The conduct of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is absolutely appalling. I attended part of the March 25th Warman versus Lemire hearing and would have used a transcript to verify what I wrote about it and to further investigate things I wasn’t able to cover at the time. Yet at the end of the hearing they claimed that as a “cost saving” measure no transcript would be produced. That hearing, being the one that focussed on the processes and investigative methods of the CHRC itself was the only one to date to have no transcript released.
Ezra Levant elaborates on the full, sordid story. And produces the transcript they didn’t want released.
The closer you look at these kangaroo courts the more appalling they are.
Appalling is the word for it. How much longer can the feds keep the lid on all of this.
I sure hope there are some bloggers who will be attending the June 2-6 hearing in BC. The only way the HRCs are going to be brought under control is from the inside out.
Between Ezra and Mark Steyn along with anyone who can feed them relevant/damning material (like a transcript that never was) that would otherwise not be available to anyone on the “outside” is the only way that the light is going to come to bear on these kangaroo courts with enough intensity to accomplish change.
Without the MSM becoming engaged big time, our free speech could easily be down the tubes by the end of the summer. There is no will among politicians – either federal or provincial. There is no will among the AB news media to put some hard public questions to the new Minister i/c the AB HRC. It is no wonder the HRC Industry has been so successful over the last 2.5 decades without the blogosphere to question what was/is going on.
I have had e-mails to the AB political power positions for about two weeks now, and nothing – no acknowledgment, no phone call, no letters, nada. I doubt they have any intention of addressing the AB HRC issues any time soon.
It seems totally unfair that Macleans, Lemire, and possibly five bloggers are going to be out (or have to raise) thousands of dollars to do virtually all of the heavy lifting while the political mandarins/bureaucrats sit on the sidelines.
I shudder to think about what all of this is doing, even now, to shut down free speech. Of course, this is what those who have been using the HRCs are counting on.
I can only hope that Macleans is able financially and willing to go the long haul to deal with the BC filing on June 2.
I’ve mentioned this before, and I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, yet once again we see that these issues are not fundamentally about freedom of speech, they are fundamentally about due process. Pretty much everyone, certainly including Ezra and me, agrees that there are a quite small number of reasonable limitations that a well-functioning civilization places on pure freedom of speech, typically relating to actual violence and fraud. Most of us are not big fans of pure anarchy. Traditionally, this tradeoff has been balanced against the procedural limitations implied by proper due process in Her Majesty’s duly constituted judicial courts of law.
And so it is in the case of this latest revelation what we find once again exposed the appalling abuse of due process by these maniacal make-work programs for otherwise useless bureautits. This is not a systematic problem that can be fixed by fiddling the wording in the statutes; it is an endemic problem caused by the evil greed of the perpetrators of these failures of due process, the only solution to which is to abolish the corrupt mechanism that enables this sort of violation of the basic principles of decent behaviour.
In a nutshell, the problem is that the positive rights industry has corrupted the fundamentally good notion of negative rights, in the process destroying not only the notion of individual responsibility, but the very notion of human rights itself. If everything is a human right, then nothing is a human right.
Ok, its late Friday night, so that MIGHT be an excuse.
But why do I get the idea that what we will hear from the left side of the blogsphere next week will be…
*crickets*
Resistance is futile. It may take a bit of time, but those who oppose these KKKangaroo courts will not give up. We, the people, want them dismantled. Got that HRC trolls? We want you gone. We will not quit until this wrong is corrected.
Perhaps Franz Kafka best described the human rights revolution when he noted that: “Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy”.
Where is the government in all this? Who do the Commissars answer to?
When does the government step in and quash these Kangaroo Courts?
There’s something amiss when we’re told we have rights but someone with an agenda or grudge has a venue to take them away.
Lisa: “But who will police the police?”
Homer: “I dunno…the coast guard?”
The problem with HRCs is that the people who staff them are attracted to them and want to be on them. This makes them ideologically-driven and biased towards their biases.
HRCs should be staffed by people who have little or no interest in being on them. Then, we would get some disinterested objectivity, or, more realistically, less interested disobjectivity.
Take a good close look to a lesson learned in Grade Nine.
Back then, the Canadian Consitution was being repatriated. The Federal Gov’t was so enthused with it’s accomplishment, it handed out copies to every student across Canada.
I asked: “how come the words ‘except where deemed by government’ appear at the end of almost every clause?”
I ask today, and the answer from the politicians is the same silence my social studies teacher offered.
‘Except where deemed by government’ – Canadian duplicity is even enshrined in our consitution. *sigh*
Richard. I respectfully disagree because it’s become apparent the HRCs should not be staffed at all. Time to abolish these abominations.
As vitruvius points out, the deep failure of the HRCs has emerged because they were set up to operate without due process and within the amorphous horizons of semantic interpretations. These semantic interpretations take place only within the individual bureaucrat’s interpretation of an abstract ideology of ‘actions to prevent actions that might provoke someone to feel what someone might call hatred or contempt towards someone else’.
The HRC were set up without definitive criteria of what constitutes a valid expression of ‘hatred or contempt’; they were set up without definitive criteria of what constitutes the experience of these emotions; they were set up without any criteria of the causality of these entirely subjective emotions. They were set up without definitive criteria that enabled the commissioners to rule out other causes and actually link X to Y.
Furthermore, they were set up within a process that pre-defined the defendant as guilty, by ruling out any costs or risks to make such accusations of ‘likely causing hatred/contempt’. The complainant pays no costs and is not subject to the rigours of discovery. The defendant pays all costs.
The complainant, furthermore, is not required to prove any results, for the focus is not on actual experience but on a ‘possible experience of hatred or contempt’. That ends all reality and we move into the purely imaginary realm of life.
Within such an amorphous mandate, one that is entirely and totally imaginary and completely in the control of the HRC bureaucrats, you also add a covering cloak of ethical untouchable superiority, by defining the mandate of the HRC as engaged in ‘a noble cause’ of ‘human rights.
It cannot carry out such a mandate because it not only is unable to define any of the interactions within such ‘violations of human rights.
Then, you have the sense of superior authority and invincibility of people who are employed in protected unionized jobs, totally unaccountable to any oversight and which additionally give them authority over other people. I think Barbara Hall’s violation of the OHRC’s mandate by illegally judging Macleans, is a prime example of this.
When you add this whip of unaccountable governmental authority to the mess – you’ve got pure corruption.
Due process? It seems to me that the way it works is upon accusation and acceptance as an HRC case one is automatically guilty. Proven by nothing less than the colour of your skin.
The brazen bigotry, if not outright racism of this tyranical system is the root evil.
Despite the fact that this gastapo system has a 100% conviction rate, it wouldn’t even matter if one was acquited. The court of public opinion has been inculcated into doing the rest. What ignorant person, having no understanding of how our laws and charter rights have been raped, wouldn’t think, “That person must be a racist, hater…otherwise the ‘Human Rights’ Council wouldn’t have investigated the charges.” The benefit of the doubt heavily weighted to the accuser, backed by the support of the government. And more importantly, the very nomenclature of the council – “Human Rights.’
The creation of a forever discredited public pariah is all they need. A very bloodless and public asassination.
“as a “cost saving” measure no transcript would be produced.”
Of course not. No evidence required, or wanted. Just opinion.
I think it is time that we take a page out of the leftoids playbook.
A street protest by concerned citizens outside HRC offices prior to and during specific hearings may be what it takes to get the public informed that a problem exists. And to inform those who aren’t aware, if all protest signs include a short, specific URL (ie: HRC.gag.speech.com)directing people to a site that discusses the problem, may make some people curious.
If everyone who just commented here can fire off an e-mail to Nicholson, like I just did, straight from Ezra’s link, his inbox will be spilling over.
Every chance you get, contact the PM, your own MP and Nicholson and they will get the message.
Cheers
It’s the modern day equivalent of the Inquisition. The church now being Multiculturalism.
Here is what I don’t get, why aren’t Harper and the Conservatives all over this? It would seem to me that it would galvanize support for Conservatives to come out swinging on this. There is no logical or reasonable rebuttal in defending the CHRC that Liberals can use at this point with everything that has been made public now.
What are Conservatives waiting for?
Sad to say, but there is no way the government can take action at the moment. It will take a lot more effort to get this into the public eye and sway mainstream opinion to the view that we have a serious problem. Until then, any effort by the minority Conservative government would be doomed to defeat in Parliament. The Liberals would doubtless lead the charge to spin Conservative efforts as support for “neo-Nazis”. One need only read Warren Kinsella’s blog to see how this would be handled.
With a few exceptions, the national media would parrot the Liberal spin, as they have proven time and again.
This incident raises a number of issues which others have identified, due process, can incremental reform salvage it among other questions.
To start off with Liz’s question. I believe, and I could be wrong, that these people are members of the bureaucracy and are ultimately responsible up to the Head of the Privy Council. The Head of the PCO, who meets with the PM should be taking an interest in this. I would love to know if this has come up at the cabinet table.
Regardless of policy questions, the should this commission exist or not?, there are serious serious administration issues that need to be addressed.
Next question is why is the governemnt so silent on this? Easy answer there, the opposition isnt asking any questions. No questions in parliament or committee then the government has no need to address in public what it may or may not be doing.
This lack of issue is damning on a couple of sides.
1) The opposition, when I think of the NDP who normally were the first to focus on process when it came to criminal rights and other civil liberties the silence is deafening.
2) Smae comments for the Liberals, in particular Michael Ignatieff and Irwin Cotler, two alleged defenders of human rights, one of whcih is due process.
3) The conservative backbench. They can ask questions, but never is heard a discouraging or questioning word. Where are all those safe Albertan conservatives who arent going to cabinet but will never lose their seat?
So that is why we dont see anything in public.
Now to the question of is it reformable. Once again you need to seperate yourself from the policy question for a second and look at the organization. The questions you would ask are what controls are in place, how is the leadership of the organization leading the organization and what is the culture of the organization.
What seems clear, before you even get to the official controls, is that there is a culture that encourages these things, a defensive cutlutre to protect the organization and a culture of unaccountability, one that places a premium on convictions no matter the process.
Leadership matters. The people who are ostensibly in charge of the CHRC are responsible for the creation, monitoring and fostering of a culture within the organization. The results speak for themselves and they need to be held accountable for it.
Changing the leadership is the first step that would have to be taken, an total and complete cleaning of house.
Next, can these things be changed through appropriate controls and management. Well once again you need to clean the leadership, as they need to enforce it but this also implies that you need to go lower to the investigator level. Nothing worse than those who break organization rules and procedures. Once again evidence would be that even if rules were enforced and in place that there would continue to be problems.
Essentially the conclusion is that even if the policy decision is to reform the rules that major surgery needs to be performed on the organization. Leadership needs to be replaced, controls put in place, serious evaluation of the existing occupants to see if they would fit in the new culture and ruthless weeding out of those who wouldnt.
So reform, which is the fall back position of those who support the existing policy, now have to answer the questions of
1) Is incremental reform possible given the surgery required
2) Is the policy goal worth the effort
So now we are at the policy level. The fact that the goals are undefined or ill defined is the source of lots of the problem. So the legislation can be pared back. The original goals might be worthwhile, a side court to handle employment and housing discrimination cases. But why do you need a federal and provincial HRC’s?
Even if they are under existing goals there needs to be appropriate leadership, culture and rules in place to ensure no abuses, fair process, assumpition of innocence and other basic human rights are in place. The irony is the Human Rights Commissions have been abusing human rights in the pursuit of human rights.
As far as I can tell even the path to reform requires tearing down the entire existing structure, gutting the personnel and rebuilding (assuming that’s the agreement) under new goals, strategy, leadership and structure.
Either way what exists today needs to be torn to the ground. Only then can you answer the question of rebuilding.
So where is PCO in this, where is the Justice Minister? where is the Cabinet? Where is government backbench and where is the opposition?
What a shame that all of these channels for question and dissent are not holding the cabinet and the bureacracy to account. This is a multipoint failure within the system.
CLOSE THEIR DOORS AND OPEN THEIR FILES!
Irwin Daisy knows:
“What ignorant person, having no understanding of how our laws and charter rights have been raped, wouldn’t think, “That person must be a racist, hater…otherwise the ‘Human Rights’ Council wouldn’t have investigated the charges.””
The most common comment whispered to each other by hoi polloi during the Great Purge carried out by Stalin in 1937-38 in Soviet Russia was:
They must have done something wrong.
Read Ginzburg, Evgenia S. Into the Whirlwind, Memoir of Stalin’s Camps.
Ignorance, apathy, and cynicism abound. The threat to freedom of speech, of expression, of dissent is real.
Do not allow another Dark Age to descend upon Western civilization.
Penny,Stephen – re: why aren’t the Conservatives doing anything? Belisarius (10:36) has hit the nail on the head. Everytime the Conservatives step up to the plate on any issue, they are already at strike 2. Strike one is a biased media, 2 is a minority government. They only have 1 chance to make a hit.I can imagine both the media and the opposition are just drooling, hoping the Conservatives will do something with this. If the Conservatives touch this, they will get crushed. We saw how the opposition can control committees, and we saw how the media controlled the fiasco in Mexico. PMSH is smart to stay away from this for the time being.
Appaling is too weak a word.
…and is not spelled with one l…sorry…
Stephen – I disagree that incremental reform is possible. And my own opinion is that Section 13.1 must be removed entirely. The mere fact that it focuses on undefinable situations, on imaginary situations means that it operates outside of both facts and due process.
As for the government, I think they are involved, but via the back door. I’ve had, for example, a strong reply to my email to Jason Kenney; he writes of his concerns about their role in hindering free speech and that reform is required.
What is important, vitally important, is that we the public, continue to pressure the govt- and that includes ALL members, not just the Conservatives, but the silent NDP and Liberals, those self-defined supporters of human rights, and insist that they pay attention to the HRC Section 13 as a blatant violation of human rights, ie, free speech.
I don’t know how the CHRT operates but in most courts I know of, all proceedings are taped. There are no court reporters, unless the parties agree to pay for a real-time transcript, which is relatively expensive, but allows counsel to review and mark up the transcipt as evidence in given.
In all other cases, if a party – or anyone for that matter – wants a written transcipt of the proceedings, they can order one from a private court reporting serve, which will charge about $1 per page.
If Lemire wanted a transcript of the hearing, he could have had one. But he would have had to pay for it. CHRC (as distinct from the Tribunal) apparently wanted one and was willing to pay for it.
So where’s the corruption?
ET,
I am not advocating incremental reform. I was deconstructing what would be involved if you did, since that is the argument by defenders.
The conclusion is that EVEN IF you believed in incremental reform the surgery and pruning is so serious it raises the question is it worth it? This is before you even ask the policy question (which is where you should start anyway)
Essentially incremental reform isnt possible since any reasonable result is such a different beast that you need blow up the HRC’s. They are nowhere near the form they would need to be in under any of the reasonable policy options, which are
1) No HRC
2) An HRC more closely aligned to the original conception
The leadership is flawed, the culture is toxic and there are no controls. Any extra day of this is problem.
The more troubling question I have is why has there been no course correction from the normal mechanisms….that is the bigger question. Without answering that we wont know that this erosion of due process and rule of law cant happen again in another form. I am concerned that the anti bodies that should attack a totalitarian virus do not seem to be robust or numberous within the Candian Governmental system.
Kind of a meta point but an important one.
11 Nothing prevents any of you from
12 getting this audio transcribed yourselves in any formal
13 or informal way. This is how it’s done in the courts
14 and this is how it’s done here.
page 343
Source
So let me get this straight.
The complainant files a grievance with the CHRC; doesn’t have to pay a dime for the whole prosecution of the case. The respondent has to pay his way, and is surely headed toward a loss since all Section 13 cases have 100% conviction rates.
Then to add further procedural malice, the Tribunal decides to wave the basic legal protocol of having transcripts available to not only the respondent but to the public at large too.
But wait. It gets better.
Apparently, now, there’s nothing precluding either side from transcribing the audio at their own expense (of course).
What does this mean?
It means the CHRC can access taxpayers dollars to transcribe the audio, but the respondent has to shell out even more money to keep a level playing field, and to ensure that he has all the means necessary to mount an effective defense.
And what’s worse, the CHRC uses Tribunal transcribing services to do the job without sharing it with the defense. In other words, thing are so incestually cozy with the CHRC that the Tribunal is effectively providing the transcript to one side and not the other, violating in the most fundamental way possible natural justice.
“This is how it’s done here.”
Yeah, no kidding, “judge”.
http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=934
Al in Mexico – your point is well taken, but, I think on this issue the Conservatives have the press and the moral highroad on their side. This is one issue, especially regarding Section 13, that the Liberals would only expose themselves as fools if they defended it. Why not take the tactical advantage and flush them out.
I don’t think that the electorate is a passive and uninformed blob on this issue any more. It’s had enough public exposure. The Conservative’s silence isn’t doing them any favors in the long run.
In the transcript, some of the names mentioned in the testimony are followed by “(ph)” and sometimes “(ph)(ph)”. Does anybody know what that means?
That’s $343 that each party should pay for a transcript? That’s on top of the cost to transcribe it in the first place. Every time, $343, to cover the cost for someone to stick into a photocopy machine.
Meanwhile the Tribunal is sitting on their own copy, paid by taxpayers, but won’t provide a copy to the parties, but does have a copy for the media. At taxpayer expense.
What kind of racket is this?
(ph) indicates a phonetic spelling of name. It’s a notation by the court reporter indicating that she guessed at the spelling of the name mentioned by the speaker.
(ph) refers to a phonetic spelling of name. It’s a notation by the court reporter indicating that she guessed at the spelling of the name mentioned by the speaker.
I agree with Vitruvius et al. Essentially those who staff these kangaroo courts want what every dictator has always wanted, authority without responsibility. Rules of procedure, rules of evidence, transcripts, public process all impose upon the accusers and the courts standards of responsibility and accountability to which they can be held and yardsticks by which deviation from “justice” can be measured. They’re imperfect, but they limit the freedom of action of the investigators, prosecutors and arbitrators since the power relationship between the organs of the state and the accused is prima facie unbalanced.
The HRCs have and want none of this precisely because they do not want to be accountable and because their actual agenda and their stated agenda are at variance. They are frauds. The established discipline of judicial process would expose them and they know it.
Ah, thank you trooweighst (ph).
🙂
“Lee Richardson, freedom fighter!
I’m delighted to report that another government MP has publicly declared himself for freedom of speech, and against section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act — the thought crimes section.
Lee Richardson, the MP for Calgary Centre, has written a short but sweet letter on the subject, which you can see here. The key lines:
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right… I support removing section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act and will vote in favour of [Keith Martin’s] motion when the opportunity arises.
Good for him!
Folks, take a moment to send Richardson your support and thanks. Click here to e-mail him. And while you’re at it, click here to e-mail Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, to tell him to get off the pot. And send the same note to the Prime Minister, while you’re at it.”
http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/lee-richardson-freedom-fighter.html
You want appalling check out Barbara Hall’s letter to the editor in this week’s Maclean’s. She can’t understand what all the fuss is about and thinks she and her pack of apparatchiks are behaving in a perfectly reasonable fashion.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Paved by IDIOTS like Barbara Hall. Even if this is just a calculated, cynical bit of power mongery on her part she’s still an idiot.
She’s like the Palestinians who sold dirt from the dike around the sewage lagoon. Sooner or later she’ll dig a wee bit too deep and flood us all under a 100 foot wall of poo. Won’t that be fun kids?
penny writes, “I think on this issue the Conservatives have the press [sic] and the moral highroad on their side . . . I don’t think that the electorate is a passive and uninformed blob on this issue any more.”
penny, I always appreciate your posts and, until this one, have virtually always agreed. Sadly, I can’t agree with your analysis here.
I believe you’re an American. (BTW, I’m hugely pro-American and am altogether ashamed of the niggardly anti-Americanism in this country.) The “press”, I guess, is the MSM. Believe me, most have remained mum. And most detest the Conservatives and our fine Prime Minister (PMSH). There’s actually a feud between the press and PMSH and they outrageously lie and spin anything said or done–or not done–by him or his government. It’s a huge scandal, and the average, supine Canadian is blithely unaware. Honestly! E.g., My best friend, who votes Conservative, got a lesson–voluntarily!–from me on the HRC boondoggle a week ago. She had no clue. My twenty-something kids, unfortunately indoctrinated by the “don’t rock the boat” dogma of their generation, are not very interested. (I wonder what I’ve done wrong!)
PMSH and the Conservatives are definitely between a rock and a hard place here. I’m very sympathetic–and also very pleased to know that three Conservative MPs have now spoken out.
penny, Canadians are sheep in a socialist country. If this were happening in the USA, there would be large numbers of commentators and MSM sites making a loud noise. But this is Canada. Pity.
If Lemire wanted a transcript of the hearing, he could have had one. But he would have had to pay for it. CHRC (as distinct from the Tribunal) apparently wanted one and was willing to pay for it.
So where’s the corruption?
The CHRC doesn’t have their own money…they use ours.
“It’s the modern day equivalent of the Inquisition. The church now being Multiculturalism.”
The Church is socialism, the theology is multiculturalism, and this gives a bad name to all but the most vicious parts of the inquisition.
🙂
If anyone is interested, under an open letter I have written to Rob Nicholson – which I cc’d to every member of Parliament – I have posted in alphabetical order the e-mails of all our members of Parliament.
Grab a handful of e-mails and harangue away;)
Many thanks, BCF, for all those addresses: very community spirited of you!
We need proportional representation in Canada so freedom loving conservatives can have a voice in Ottawa. The Conservatives are slipping back into a mushy center-right party that are unwilling to challenge this madness. With two conservative parties, Blue Tories could have representatives who could get these issues on the national stage.
I for one am not giving to the Conservatives until they start acting like conservatives.
“as a “cost saving” measure no transcript would be produced.’
‘Of course not. No evidence required, or wanted. Just opinion.'”
Nope, it wasn’t a “cost saving” measure. It was a FACE-saving measure.
And, I daresay, “opinions” is what the HRC is all about: any Philosophy 101 course teaches from the git-go that “all opinions are valid…but not all arguments.”
HRC’s are all about “opinions”…because they’re all valid, no matter how outrageous, stupid, and dangerous. By the same token if an HRC was forced to actually rely on arguments, then its “cases”–and entire rationale for existence–would crumble like three week old bleu cheese.
Why are the Conservatives not doing anything?
I believe the Conservatives learned many good lessons from the beatings the Liberals handed the Reform party and the C.A. The Conservatives have slowly and skillfully marginalized the Liberals and appear to be applying a strategy of common sense legislation. The Conservatives have passed more positive measures in two years than the Reform, C.A. and the Liberals were able to in the entire 90’s. When the election finally comes the Conservatives will be able to point to their record and show that they are an effective government. As long as the Liberals keep allowing the Conservatives to pass legislation PMSH needs to stay the course. The Liberals will not be able to mount a reasonable criticism of the Conservative government, they allowed it all to happen.
Like Marty Schottenheimer says “One play at a time”.
It seems like a bottomless list of crap that we must deal with to get our country and freedoms back. We must be patient and allow the game plan to unfold. PMSH and his government has exceeded my expectations and we can always separate tomorrow.
It’s occurred to me that PMSH, a brilliant strategist, may well have some bombshells up his sleeve: not difficult when dealing with the weasels and stoats on the left of the political spectrum in Canada.
I think, once an election’s called, he’ll time it just right and drop some mega-ton bombs in the right place at the right time. I wait with eager anticipation!