groups. So they think it entirely normal that if you have some gay guys over here and you have Muslims over there and you have some Jews over here and you have some uptight fundamentalist Christians over here, that it's the proper job of government to mediate relations between those groups. I think that's a recipe for a kind of politically correct tyranny that I want no part of.

Michael Duffy: Do you think you've come through this unscathed or do you think it may have deterred some people around the world from publishing your journalism or even your books?

Mark Steyn: I think actually that's one of the odd things about that has been to discover that actually the system has very few friends, that it wasn't only my accusers who came off badly from that but the system itself. So since then the House of Commons in Canada has held hearings on in fact abolishing this particular section of the human rights act. And on a personal level I've had odd things that never happened to me before; I was sitting in Montreal having lunch with a friend and a couple of guys at an adjoining table sent over a magnum of champagne, because being wanted as a hate monger in English Canada managed to endear me to these Francophone Quebecers. So in an odd sense I think actually being willing to stand up and take on this system rather did some good for my reputation.

Michael Duffy: I think it came out very well. Mark Steyn, thanks for joining us on Counterpoint.

Mark Steyn: Always a pleasure Michael.



See full interview, including audio at:


Guests: Mark Steyn
Writer, author and commentator

Further Information: Mark Steyn's website

Publications: Title: Lights Out
Author: Mark Steyn


Jennifer Lynch & “Human Rights” Commission Busted by Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF)

• $10,400 wasted on a 2008 trip to Geneva

• $10,300 on a 2008 trip to Dublin and Copenhagen

• $8,893 squandered on airfare alone for a 2008 trip to Malaysia

• $8,323 blown on a 2007 trip to Geneva

• $7,140 minimum on a 2008 trip Vienna, of which the actual figures are not yet released

Canada’s chief censorship bureaucrat Jennifer Lynch has been busted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) for wasting taxpayers’ money on expensive flights to international meetings of arguably little, none, or even negative value.

Using Access to Information & Privacy (ATIP) requests, the CTF has learned that Chief Commissar Lynch spent $8,323 on accommodations, meals and a business class flight for a junket to Geneva, Switzerland in 2007. The purpose of this was to meet with the likes of “human rights” officials from Algeria and Morocco as well as the Asia Pacific Forum, which is an umbrella organization that includes the likes of Jordan & Palestine.

In 2008, Lynch made another trip to Geneva at the cost of $8,083 for her business class airfare alone. Including her other costs, that trip cost more than $10,400. The purpose of her trip in this instance was a committee meeting linked to the UN “Human Rights” Council, which includes: Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and most importantly, Saudi Arabia. One must wonder why Canada would spend its money on and lend its reputation to a body made up of some of the world’s worse human rights violators.

If these countries have anything to learn from Lynch, it is only how to subvert human rights with more tact and subtly than their own traditional methods (guns and ropes).

Lynch had a busy year of meeting with other human rights defenders in 2008 however; also traveling to Kuala Lampur, Malaysia with a business class airfare of $8,893, plus all other expenses. This confab was hosted by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, which is a part of a government that – according to the US State Department – restricts freedoms of the press, speech and religion, including “barring Muslims born into Islam from to converting to another religion,'' allowing religious courts to enforce apostasy cases under Shariah law. This country’s human rights example was on display just this summer when a woman was convicted by an Islamic Shariah court in Malaysia for drinking a beer, sentencing her to “six beatings by cane”.


In what was an ironic travel destination, Commissar Lynch traveled to Dublin, Ireland and Copenhagen, Denmark at the cost of $8,087 for her airfare (business class), totalling more than $10,300 after expenses. ...

The information (above) did not come easily to CTF researches however; as the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission stalled, blocked and dodged its several ATIP requests beyond the regular legal bounds. By law, government entities must provide the information within 30 days of the request being filed. Lynch and her gang only coughed it up after 51 days, but not without trying to put it off even longer, complaining that providing the information on time would “unreasonably interfere” with their operations. To date, an ATIP request filed in August for a Lynch flight to Vienna – for which Proactive Disclosures indicate she spent a minimum of $7,140 on airfare alone - has yet to be released.

Sizable inconsistencies were found in the costs of two of Lynch’s flights provided to the public through Proactive Disclosures, and the actual costs of the flight as discovered through Access to Information Requests.

With the cooperation of some officials, the CTF was able to confirm that much of the inconsistencies in this reporting – at times over to $3,000 difference – were due to Lynch only posting the Canadian portion of what was paid for her tickets, omitting the total cost. The difference in total cost was largely made up of reimbursements from international organizations that Canadians taxpayers fund, thereby allowing Lynch to only post the direct cost to the Canadian taxpayer and fly under the radar. That is until the CTF began to snoop.

Canadian taxpayers should be up in arms over any bureaucrat spending this kind of money and playing tricks – however legal – to minimize what the public sees in costs. That it is being done by bureaucrats that censor Canadians and feel the need to meet with tyrannical regimes for international confabs is even more outrageous. If the federal government is serious about curtailing its record deficits that have now pushed our national debt over the $500 billion mark, grounding censorship bureaucrats like Lynch would be a great place to start.

The above post was edited.  See the original at:“human-rights”-commission-busted-taxpayercom

Sunday, December 6, 2009

FALSE FLAG EXPOSED: Radical "racist" Hal Turner an FBI agent for "years"

Radical “racist” Hal Turner exposed as FBI agent.

Turners has promoted hate on the internet for years, while in the employ of the FBI.

Sadly, the same sort of thing has been going on Canada for years.

Records show feds used ultra-right radio host for years
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Last updated: Thursday December 3, 2009, 2:36 PM


They called him "Valhalla."
Hal Turner says he feels betrayed by the FBI after spying on white supremacists. He now is facing charges of making threats against judges.
Hal Turner says he feels betrayed by the FBI after spying on white supremacists. He now is facing charges of making threats against judges.

But it was more than a nickname.

For more than five years, Hal Turner of North Bergen lived a double life.

The public knew him as an ultra-right-wing radio talk show host and Internet blogger with an audience of neo-Nazis and white supremacists attracted to his scorched-earth racism and bare-knuckles bashing of public figures. But to the FBI, and its expanding domestic counter-terror intelligence operations in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Turner was "Valhalla" — his code name as an informant who spied on his own controversial followers.

Fast facts

In court this week

  • Hal Turner was charged June 24 with posting Internet threats to assault and murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago who upheld handgun bans.
  • If convicted, Turner faces as much as 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
  • His trial is scheduled to start Tuesday in federal court in Brooklyn.


1992: Serves as the North Jersey coordinator for Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign.

1994: Organizes a rally in Trenton, attended by members of the white supremacist Nationalist Movement, in support of WABC radio host Bob Grant.

1996: On Curtis Sliwa’s radio show, reveals the name of a sex offender who had moved to Englewood, thus violating the confidentiality restrictions of Megan’s Law.

1997: Manages the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign of libertarian Murray Sabrin.

2000: Enters elective politics and comes in last in a three-way primary race for the Republican nomination to challenge U.S. Rep. Bob Menendez.

2002: Begins broadcasting daily radio show; speaks at rally of the Aryan Nations in north-central Pennsylvania.

2003: Recruited by the FBI as confidential informant “Valhalla”; attends National Alliance meeting in Elmwood Park and its leadership conference in West Virginia.

2004: Provides information on the National Alliance, Aryan Nations and Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, as well as on a white supremacist plotting to bribe a judge and steal the evidence in his cocaine trial in Bergen County.

2005: Designated an extra-territorial source by FBI headquarters, travels to São Paulo, Brazil, and meets a noted white supremacist who wanted to donate up to $1 million to the American National Alliance. He also reportedly meets a member of the Brazilian Arab Society who proposes a venture to ship U.S. consumer goods to the Iraqi resistance.

2006: Travels to rallies around the country and warns FBI about pending attacks on two white supremacists suspected of being informers, and a television news reporter.

2007: Citing serious control problems, the FBI’s Detroit office closes Turner as a confidential informant after he refuses to call off a “Rally Against Black Gang Terrorism” he organized in Kalamazoo, Mich. “While source’s closing may negatively impact the timeliness of future receipt of information concerning potential extremists, this information is not so valuable as to outweigh source’s uncooperative and renegade behavior.” It is not the end of his relationship with the FBI.

2008: Hackers break into Turner’s computers and post an exchange of e-mails between him and his FBI handlers. He is warned to close down his show and Web site or other e-mails would be made public.

2009: Turner is arrested in separate cases for allegedly posting threats against Connecticut lawmakers and three federal judges in Chicago.

Sources: Record archives, government documents

Turner's clandestine past was confirmed this past summer when he was jailed on charges that he made threats on his blog against three federal judges in Chicago. In court after his arrest, federal prosecutors acknowledged Turner's FBI ties but downplayed his importance and even described him as "unproductive."
But an investigation by The Record — based on government documents, e-mails, court records and almost 20 hours of jailhouse interviews with Turner — shows that federal authorities made frequent use of Turner in its battle against domestic terrorism.

As Turner took to his radio show and blog to say that those who opposed his extremist views deserve to die, he received thousands of dollars from the FBI to report on such groups as the Aryan Nations and the white supremacist National Alliance, and even a member of the Blue Eyed Devils skinhead punk band. Later, he was sent undercover to Brazil where he reported a plot to send non-military supplies to anti-American Iraqi resistance fighters. Sometimes he signed "Valhalla" on his FBI payment receipts instead of his own name.

His dual life of shock jock and informant offers a window into the murky realm of domestic intelligence in the years after the Sept. 11 terror attacks — in particular, the difficult choices for the FBI in penetrating controversial fringe groups with equally controversial informants.

In interviews, conducted before Turner was released on bail, he said the FBI coached him to make racist, anti-Semitic and other threatening statements and now he feels double-crossed by the bureau after his arrest. The documents reviewed by The Record, however, show repeated instances of federal agents admonishing Turner for his extremism.

Federal prosecutors in Newark and Chicago declined to respond to Turner's claims, as did FBI officials. "We do not comment on matters before the courts and will not address Mr. Turner's allegations in the press," said the FBI's Weysan Dun, who runs the bureau's Newark field office.

Turner's "Valhalla" life will likely be on display this week when he is scheduled to go on trial for his alleged blog threats against three federal appeals court judges in Chicago who upheld a law banning handguns. The trial, originally set for Chicago, was switched to Brooklyn, with a judge flying in from Louisiana.

The trial may have its share of political intrigue. Turner's defense attorney, Michael Orozco, said he plans to subpoena Governor-elect Chris Christie to testify about whether he advised the FBI about Turner while Christie was U.S. attorney in Newark. On Friday, Orozco filed a motion to dismiss the case, accusing the government of "outrageous conduct."

But the center of the court battle will likely be the story of Hal Turner and his FBI connections, which began in 2003 with the Newark-based Joint Terrorism Task Force, and continued on and off until this year.
Rumors of Turner's FBI work surfaced two years ago after unknown Internet hackers electronically broke into his Web site and found e-mails between Turner and an FBI agent. Turner never acknowledged his FBI role until after his arrest in June — and then with a mix of anger and chagrin.

"Imagine my surprise," he wrote in one of several letters from jail to The Record, "when agents from the very FBI that trained and paid me came to my house to arrest me."

In a memo only two years earlier, the FBI said Turner "has proven highly reliable and is in a unique position to provide vital information on multiple subversive domestic organizations." The memo went on to say that Turner's "statistical accomplishments include over 100 subjects identified, over 10 acts of violence prevented and multiple subjects arrested."

"I was not some street snitch," Turner said in one of several lengthy interviews at the Hudson County Jail, where he was kept until the terms of his bail were worked out in October — terms that prevented him from talking to reporters after his release. "I was a deep undercover intelligence operative." 
Misgivings on both sides 
Whatever his role, one thing is clear: The relationship between Turner and the FBI often was rocky, with both sides cutting ties several times.

In March 2005, Turner abruptly quit. In a letter to his FBI handlers, he cited a "complete failure" by the agency "to achieve the goals for which I began the relationship," the "dismal lack of arrests," the failure to track down a "threat to kill me and my family" and "exploitation" by the FBI "to interfere with content of my Internet Web site."

By June, however, Turner was again on the FBI payroll. The FBI, meanwhile, harbored its own doubts about Turner.

Five days after Turner's March 2005 letter, an internal FBI memo summarized rising concerns that his rhetoric was too controversial and possibly dangerous.

"Is he a big mouth? Yes," the memo said. "Does he say really deplorable things? Yes. Is he a physical threat to anyone? I don't think so."

Records show the FBI continued this kind of questioning throughout its connection to Turner — valuing his ties to right-wing hate groups, but also worrying that his audience might follow up on his violence rhetoric.

In a July 2007 memo, Turner's primary FBI handler, Special Agent Stephen Haug, wrote that Turner "will continue to be admonished in the strongest possible terms and on a periodic basis about his rhetoric and the potential of it inciting acts of violence."

Haug went on to say that Turner would be "instructed to utilize his celebrity status to insure he continues to remind those who follow his rhetoric that such rhetoric is not intended to incite violence."

"In balance," Haug wrote, "this source's value outweighs the discomfort associated with source's rhetoric. Source's unique access provides important intelligence which, if lost, would be irreplaceable."

Turner, meanwhile, often tried to assure the FBI that his shock jock rhetoric was not serious. "The audience loves the rip-roaring radio psycho," he wrote in one e-mail to the FBI. "They literally throw money at it. Just be confident that the personality you hear (or hear about) on radio is not real life. I have zero intention of doing anything stupid."

Nonetheless, Turner's statements were closely watched.

In February 2008, in the midst of the presidential primary season, Turner attracted the attention of federal officials when he turned against then-Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

"I'm starting to come to the realization that it may be up to a sole person, acting alone, to make certain this guy is never allowed to hold the most powerful office in the world," Turner wrote on his Web site. He later removed the statement.

But later that year, court records show that he contacted federal authorities to say that he had heard of a possible assassination plot by white supremacists against the president-elect.

"I didn't like Barack Obama," Turner explained in an interview. "But he won the election."
Seven months after the possible threat to Obama, Turner was in FBI handcuffs — for allegedly threatening the Chicago judges.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," Turner wrote on his blog on June 2. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty."

Turner also posted photos of the judges, their work phone numbers and office addresses as well as a map of the courthouse that pointed out "anti-truck bomb barriers."

"The word 'deserve' is just an opinion," Turner later told The Record. As for posting the photos of the judges, he added: "I can't tell you to this day how sorry I am."

Even if he wins his federal case, Turner's legal problems will not be over. In June, Connecticut authorities charged Turner with inciting violence against state officials who supported a proposed state law to give Roman Catholic parishioners greater control over church finances.

In each case, Turner contends his words are protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Turner's attorney, Orozco, adds that other federal prosecutors routinely ignored his outlandish statements. "He has made other controversial remarks about judges, none of which have ever been prosecuted," wrote Orozco in a legal brief.

"I never intended for anybody to feel threatened," Turner said. 
Longing to be heard 
Whatever his intentions, it remains unclear who the real Hal Turner is.

A fraud? A serious threat to homeland security? A white supremacist? A loyal citizen trying to help the FBI? A radio showman trying to build an audience — and income — with shocking statements?
After he was arrested by FBI agents in June, Turner was sent on a journey that took him to jails in Newark, Oklahoma and Chicago — often in solitary confinement. By late September, he was transferred back to New Jersey and sent to the Hudson County Jail in Kearny. In all, he spent 119 days behind bars.
In the interviews at the Hudson County Jail, Turner offered many glimpses of his personality and motivation.

"My country needed me," he said when asked why he accepted the FBI's offer in June 2003 to become an informant. "I'm a loyal, patriotic decent American citizen."

But why did he say — or hint — that some judges and other officials should be killed? Turner blames the FBI, saying that while agents never said he could threaten judges, they coached him on the limits of what he could say. As a result, Turner said he felt he had wide latitude.

"I was given specific instructions," he said. "Here, I am in prison, betrayed."

In one of his more controversial statements, Turner gloated over the murder of the husband and mother of a federal judge in Chicago in 2005. But Turner described his rhetoric as fake, arguing he hoped it "would solidify my anti-government credentials" among ultra-right-wing groups he was spying on.

As for hanging out with neo-Nazis and skinheads, Turner said, "That's not me. It never has been."

Raised in Ridgefield Park, the 47-year-old Turner labored more than a decade in a variety of positions with several moving-van companies. In 1988, while working for a moving company in Atlanta, Turner was arrested on a drug possession charge. In interviews, he said he had a cocaine addiction at the time and checked into a rehab program.

By the early 1990s, Turner moved to North Bergen and worked as a real estate agent. Within a few years, however, he began to dabble in politics, trying to beef up the Republican Party in overwhelmingly Democratic Hudson County. He also was a campaign manager in New Jersey for Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.

Politics seemed to offer Turner something he never realized he had — a voice and a need to speak out on hot topics. Now, however, several close associates question whether that voice is authentic or just the work of someone looking for the limelight.

In 1997, when Ramapo College Finance Professor Murray Sabrin ran for governor on a libertarian platform, he hired Turner to manage his campaign. Turner was a frequent caller on WABC's popular talk radio shows with Bob Grant and Sean Hannity — "Hal from North Bergen," as he came to be known.
Turner surely had a conservative flair, especially on such issues as abortion and immigration. But Sabrin noticed a complete shift after Turner started his own talk radio show. In particular, Sabrin, who is Jewish, found some of Turner's remarks to be anti-Semitic.

"People have a public face and a private face," said Sabrin. "Everything that he is doing now is a complete 180-degree shift. It's totally opposite from what I knew. I don't know where this is coming from. I certainly wouldn't have tolerated it."

For several years, the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights group, has regularly monitored Turner's radio broadcasts and blog. Indeed, the center was one of the first organizations to raise questions that Turner might be an FBI informant.

Hearing now that Turner admits to being an informant, the center's director of research, Heidi Beirich, was especially critical of the FBI. "We've never seen anything like this with informants. It's essentially idiotic on the part of the FBI. Anybody who spent two seconds looking at Hal Turner's Web site would know he is a wild hare," she said.

Indeed, Turner's own recounting of his life with the FBI does not always mirror what records show he did.
Turner, for example, says the FBI asked him to participate in a mission to plug leaks of information inside the Department of Justice to a variety of groups including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti Defamation League. Turner also says the FBI asked him to specifically criticize such African-American leaders as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

"I was supposed to be a counterbalance to Sharpton," Turner said.

Officially, the FBI declined comment on those unproven stories by Turner. The documents bear no trace of those operations. 
Expedition to Brazil 
Unofficially, FBI and other federal officials expressed a mix of dismay and outright anger when told of Turner's claims of being coached to make provocative statements.

"Absurd," said one. Another added: "And pigs will fly beginning with the next full moon. It never happened."

During interviews with The Record, Turner was at times unclear on some details. FBI records indicate, for example, that he did not become an informant until June 2003; Turner originally said he was recruited by federal agents in 2002, but later said he was mistaken.

Along with Haug of the FBI, his other regular contact was Leonard Nerbetski, a New Jersey State Police detective assigned to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Requests to interview Haug and Nerbetski were turned town by the FBI and by the state police.
In an early communication, Turner reported to the FBI about a meeting in Elmwood Park by the National Alliance. A few months after that, FBI records show that Turner was reaching out to several national leaders of the alliance.

FBI memos indicate that the bureau had appropriated as much as $100,000 for Turner's work as an informant.

"It was good money," said Turner, who would not say how much he was ultimately paid by the FBI.
Turner said he was earning about $15,000 a month from his suddenly popular radio show and blog.
As 2004 wore on, Turner found himself reporting to the FBI about a possible theft of evidence in a Bergen County drug case and about an attempt to set up a chapter of the Aryan Nations in northern New Jersey.
A year later, with the FBI paying for his visa and passport renewal, Turner embarked on his most ambitious mission — to confer with a wealthy white supremacist in Brazil who was considering making a $1 million donation to his American counterparts.

While in Brazil, Turner also reported meeting a World War II German Luftwaffe flying ace and linking up with a representative of the Brazilian Arab Society, who discussed a plan to ship $10 million in consumer goods to anti-American Iraqi resistance fighters.

After Turner returned to New Jersey, the records show that the FBI investigated the Arab Society representative and even reached out to U.S. officials in Brazil for help in monitoring his activities. But it's not clear if the $10 million shipment was attempted.

The $1 million donation also never materialized, records show. The Brazilian benefactor backed out of the deal when an American white supremacist did not accompany Turner on the trip.

Records indicate the FBI wanted Turner to return to Brazil to spy on white-supremacist training there. But Turner never went. While in Brazil, Turner said, he carried a gun for protection, which was not authorized by the FBI.

Only a few weeks after returning to the United States from Brazil, Turner again found controversy. In a radio broadcast, he targeted African-Americans.

"A full day of violence against blacks would be a really nice thing," he said.

Turner went on to call for "lynchings, church burnings, drive-by shootings and bombings to put these subhuman animals back in their place," according to a report complied by the Anti-Defamation League.
The episode illustrates the complicated relationship between the FBI and Turner. Despite Turner's racist radio rhetoric, the FBI also valued his undercover work — and was apparently willing to take a risk with him again — and pay him, too.

For example, a July 2005 memo by the FBI said Turner had been paid $10,365 in the previous fiscal year and that he "provided information which continues to be highly accurate and sensitive."

Turner continued to reach out intermittently to the FBI — with tips including a possible KKK murder plot — until June 2, 2009, the day he posted the alleged threats on his blog about the Chicago judges.
In an e-mail that day to the FBI, Turner says he has heard reports that agents had interviewed skinheads and others about him.

"Am I unapproachable?" Turner asked in the e-mail. "Geez, I'd think by now I would have proved myself. It's not like I'm gonna go postal or anything."

Three weeks later, Turner was arrested.

Four months after that, Turner, unshaven and wearing frayed green prison garb and fumbling with a loose tooth, sat in an interview room at the Hudson County Jail and pondered his journey — from shock jock to FBI informant to inmate charged with a serious federal crime.

"I can't believe this is happening to me," he said.

E-mail: and

Thursday, December 3, 2009

CCF: Partial victory for free speech in Boissoin court judgment

Partial victory for free speech in Boissoin court judgment

December 3, 2009 | Canadian Constitution Foundation

CALGARY: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) responded to today’s release of the Judgment of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Boissoin v. Lund, a case which pits freedom of expression against human rights legislation. 
In 2008, an Alberta Human Rights Panel ordered Reverend Stephen Boissoin to pay $5,000 to University of Calgary professor Darren Lund in respect of a letter Reverend Boissoin wrote in 2002, published in the Red Deer Advocate. In his letter to the editor, Reverend Boissoin expressed his opposition to homosexuality being portrayed positively in the public school curriculum, and commented on other public policy matters. Professor Lund complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission that the letter violated section 3(1)(b) of Alberta’s human rights legislation, which bans expression that “is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt” because of race, religious beliefs, colour, and other grounds.
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice E.C. Wilson set aside the Panel’s order against Reverend Boissoin, ruling that Reverend Boissoin did not violate section 3(1)(b) of the legislation. Accordingly, the Order against Reverend Boissoin, that he pay $5,000 to Professor Lund and that he refrain from making “disparaging remarks” about homosexuals, is no longer in force.
“I am pleased that the Human Rights Panel Order against Reverend Boissoin has been overturned,” stated John Carpay, lawyer and Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
“Unfortunately, the law that was used against Reverend Boissoin to subject him to expensive and stressful legal proceedings for more than seven years, is still on the books,” added Carpay.
“In spite of today’s court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint. No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive,” continued Carpay.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) intervened in Boissoin v. Lund to argue that the legislation itself violated Canada’s constitution, because provinces do not have the constitutional authority to restrict free speech on matters of public policy. Justice Wilson rejected this argument.
Justice Wilson also held that section 3(1)(b) does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, following the Supreme Court of Canada 1990 decision in Taylor v. Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Read the full judgement

DOUG CHRISTIE: What Happened to Jeff Hughes?

What Happened to Jeff Hughes?



Saturday, November 14, 2009

STEYN on his appearnce before the JUST committee investigating the Canadian Human Rights Commission: "Spare me the therapeutic platitudes"

Spare me the therapeutic platitudes

I’m supposed to be happy my room complaint is a growth experience for hotel staff?
Macleans Magazine | Nov 12, 2009

As readers may recall, a few weeks ago I was invited to testify at the House of Commons about the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.

A couple of weeks later, Jennifer Lynch, QC (Queen Censor) and Chief Commissar of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, came to the House of Commons to offer her own view of Section 13. Facing very specific allegations of abuse of power and conflict of interest, she took refuge, like the Château Laurier, in soothing generalities. Indeed, as with the Assistant Manager, Housekeeping, recent difficulties seemed to have provided a marvellous opportunity for a growth experience: “... just to reassure myself as I can reassure you here today that Canadians can have pride in all of the employees of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the way we carry out our complex mandate.”

“Ms. Lynch, let me stop you there,” said Joe Comartin, the dogged Dipper on the Select Committee. “That’s not an answer to my question. Did you conduct a detailed investigation into these allegations?”

Since the “human rights” racket ran into its little public relations problem with the complaints against this magazine a couple of years back, Commissar Lynch’s technique has been to say at every opportunity how much she “welcomes the debate.” Indeed, she’s been so busy welcoming the debate that sadly she’s had no time to have one. Still, it came as a surprise to see her offer up the same flat bromides to the Parliament to which she is, supposedly, accountable. The Queen Censor spoke to the Select Committee with the same weirdly fixed smile on her face for the full hour. Presumably she fancies this makes her look friendly and reassuring, although movie buffs may find it alarmingly reminiscent of the guy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers who tells you in the evenly modulated voice that the process is completely painless and you won’t feel a thing. Her response to specific questions was to freeze the smile and pause just a little too long before replying, as if the random Form Response Generator was running a bit slow.

Thus, replying to a query as to why she and her colleagues hadn’t sued me and Ezra Levant for making false and defamatory statements, she paused, smiled, and responded that “with a very broad mandate, with a lot of interesting, important and exciting work, we are leaders and catalysts in advancing equality in Canada and in fact internationally.” I believe that’s Form Response #29 (e). I suppose these soporific accumulations of modish banalities are intended to send the message: “Nothing to see here. All’s well. Celebrate diversity. Go back to sleep.” But the hogwash isn’t entirely benign:

“The challenge of ensuring the right to freedom of expression and the right to equality and dignity is not new...”
Whoa, hold up there. “The right to dignity”? Where’d that come from? Unlike the first right, it isn’t one of Canada’s constitutionally enumerated “fundamental freedoms”: the word “dignity” doesn’t appear in the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” since even the authors of that comically worthless document felt unable to advance with a straight face the creepy concept of state-mandated “dignity.” True, as Commissar Lynch notes, the word appears in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but so do many others that Canada’s “human rights” regime consciously disregards—including the presumption of innocence, equality before the law, a fair and public hearing, and of course the “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media.” At last count, Canada’s “human rights” racket is in breach of Articles 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 19, so Commissar Lynch’s fondness for the “right to dignity” is highly selective to say the least.

But, having embraced this pseudo-right, she then claims no one right trumps any other and it is her job to “balance” competing rights. This “balancing act” is a favourite shtick of the thought enforcers. Haroon Siddiqui, a lonely defender of state-regulated speech even among his Toronto Star colleagues, was musing the other day about balancing “free speech vs. freedom from hate.”

One of those is a real right. The other is a statist con. As I said in my own testimony to Parliament:
“Ian Fine, the senior counsel of the CHRC, has declared that the commission is committed to the abolition of hatred—not hate crimes, not hate speech, but hate. Hate is a human emotion; it beats, to one degree or another, in every breast. It is part of what it means to be human... To hate is to be free, and when the alternative is a coercive government bureaucracy regulating what you can say, then as Michael Ignatieff would be the first to point out, you are no longer free. I am with Mr. Ignatieff on that.”

Yes, well. It’s not clear whether Mr. Ignatieff is still with Mr. Ignatieff on that, but that’s for him and his conscience to wrestle with. It’s tempting to give Messrs. Fine and Siddiqui a pass, and at least allow that “freedom from hate” is an understandably desirable goal. But it isn’t. It’s explicitly totalitarian. In Norfolk, England, the other day, the 67-year-old wife of a Baptist minister wrote a letter to her local council making some politely expressed objections to the (publicly funded) Gay Pride parade and in return was visited by two police officers who informed her that her letter “was thought to be an intention of hate.” An “intention” of hate? In 1956, Philip K. Dick’s sci-fi story “The Minority Report” introduced the dystopian notion of “pre-crime.” Half a century on, some of the oldest constitutional democracies on the planet are embracing the concept ever more openly. As Commissar Lynch primly notes, “This approach to creating a harmonious society is not ours alone.”

I don’t want to live in state-regulated “harmony.” Not just because I have a low opinion of Jennifer Lynch, Haroon Siddiqui et al., and thus have no intention of singing harmony to their turgid tune. I don’t think they should have to harmonize with mine, either. As that incident in Norfolk suggests, when the heavy hand of government enforcers starts regulating you into harmony, all you’re allowed to sing is a crappy medley of We Are the World and the Barney the Dinosaur song. Language itself dies, until public communication is reduced to Commissar Lynch’s insipid banalities and the Assistant Manager, Housekeeping’s therapeutic platitudes. With respect to the latter, it’s not a growth experience. It’s a shrivelling experience.

To advance such pseudo-rights as “freedom from hate,” the very language is being neutered into compliance. Commissar Lynch’s performance is a preview of a world in which public discourse is conducted only in fraudulent abstractions and euphemistic evasions. Don’t buy it. When a government apparatchik tells you she’s busy creating a “harmonious society,” she’s not playing your song.