|
White - European - Aryan
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 7,147
|
Re: Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Internet Censorship & Repression Contin
VICTORY AT FEDERAL COURT! “Human Rights” Commission Cries "Uncle", Reveals Staff Spying on the Internet & Court Awards Costs to Lemire  TORONTO. January 15, 2007. Despite an Eastern Ontario snowfall that delayed the appearance of his counsel, Barbara Kulaszka , for an hour and a half. Marc Lemire walked out of Federal Court in Toronto today a happy man. By sheer persistence, he had wrung out of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions some amazing admissions. At least one investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission has adopted a false Internet persona and trolled the Internet engaging in conversations with prospective victims. In other words, the CHRC is spying on Canadians, not observing and investigating, but participating and instigating.
After claiming Sec. 37, under the Canada Evidence Act to rule out a number of key questions to Canadian Human Rights Commission employees, the CHRC had effectively shut down some important lines of inquiry. When this claim to not divulge certain information is asserted by the government, the only recourse is to seek judicial review in Federal Court. The information is placed before a judge and he determines whether revealing the information would endanger national security or the life or safety of a person. It might be used to keep confidential the location of someone in the witness protection program. It is seldom used in civil court.
Marc Lemire contended all along that the Commission was hiding behind Sec. 37 to cover up their spying on Canadians. Following his oft repeated motto “No Surrender”, Mr. Lemire had persevered despite numerous Commission submissions and maneuvers made it clear he would go to Court, In a last minute effort to avoid Court, the Commission’s outside lawyer Margot Blight gave in on all points. Suddenly, what had once been information so sensitive it could not be revealed without imperiling the public interest was disclosed.
Among the information sought, protected but now revealed:- CHRC senior investigator Dean Steacy admitted: “I created the Jadewarr email address on yahoo.ca and the Jadewarr account on Stormfront,” a prominent White Nationalist website.
- Steacy claimed to be “using the Jadewarr account in investigating Sec. 13 complaints.” Interestingly, he engaged Mr. Lemire, whom he was not investigating, in private message exchanges..
- Apparently, he was operating without instructions: “As an investigator I decided how to investigate.”
As the Commission had withdrawn its Sec. 37 claim, there was little for Madam Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson to decide. Mr. Lemire had asked her to direct the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to re-open its hearing to permit the re-calling of the Commission investigators, especially Mr. Steacy.
Miss Kulaszka argued: “It is crucial to the Applicant that he have the right to hear the answers directly from the witnesses and to be able to ask further relevant questions. For example, given the disclosure that has been given, it is now known that the anonymous poster, “Jadewarr” who twice attempted to elicit information about or from M arc Lemire on the Stormfront message board, was in fact Dean Steacy. Yet, he gave evidence before the Tribunal that viewing of Stormfront would only occur pursuant to a complaint. The attempts to elicit information from Mr. Lemire occurred in 2006, after the complaint had already been sent to the Tribunal in August of 2005.”
The judge said she did not have the power to so direct the Tribunal.
Barbara Kulaszka forcefully argued that the Commission had delayed providing this information and had used Sec. 37 as a stalling tactic to run up Mr. Lemire’s costs. Mr. Lemire is a young father of two with very limited resources.
The judge seemed to sympathize and awarded $1,500 in costs to Mr. Lemire.
In written submissions Douglas H. Christie, counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League, which intervened on Mr. Lemire’s behalf, argued: “The Commission, the Attorney General, and parties like ourselves are at a great imbalance of financial resources. For this reason, it is appropriate that adequate compensation be given to the Applicant for the costs of obtaining the admission at the last minute. It appears the admission was only generated out of the desire to avoid an adverse ruling.”
Mr. Lemire indicated that his defence team would be making an early application to Tribunal Member Athanasios Hadjis to re-open hearings so that the witnesses, including Dean Steacy can be recalled.
The Federal Court at 180 Queen St., West was packed. More chairs had to be brought in twice and all extra chairs from the counsel table added to those for the audience who streamed in from London , Kingston , Uxbridge, Port Credit, St. Thomas , Ottawa and Penticton .
The hearing was delayed until 11:00 from its original 9:30 start. When it commenced, it was quite short. The audience complained about the poor sound. A wary commissionaire waved several people rising to object to silence. “This is supposed to be a public hearing,” said Wolfgang Mueller and auditor and spokesman for the Canadian Association for Free Expression. “How can it be public when the public can’t hear and the authorities don’t seem to care. This is not the first time we’ve been treated like this.”
At previous Richard Warman cases, since August, 2006 there has been heavy security, including up to give government paid bodyguards for Warman and the Commission lawyers.
“I see it must only be an orange alert today,” Paul Fromm representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression which was intervening on Mr. Lemire’s behalf said to Commission lawyer M argot Blight before the hearing. “I see there are only the private security wanding all people entering, no Metro Police, no bodyguards.”
Blight answered: “You don’t expect me to comment, do you?”
Ironically, this was the biggest crowd of supporters ever to attend one of the Lemire hearings and it included several victims of Richard Warman. The atmosphere was enthusiastic but peaceful.
“The bogus threat of security and the drama queen scene of Mr. Warman and Commission lawyers even being accompanied to the washroom by bodyguards has been a costly and deliberate tactic to vilify the victims, to make us appear to be a threat. I’m glad that this time, both sides were allowed to approach the bench on a level playing field,” Paul Fromm commented.
Issues at the Federal Court Review The CHRC stopped all questioning of this infiltration account. “Jadewarr” was used to engage M arc Lemire and others online. This is part of a larger scheme, with the Edmonton Police hate crimes unit posting outright discriminatory messages on Stormfront.org using the name “Estate”. Evidence before the Tribunal shows “Jadewarr” was a CHRC employee. We want the name
The relationship between the CHRC and Police The CHRC silencing critics during the Same-Sex M arriage debate The CHRC’s investigative techniques
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Active and Past cases: 46 | Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37
Section 37 info at: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jun...ection_37.html
CHRC and the Canadian Police: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Sep...nd_Police.html
Stephen Harper (Conservative Party Leader, current Prime Minister):
 "Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."
(BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)
For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgements on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, “the process is the punishment” in these star chambers -- for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.
Ottawa Citizen - December 9, 2007
Human rights commissions are obsolete bodies whose moment has passed. That they can be exploited by a narrow lobby seeking to impose its doctrine upon other Canadians is a serious problem.
CalgaryHerald - December 19, 2007
there is plenty of prima facie evidence to suggest the "human rights" racket is systemically corrupt. I will cite only the most obvious example: In the three decades of its existence, no defendant dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Commission under a Section XIII complaint has ever been acquitted. A "court" that only reaches the same verdict is not the most reassuring example of justice's blindness.
Mark Steyn – January 2, 2008 __________________________________________________ ______________________ Biased and Unfair | TRUTH is NO Defence | 100% Convictions | Lifetime Speech bans Censors ... HANDS OFF THE INTERNET! 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
|