Thursday, July 30, 2009

Another fake Radical "Internet Nazi" Exposed as an Agent Provocateur working for the FBI and Federal Marshals

Another fake Radical "Internet Nazi" Exposed as an Agent Provocateur

 working for the FBI and Federal Marshals



Hal Turner – the “white nationalist” internet blogger and webcaster, has now been revealed as an FBI operative in a Chicago court room.  He is trying to receive bail for charges on threatening death of three US judges. From the information that is now coming to light, Hal Turner has been an operative with the FBI for some time.  During the day, Turner worked with and passed information onto the FBI.  By night, he would promote some of the most racially charged material on the internet.


The situation is the same in Canada, where a large amount of hate material on the internet comes from police officers, “human rights” operatives and others.



FBI Operative Hal Turner – In his own words:




November 13, 2007: "I advocate SPITTING ON JEWS when anyone sees them on the street. Let's all start spitting on jews [sic] immediately. I myself am doing it starting today. In fact, I think we ought to line up outside every local Synagogue every Saturday and spit on the jews [sic] who enter. Then spit on them again as they leave. If this behavior is good enough for jews [sic] in Israel to do to Christians, then it must be good enough for Christians to do to jews [sic]. Let's get it done." 


November 9, 2007: Under the headline,"DEAR JEWS AND OTHER NON-CHRISTIANS AS WE APPROACH THE CHRISTMAS SEASON, PRACTICE TOLERANCE….," Turner wrote: "Anyone who goes after Christian seasonal celebrations will be made to answer to us... We don't want to have to show up at anyones [sic] house as they're coming home or leaving, to beat the hell out of them on their own front lawn; we don't want to have to grab anyone on their lunch break at work and break their legs, crack their skull open with a baseball bat, or burn down their home or office. We certainly don't want to have to take up sniper positions outside quiet residential areas in the dark of night with high powered rifles and put a rifle shot through anyone resting comfortably in their home. Whether or not any of that happens this year is solely up to you. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. Pick on us --- and we may feel compelled to f--king destroy you."


October 2, 2007: "Jews love to complain about the 'Holocaust.' Let me tell you, there was no Holocaust in World War 2 -- but rest assured, there most certainly IS GOING TO BE a holocaust. I look forward to participating with zeal."


June 18, 2007: "I think inter-racial couples deserve to be killed on site. The thing is, whenever one decides to kill such a couple, they must kill the non-white MALE first. If they kill the white female first, the non-white male runs away too fast to get!"  








Lawyer says blogger accused of threatening to kill Chicago-based judges was FBI informant


MIKE ROBINSON | AP Legal Affairs Writer

4:20 PM CDT, July 28, 2009


CHICAGO (AP) — A New Jersey blogger accused of threatening to kill three federal judges has been an FBI informant and even told authorities about a potential plot to assassinate President Barack Obama, his lawyer said Tuesday.


Blogger Hal Turner pleaded not guilty earlier in the day to charges that he threatened to kill three Chicago-based federal appeals judges.


At his bond hearing, defense attorney Michael Orozco said the 47-year-old Turner of North Bergen, N.J., was not a danger to the community as federal prosecutors claim. Turner deserved to be released on bond, Orozco said, adding that he had served as an FBI confidential informant.


"He provided information about the potential assassination of President Obama," Orozco told U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Ashman.



After court, Hogan and a federal spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment further about Turner's relationship with the FBI or federal marshals.


Full article here:,0,6134397.story?obref=obnetwork







Radio host denies threatening federal judges

July 28, 2009 12:59 PM


An Internet radio host pleaded not guilty today to threatening to kill three federal appellate judges in Chicago and then sought his release from custody, saying he has been an informant for the FBI.


Hal Turner, who was arrested last month at his home in New Jersey, shook his head after being handed a copy of the indictment.


Turner is charged with calling for appellate judges Frank Easterbrook, William Bauer and Richard Posner to be killed after they affirmed a lower court decision June 2 to dismiss challenges to Chicago's handgun ban.


U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin Ashman gave Turner 10 days to subpoena an FBI agent who Turner contends acted as his handler as he supplied the government with information. Turner's lawyer, Michael Orozco, said Turner prevented military equipment from being sold on the Internet and even tipped off the U.S. Marshal Service to a threat against President Barack Obama.



Hogan said Turner may have had some contact with the FBI as an informant but that it was quite some time ago. He said he had no idea about any action Turner supposedly took to thwart an attack on the president.


Full story at:






See more articles from Google News






Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Musical Band Lindy performs "Shakedown," the pro-freedom of expression song, at the Liberty Summer Seminar - MP Jason Kenny sings along

Lindy performs "Shakedown," the pro-freedom of expression song, at the Liberty Summer Seminar

This past weekend was the ninth annual Liberty Summer Seminar held in Orono, Ontario. We will release video of all the speeches and events shortly, but we have a very special video that we are releasing right now.

The incredibly talented musician Lindy Vopnfjord put together a song in honour of our friend and former publisher, Ezra Levant, and his continuing battle against the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The song, appropriately called "Shakedown," sharing a name with Ezra's book, is a tribute to freedom of expression, and hammers home the message that the Canadian Human Rights Commissions are in violation of this traditional Canadian freedom.

The song was debuted at this year's Liberty Summer Seminar. Here is the video:

The song will be released on iTunes within the next two weeks. We will let you know when it's available, so that we can all support a Canadian musician who deserves to get some change out of our pockets for his efforts.

MP Jason Kenny is shown at the end singing the lyrics to “Shakedown”

TORONTO SUN: Rein in the human rights bureaucracy

News Columnists / Peter Worthington

Rein in the human rights bureaucracy

28th July 2009 | Toronto Sun

In a column in the National Post Ezra Levant, who has been battling Alberta human rights zealots, identified seven individuals who work for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) who also joined neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, or white hate groups.

It's not that these individuals are Nazi sympathizers or racists who've infiltrated the hallowed halls of human rights activists. They aren't. What they are, are provocateurs, using the Internet to join suspect hate groups in order to collect evidence against them.

In other words, it's a form of entrapment.

Intelligence agents joining (penetrating) a group to assess possible treason or subversion, is vastly different from enticing, provoking or encouraging a racist reaction by pretending to be more extreme than the extremists -- which is what CHRC provocateurs do.

Levant, has been summoned before human rights tribunals (accused of "hate" for publishing Danish cartoons mocking Islamic terrorism), as has Mark Steyn, for exercising free speech, in a book in which he contends the high birthrate among Muslims will change the demographics of western countries.

In both the above cases human rights bureaucrats have looked foolish to despicable -- and have lost credibility among Canadians. At least, one hopes this is the case. The CHRC is, arguably, an often bigoted and unnecessary institution in our country.

As Levant says, "CHRC employees have been active members of neo-Nazi organizations for years, and have published countless anti-Semitic, anti-gay and anti-black comments online." Such as referring to Jews, gays or Muslims as "scum," etc.

Jennifer Lynch heads the CHRC. I took a swipe at her views a while back when she advocated "tolerance and open-mindedness," and then proceeded to show her own intolerance and closed-minded approach, in my view, towards issues she disagrees with.

"Tolerating" views you agree with is not tolerance at all. It's "echoing."

Levant depicts Lynch as cowardly for refusing to appear before a Parliamentary committee.

To many (including me) the CHRC is unnecessary and a direct threat to free speech -- a kangaroo court more intent on lynching (no pun intended) than seeking truth or justice.

CHRC investigators likely see themselves as crusaders, exposing suspect or dangerous organizations and gathering evidence to protect society. Hardly.

Canadian democracy is not threatened by white supremacists or anti-Semites.

Democratic countries generally show repugnance toward extremism.

One gets the feeling the CRHC sets up targets to knock down, thereby justifying its existence. For more details on CRHC mischief, try going to the blog, or other sites giving details about provocateurs pretending to be racists in hopes of catching racists. Try or Google Dean Steacy, and see for yourself.

Short of disbanding the CRHC, Section 13 of the Human Rights Act must be scotched. It "empowers the Commission to deal with complaints regarding the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet ... any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

That's pretty broad, especially when the Criminal Code already allows for legal action in many cases where human rights vigilantes seem intent on waging vendettas.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper should rein in the human rights bureaucracy that too often offends the very essence of due process and democracy.


The Canadian Conservative Government wants to strip every citizen of their online anonymity.It is time to defend free speech and fight back!!!Whining is not going to solve anything.It is time to fight back for our fundamental freedoms!!

Defend Free Speech - Follow the Great Canadian Outing

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Doug Christie: Section 13 - Truth is no Defence

Lawyer Douglas Christie discusses the fact that under Canada's Human Rights Act, there is no defence of truth, and how his attempt to speak about this many years ago had him banned from the precincts of the Canadian Parliament. Doug Christie acted in the first section 13 case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada.

Douglas Christie talks about the power of direct communication that is able through the internet, and expresses his gratitude to the people who watch and in turn, express their views. Such communication is the greatest tool to fight tyranny everywhere in the world

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Terry Tremaine's Contempt of Court Case Adjourned Indefinitely: No Jail for Internet Dissident

Terry Tremaine's Contempt of Court Case Adjourned Indefinitely: No Jail for Internet Dissident

REGINA. They saw the quiet determination in Terry Tremaine's blue grey eyes and like certain soldiers seeing the cold steel glint of the bayonets, and fled the field of battle.

Internet dissident Terry Tremaine (Mathdoktor99 on Stormfront) had given up his apartment, moved his goods into storage, eaten a hearty last breakfast and removed all but some cash and his health card and headed off to Federal Court this morning fully believing he might eat a supper of slops in a local jail.

We arrived at the hearing. I spoke to a brief press conference and, then, Mr. Tremaine, reporter Barb Pacholik, and I headed up to Room 1600. It was locked. We were amazed.

We learned that the day before Federal Court had granted the Canadian Human Rights Commission an adjournment sine die; that is, an indefinite postponement.

Later in the day Paul Fromm contacted Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer and prosecutor Daniel Poulin. He explained: "I truly do not want to put Mr. Tremaine in prison." However, he wants Mr. Tremaine to remove his National Socialist Party of Canada website.

Contacted later in the day, lawyer Douglas Christie hailed the adjournment as a "real victory."

Terry Tremaine had made it quite clear in discussions over the past month with Mr. Poulin that he was not afraid to go to jail. He does not want to knuckle under to Canada's Internet censorship. He welcomed an open court hearing where he could defend what he had posted and legitimate political commentary about urgent social and political issues.

What was really happening? We suspect that, with media from coast to coast calling for the repeal of Sec. 13 (the Internet censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act), the CHRC and its new public relations advisors may not have relished tossing a gentle, law-abiding academic into prison for the non-violent expression of his political views.

CAFE is pleased with the role we've played, reminding the media and all who'll listen that a CHRC prepared to jail a dissident, places Canada in the sordid company of tyrannies like Red China and Burma that jail people solely for the non-violent expression of their political views. -- Paul Fromm, Director

Contempt hearing for former University of Saskatchewan professor Terrence Cecil Tremaine postponed

By Barb Pacholik, Leader-Post July 23, 2009 8:01 PM

REGINA — A former University of Saskatchewan lecturer accused of spreading hate messages with his Internet postings was taken by surprise Thursday in Regina when he arrived at his contempt hearing to learn it had been postponed.

Terrence Cecil Tremaine showed up at the Federal Court hearing, along with a supporter who flew in from Ontario, only to learn it was not proceeding.

A Federal Court judge had adjourned the matter two days earlier following an application by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which decided earlier this year to pursue a contempt charge against Tremaine.

“Bizarre,” said a frustrated Tremaine upon finding the locked hearing room. A new date has not been set.

Commission lawyer Daniel Poulin said e-mails alerting Tremaine to the change were sent Wednesday.

Poulin said his letter to the court seeking the adjournment indicated he “is presently in discussion with Mr. Tremaine, with possibilities of purging his contempt without going through with the procedure. I sincerely hope we can achieve this.”

In 2007 a human rights tribunal found Tremaine had violated the Canadian Human Rights Act by making racist Internet postings.

He was ordered to pay $4,000 and to halt such postings. At the time of the postings in 2004, Tremaine was working as a part-time university instructor in math and computer science. When the university became aware of the human rights complaint, Tremaine was terminated from his position in 2005.

In March this year the commission took the rare step of pursuing a contempt charge, alleging that Tremaine was still posting racist and hateful commentary.

Tremaine also faces a separate criminal charge in Regina of inciting hatred. That case is set for a preliminary hearing this fall.

Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, came to Regina Thursday to lend his support to Tremaine. He assisted in Tremaine’s defence at the tribunal hearing.

Tremaine referred questions to Fromm, who argued free speech laws should be in interpreted broadly.

“What we have is government censorship of ideas where truth is not a defence (and) intent is not a defence,” he said. “People should not have to have a lawyer by their side before they can put their views on the Internet.”

The tribunal found Tremaine’s postings, on a white supremacist website, conveyed “extreme ill-will to the point of violence towards the targeted groups,” which included people of Jewish faith, blacks and other non-white minorities.




Leader-Post articles:



Contempt hearing for former University of Saskatchewan professor Terrence Cecil Tremaine postponed



Tremaine's court hearing postponed


Saturday, July 18, 2009

*** RCMP release documents on the CHRC Criminal Hacking Investigation ***

RCMP release documents on the CHRC Criminal Hacking Investigation

Investigation dropped due to jurisdictional issues with the United States

And the RCMP investigates Lemire for daring to complain

In late June, 2009, the RCMP responded to an Access to Information request filed by human rights activist Marc Lemire for all documents surrounding the criminal investigation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their theft of an innocent woman’s internet connection.

The evidence showing that the CHRC hacked into the internet connection of Nelly Hechme came to light as a result of evidence subpoenaed by Marc Lemire. The evidence was sworn testimony by Alain Monfette from Bell Canada’s Law Enforcement Team and examination of CHRC employees during a May 2008 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing.

The heavily censored documents released by the RCMP show that the recent statements made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch were inaccurate and misleading. Lynch wrote in July 11, 2009’s National Post that “Mr. Hiebert says there is uncontradicted expert evidence that a commission employee illegitimately used the Internet connection of a third party. Two independent investigations, one by the RCMP expert unit responsible for computer crimes, and one by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, found no evidence to support this allegation.

Highlights from RCMP Documents

  1. The RCMP found the case to be “Complete – Unsolved
  2. The RCMP could not pursue the case because evidence trail lead to the United States where RCMP has no authority and no MLAT existed to compel information
  3. After a message from CHRC’s lawyer Kathleen Fawcett, the RCMP turned around and investigated Lemire for daring to lay the complaint. RCMP censored what the message from CHRC said.
  4. As part of the CHRC rebuttal to the charges, they submitted their own copy of the March 2009 Transcript, which has been found to be highly questionable and “missing” key testimony.
  5. The RCMP found that the distance from the CHRC offices to the WiFi access point of Nelly Hechme was only a mere 400 meters (across an open field)
  6. The RCMP saw this investigation as highly political and had multiple printouts from Ezra Levants website, articles from the National Post and other internet websites.
  7. Multiple CHRC employees were involved in case and “liaised” with the RCMP. This included the manager of the CHRC’s IT dept.
  8. The Ottawa Police reviewed the case, accepted it, and forwarded it to the RCMP, who had more expertise in federal matters.

All RCMP Documents

[JPEG Images]

[PDF Format]

Detailed analysis of the RCMP documents


This is the general summary of the RCMP’s investigation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Notice the “Clearance status” shows the investigation by the RCMP as “Complete – unsolved

[enlarge] [enlarge]

In the summary, the RCMP notes that “Matter was investigated by OPS [Ottawa Police Service] but follow-up is now done by A Div ITCU [Integrated Technical Crime Unit – RCMP].” This shows that the Ottawa Police Service investigated the case, accepted it, and sent it onto the Integrated Technical Crime Unit of the RCMP because it involved a Federal Government Agency.

At the Ottawa Police Service, the complaint was investigated by Martin Dompierre. Detective/Forensic Examiner. Criminal Investigative Services. High Tech Crime Unit. Ottawa Police Service.

The summary continues: “Investigation completed as of 2008-11-10 reveals not enough evidence to pursue charges.” As described in more detail below, the RCMP were not able to use sworn legal affidavits provided by the owner of Stormfront, because the affidavit was not collected pursuant to a Canada / USA “MLAT”, which is a Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty.

“MLAT” agreements with the USA are generally only implemented for serious criminal matters, such as murder, child exploitation or kidnapping, because it involves getting many different agencies involved, including provincial Attorney Generals.


During the course of the investigation, the officer met with RCMP lawyer Christine Morris of IPOC (Integrated Proceeds of Crime division - RCMP) who specializes in multi-jurisdictional investigations. Any MLAT request by the police have to be reviewed and vetted by an IPOC counsel, who then submits it to IAG (International Assistance Group - part of the Department of Justice Criminal Law Branch) [See Department of Justice - The Federal Prosecution Service Handbook at ]

While the specific recommendations of Morris were censored, it would seem to be that, as a result of that meeting, the affidavit and other sworn legal information provided from the United States were not allowed to be used as evidence in the criminal investigation of the CHRC.


In a RCMP’s “Briefing Note: Theft of telecommunications – CHRC,” the RCMP officer wrote that: “The information obtained from Marc Lemire were obtained without legal authorization and involved the USA country. To use the evidence, it would require that an MLAT be obtained and executed.

Thus without that information about the IP address CHRC investigator Dean Steacy (Internet codename: JADEWARR) used when he accessed the Stormfront website as “Jadewarr”, there was a limited chance of the likelihood of a successful prosecution.

RCMP investigate Marc Lemire for daring to complain about CHRC

One of the most shocking revelations to come out of the RCMP documents is that the RCMP actually investigated Marc Lemire for daring to lay the criminal complaint against the CHRC!


Only a few weeks before the RCMP was going to close the case, they received “a message from Kathleen FAWCETT, lawyer at the CHRXCH” [Canadian Human Rights Commission]. The contents of the message sent by the CHRC’s lawyer were censored from the report, but the RCMP immediately turned around and investigated Lemire.

The report stated “writer [RCMP Sgt. Stephane Turgeon] requested the assistance of DCAU for a background check of COM LEMIRE, Marc.” The “DCAU” is the RCMP’s “DIVISION CRIMINAL ANALYTICAL UNIT.”, which performs CPIC checks on Canadians.

CPIC is an acronym for the Canadian Police Information Centre. The RCMP administers this database and says that CPIC “is a computerized system that provides tactical information about crimes and criminals.” This is the most highly secure police database in Canada and holds private details on some 10 million Canadians.

The CPIC computer has four data banks: Investigative, Identification, Intelligence and Ancillary. Contained in those four data banks are:

  • Vehicles: License information, including validation tags, stolen, abandoned or wanted in connection to a crime.
  • Persons: Persons wanted by the police or accused persons; persons on probation or parole; persons against whom prohibition orders have been placed (e.g. driving, possession of firearms); missing persons, including children; body marks/scars; clothing and dental records or body parts that can be cross-referenced; amnesia, comatose or disaster victims.
  • Property: Stolen guns, articles and securities.
  • Marine: Stolen and abandoned boats and boat motors.
  • Dental Characteristics: Individual dental records (a sub-system of Persons File)
  • Canada Firearms Registry: Every Canadian owning a firearm or having a license. Cross-referenced with every gun serial number to registered owner (this alone contains over 10 million records)
  • Criminal Records: Full criminal record information.
  • Criminal Record Synopsis: Condensed version of criminal records supported by fingerprints maintained by the RCMP’s Information and Identification Services.
  • CPIC Surveillance: Contains criminal intelligence information and information on persons, vehicles and boats which are under surveillance.

So, what lies did the CHRC spin for the RCMP to do an about-face and parse through Marc Lemire’s most intimate details, which could include information from his dental records to marks/scars to his vehicle information?

Unfortunately, the RCMP completely censored what the CHRC’s lawyer said, but based on the CHRC past paranoid ranting on “security,” it is easy to make an educated guess.

Through out the entire human rights hearing against Marc Lemire, the CHRC constantly used the sphere of alleged “security threats” to stifle the defence that Lemire was putting up. In order to keep the lid on the CHRC spying operations, they even tried to have Lemire banned from his own hearing, using the fraudulent accusations of “security threats.” [CHRT ruling – Para 15-17]

CHRC lawyers – spinning tales of threats and imaginary security breaches – used this tactic as a way to block hundreds of questions by invoking “national security” and Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, which stopped dead all answers to questions. Looking back now, it is clear that the CHRC invoked Section 37 to cover up their abuse and misdeeds. It had nothing to due with security at all. For instance, the CHRC invoked Section 37 to stop all questions about the “Jadewarr” account, which was used by CHRC employees to infiltrate websites and post messages. The CHRC screamed security! Security! Security! over any questions about “Jadewarr”. Now that the answers have been revealed, the utter abuses of “security” claims are clear and documented.

The CHRC have used false claims of “security” so often – to hide everything they were doing – even the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal became disgusted by their abusive behavior.

In 2008, the Tribunal chastised the CHRC for their numerous groundless claims of “security.” The Tribunal ruled that:

[9] The outcome of the [Marc Lemire’s Federal Court Appeal to] s. 37 matter gives me pause to question the soundness of the Commission's invocation of public security concerns with respect to the testimony of these witnesses.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is shameless and has proven in the past, they are willing to do and say anything to protect their censorship franchise. Is it really hard to believe that the CHRC would call up the RCMP and spin some imaginary tale of terror, in order to throw the RCMP off their dirty corrupt scent? Or perhaps the CHRC could just sign onto to one of the many websites they have memberships on and post a “violent threat” themselves, then use it as justification to get Lemire. It all might sound pretty conspiratorial... BUT the CHRC does have a proven track record of calling up police agencies and having them investigate people who dare to file complaints against them or their friends.

Perhaps the CHRC was trying to stop the 9 months straight of negative publicity they were receiving as a result of being under the cloud of a criminal investigation? By having the RCMP do the dirty, and investigate every detail of Lemire’s life in hopes that they might find something. After all, it would have been a great coup de grace to have Lemire charged with some criminal offence in the end. Then Jennifer Lynch and her cronies could do their usual finger wagging diversion and point to Lemire and say, “see he’s the criminal... not us!”

On an interesting side note, if Lemire was a criminal or corrupt, he would easily be able to get a nice cushy job at the CHRC in the future… After all, the CHRC and ethics don’t mix.

For background information on the hacking allegations made against the CHRC and the criminal complaint filed with the RCMP, please see:


WINDSOR STAR: Scrap Thought Control Legislation

The Code and rights

Two tiers we don't need

Just how much power should human rights commissions have? It's a question that's been directed at bodies at both the federal and provincial levels, and most recently at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

At the federal level, we have what amounts to two-tier policing of racism and hate speech in Canada -- one through the courts applying Criminal Code and the other through a human rights act.

Critics say the Code is all that's needed. They contend that the CHRC, with a bar set far below criminal standards, often adjudicates trivial complaints and serves as a censor of ideas that are not intended to provoke hatred or violence, but to promote controversy and debate. As well, the commission has an almost never lost a case it's prosecuted.

Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, counters that the Code and act "serve useful purposes in protecting Canadians from discrimination in today's society."

Lynch's view of freedom on expression is that the "power of words and ideas) while overwhelming positive, can also be used to undermine democracy, freedom and equality."

However, the problem is that the CHRC is essentially the investigator, prosecutor and judge of complaints of racism and hate speech. The burden of proof under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is also subject to interpretation. It says it's an offence to communicate anything "likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt."

Ezra Levant, who was the subject of an unsuccessful complaint before the Alberta after he published controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, says CHRC's standards make it an advocate of censorship.

"The word 'likely' is amazing. The CHRC doesn't have to prove you've actually done anything, just that you might in the future," says Levant. "And all they have to prove is that you said something that might cause one person to have hard feelings about another."

The Criminal Code, meanwhile, has clear sanctions to deal with true hate speech -- which must clearly encourage or incite hatred and violence. This is far different than making individuals account for expressions of thought that are controversial, offensive or deemed to be politically incorrect.

Last year, an independent report by the University of Windsor's Richard Moon said the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be stripped of its power to investigate online hate messages. That job, says the free speech expert, is best left to police, prosecutors and Internet service providers.

"Censorship of hate speech should be limited to speech that explicitly or implicitly threatens, justifies or advocates violence against the members of an identifiable group," Moon said, having concluded that the commission's current mandate to probe Internet postings "likely to expose" complainants to hate was just too broad. The commission didn't agree with Moon's recommendation.

In Ontario, new Conservative Leader Tim Hudak is calling for the scrapping of the province's Human Rights Tribunal, which hears complaints similar to the federal CHRC. Hudak also feels the courts are the right place to deal with human rights issues.

We agree and, at least Ontario, there is going to be a debate. It's one that should also be going on in Ottawa.

See full article from the Windsor Star at:

Friday, July 17, 2009

CHRCs Jennifer Lynch: Misrepresents Secret Hearing Ruling in Lemire case

On July 10, 2009, the Chief Commissar of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Jennifer Lynch, wrote a letter to the National Post, misrepresenting the facts surrounding the closed hearings in the Marc Lemire case on May 9 and 10, 2007.  The CHRC wanted it to be a secret hearing.


In the letter Jennifer Lynch made a series of incorrect claims.  I am going to highlight just one of her comments.  Blogger Ezra Levant dissected the other comments by Lynch in his article “Jennifer Lynch is a damned liar



In the article entitled “Jennifer Lynch fires back: Russ Hiebert needs to get his facts straight”, Lynch attempted to defend her lawyers absurd demands for a secret hearing, to keep quiet the explosive testimony of Dean Steacy (Internet Codename: JADEWARR) and Hannya Rizk (Internet Codename: HANOUSHI


Lynch stated:  “As to the statement that the commission asked the tribunal to exclude the media from a hearing, these are the facts: after hearing arguments about the need to protect the privacy and safety of commission witnesses, the tribunal ordered, pursuant to its statutory powers, that two days of hearings be closed to the public and media. The respondent was present. A transcript was made. There was no restriction on the parties talking to the media about what transpired. While people may disagree on whether these limited restrictions were needed, the tribunal member, who heard arguments from the parties, deemed that they were.”


But the truth is that lawyers working for Jennifer Lynch demanded that the hearing be conducted in near secrecy, and even went as far as demanding that Marc Lemire be banned from his OWN hearing!


After losing that motion, the CHRC then pulled one of the most disgusting stunts ever seen in a judicial hearing.   Lawyers for the CHRC claimed Section 37 (national security!) over the “visual identities” of their witnesses;  Dean Steacy, Harvey Goldberg and Hannya Rizk.  This was a complete abuse of Section 37.  Basically the CHRC used Section 37 as a way to shut the doors of the hearing to the media and general public.


The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal was put in a very awkward position, by the CHRC’s tactics.   If the Tribunal did not ban the media and public, the CHRC would invoke Section 37 and shut the hearing completely down.  Under severe pressure, the Tribunal unfortunately ceded to the CHRCs demands and closed the hearing down to the media and public.  The Tribunal refused the CHRC’s request to make it a totally secret hearing.  The transcripts and evidence would be public.  As a result, an reporter and several members of the public were thrown out of the hearing room.


That certainly is quite contrary to Jennifer Lynch’s description of the events in the National Post.


The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a ruling in 2008 where they slammed the CHRC for the tactics used to ban the media.   The ruling is a must read, and really shows how out to lunch Jennifer Lynch really is.





 MEMBER: Athanasios D. Hadjis

 2008 CHRT 8




[1] On May 9th and 10th, 2007, two Commission employees, Hannya Rizk and Dean Steacy, testified in this case. I ruled at that time that persons other than the parties and their representatives be excluded from the hearing room while both witnesses testified, pursuant to s.  52 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Their evidence was transcribed by court reporters. The transcripts were not subject to the exclusionary order and were provided to the parties.


[2] Both witnesses are now scheduled to continue their evidence on March 25, 2008. Mr.  Lemire and the Canadian Association for the Freedom of Expression have requested that the Tribunal revisit its ruling. Rogers Publishing Limited, a division of Rogers Media Inc., has made a similar request on behalf of Maclean's Magazine, specifically asking that representatives of the magazine be permitted to attend, observe and report on the evidence to be tendered at this hearing. The Attorney General of Canada states, for its part, that this hearing should be conducted in accordance with the "usual procedure of holding open hearings in Tribunal cases, unless the Tribunal is satisfied that closing the hearing room is necessary to ensure the safety of the participants".


[3] The Commission proposes in its submissions that the order be maintained but that other measures be put in place to "better accommodate" members of the public who wish to attend the hearing, including a video "link" to another room where the public could observe the hearing without being able to observe the witnesses.


[4] I have come to the conclusion that my previous ruling should be rescinded.


[5] In addressing this matter, it is important to understand the context in which my initial ruling was made. At Mr. Lemire's request, the Tribunal had issued subpoenas summoning Ms.  Rizk and Mr. Steacy to attend the hearing and give evidence. In the afternoon of May  8,  2007, the Commission sent a letter by fax to the Tribunal stating that pursuant to s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, it formally objected to the disclosure of the visual appearance of its employees during the Tribunal proceedings and "certified" that this information was not to be disclosed on the basis of the public interest in ensuring the security of these individuals during and after the testimony. The Commission added that as a result of its s. 37 objection, it had "instructed Ms. Rizk and Mr. Steacy not to attend the Tribunal hearing but to remain available until the matter of this objection" was resolved.


[6] When Commission counsel appeared at the hearing on May 9, 2007, his position was unambiguous: "...we have invoked section 37. If there are no measures put in place, we are invoking it. If the measures that I am asking for today are put in place, then we will not invoke, we will withdraw our objection on the basis of section 37, for the purpose of their attending and the disclosure of their visual appearance".


[7] I issued my ruling regarding the exclusion of non-parties from the hearing room orally that morning. The ruling was premised in large part by this looming likelihood that the Commission would invoke s. 37 unless the "measures" that it was demanding were "put in place". The hearing proceeded but the Commission nonetheless invoked s. 37 numerous times to object to questions posed by Mr. Lemire's counsel to Ms. Rizk and Mr. Steacy. The Commission alleged public security concerns in making its objections.


[8] Mr. Lemire later challenged those objections before the Federal Court, which has the exclusive authority to rule when such matters arise before the Tribunal. Interestingly, however, it appears that a few weeks before the January 15, 2008, Federal Court hearing into these objections, the Commission disclosed to Mr. Lemire the information that was the subject of the s. 37 application. The Court therefore determined that since the information had been disclosed, it could no longer "properly" consider the s. 37 application, which the disclosure had effectively rendered moot. In effect, the Commission disclosed the very information that it had previously claimed could not be disclosed pursuant to s. 37. I note that the Commission also withdrew, before the Federal Court, its s. 37 objection to the issuance of a subpoena of Bell Canada (see the Federal Court's ruling, January 15, 2008, Docket no. T-860-07).


[9] The outcome of the s. 37 matter gives me pause to question the soundness of the Commission's invocation of public security concerns with respect to the testimony of these witnesses.


[10] More significantly, however, having now had the benefit of considering the question in circumstances different than those in which I was placed on the morning of May 9, 2007, I am not persuaded that the witnesses are exposed to a real and substantial risk that undue hardship will be caused to the persons involved, as contemplated in s. 52(1)(c) of the Act, nor that there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered, as contemplated by s.  52(1)(d) of the Act. The excerpts from the Internet cited by the Commission in its submissions do not, in my view, satisfy these criteria. They are indicative of no greater risk than that which has been suggested in the past by comments addressed to other participants in this and other s.  13  cases, including counsel, Tribunal members and staff, and the parties themselves.


[11] I am therefore rescinding the order. The hearing will be conducted in public, as mandated by s. 52(1) of the Act. I would note for the record that the Commission is mistaken in its submissions that the order came about pursuant to my ruling of May 7, 2007, which had merely excluded cameras from the Tribunal premises. That ruling preceded the exclusion order. No request has been made for me to revisit the May 7th ruling and as a result, cameras will remain excluded from the Tribunal's premises.


"Signed by"


Athanasios D. Hadjis



OTTAWA, Ontario

March 20, 2008




Lynch – The out to Lunch Commissar


Jennifer LynchWhile people may disagree on whether these limited restrictions were needed, the tribunal member, who heard arguments from the parties, deemed that they were.


Tribunal MemberThe outcome of the s. 37 matter gives me pause to question the soundness of the Commission's invocation of public security concerns with respect to the testimony of these witnesses.  …  I am not persuaded that the witnesses are exposed to a real and substantial risk… nor that there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered