As much as I deplore the Charter, it - as well as our common law - says that 'any person charged with an offence has the right to (a0 be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence'.

The Human Rights Commission - which is rarely about rights and more usually about extorting privileges - has not informed you of the allegation and has not provided you with a sufficient time frame in which to respond with your one sentence: "What are you talking about?"

My suggestion is to write them pointing out the absence of an allegation and the date of their letter. Canada Post, by the way, does not guarantee 'same day delivery'.

If this is a legitimate correspondence from a bona fide governmental commission, they have stepped in doo doo on this one. They have very likely broken their own rules for serving notice, complaint response time allowed, and identifying the nature of the complaint. Then they offer to "settle" the case before it is brought before the commission.

This whole thing smacks of a Nigerian-style solicitation.

Remind me again: when did I get the chance to vote for who sits on the HRC?

It doesn't sound real - it must be a prank to make the HRC look even worse than they usually do.

If legitimate, someone pressed the "Send" button by mistake.

It's not a prank: I've been following this. Connie Wilkins phoned up the HRC and got the name of the complainant, but no details of the allegations, yet.

I'm waiting for the details to blog about it. Really, keep an eye on this. This could be very important.

Maybe I'm missing something but the HRC website says the following about whom a complaint can be filed against:

"The Canadian Human Rights Act protects anyone living in Canada against discrimination by the following federally regulated employers, service providers or unions :

-Federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations
- Chartered banks
- Airlines
- Television and radio stations
- Interprovincial communications and telephone companies
- Buses and railways that travel between provinces
- First Nations employers (for employment and service issues that are not exempt under section 67 of the Act)
- Other federally regulated industries, such as certain mining operations."

Unless Free Dominion is one of the above, what jurisdiction does the HRC have?

It sounds like a prank to me.

Is the email a hoax?

If not, all Canadians should be aware that HEARSAY and second person evidence can be used in Canadian Human Rights proceedings.
And truth is not neccessarily a defence.
Shades of a Kangaroo court on many occasions.

Calls have been made for these commissions to be disbanded long ago by many knowldgeable and prominent Canadians.

MY hope is that this issue with Connie Wilkins at Free Dominion will be followed closely on the internet.
Free Dominion has been a much visited site for a good number of years.
Hold fast Connie Wilkins!

I' have a response for him, but it's unfortunately obscene.

"what jurisdiction does the HRC have?"

HRCs, like Islam, are political projects: they are all trying to make their reach universal.

The email address looks suspicious as well. As an
ex-Fed. employee, I am positive all Gov't. email addresses have a .gc.ca suffix. This one doesn't.

DNS reports that chrc-ccdp.ca is registered to the CHRC.

"I would be pleased to discuss the possibility of a settlement with you or your representative at any time."

Can you say SHAKEDOWN

Apparently the mailbox in question is a real mailbox, and the letter in question is a real letter, not online. This wasn't totally clear, but the body of the post talks about HRC stationery.

"File 2006057" may mean that this was the 57th complaint initiated during 2006.

Surely the fact that the complainant is anonymous is in itself an infringement of one's fundamental rights. But the Human Rights process is more interested in protecting the rights of the person making the complaint than the person on the receiving end.

Update from Judi McLeod: www.canadafreepress.com/2007/judi071907.htm

"...the Human Rights process is more interested in protecting the rights of the person making the complaint than the person on the receiving end."

This is especially true if the person making the complaint is a member of a politically correct victim group, and thus, a self-defined victim. So, ipso facto, the person on the receiving end is guilty as charged, and, if unable to PROVE their innocence, will be required to PAY the victim several thousand dollars. If they do manage to PROVE their innocence, they get nothing for their trouble, except the loss of a great deal of time and, what can be very, large legal fees.

Mississauga Matt,

You don’t get to vote.  You are a serf. You will appear when summoned.  You will answer any and all questions.  You may have certain rights to real “estate” but not to real “property”.  That is reserved in Canada to the ruling class only.  Just who in the name of the Queen do you think you are?  Know thy place.

Just a primer,

Position                                    Canada                                                USA

Head of State                           Foreign Monarch                                  Elected

Deputy HofS                            Appointed by Foreign Monarch            Elected

Senator                                    Appointed by Foreign Monarchs

                                                Privy Council                                        Elected

Congress/House                       Elected                                                 Elected

HosS Prov/State                       Appointed by Foreign Monarch            N/A

Premier/Governor                     Appointed by Foreign Monarch            Elected

Mayor                                      Elected                                                 Elected

Town Council                           Elected                                                 Elected

Judges                                      Patronage Appointment                        Mostly elected

Sheriff                                      Appointed                                            Elected

Police Chief                              Appointed                                            Elected

Property Appraiser                   Appointed                                            Elected

Elections Supervisor                 Appointed                                            Elected

Property Rights                         No                                                       Yes

Citizen Sovereign                      No                                                       Yes

Habeus Corpus                        No                                                       Yes

Prank, shakedown, or scam. Pick one.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

Let's get to the bottom of this!
When a HRC complaint is made it's public info right?

Damn it, I've been blogging for seven years and have NEVER gotten one of these secular fatwas.

What am I doing wrong?

From the quoted thread:

Here's what we have so far:

The whacko who filed this complaint is named Mary Lynn Gentes. (not sure if Mary Lynn is spelled right or is one or two words.)

The person Connie talked to at the Canadian Human Rights Commission was a John Chamberlain.

He said this is about Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that deals with hate speech and the internet. It looks like the opponents of liberty are going to try to use the same tactic they've used against other websites they wanted to silence. But this time they've picked prey who have teeth of their own.

John Chamberlain said this has something to do with something that was posted at sometime by somebody at Free Dominion. He would not tell Connie anything more than that about it.

There is supposed to be another letter enroute to us that will give us more details.

Also, this supposedly stems out of a complaint that was made in early June. John Chamberlain claims we were sent a signature-required notification, but we never received one. He didn't seem to be trying to say we actually did receive it.

Instead of doing some drive-by speculation, why don't you folks go over to FD and read the actual thread?

Just thinking a bit here.....
So what if someone files a complaint at CHRC and the bureaucrats are required to inform the party against whom the complaint is made?
Someone who knows this process can go ahead and try to scam the target by sending a phony letter.
The intended victim may call or contact CHRC and they'll say that there is a complaint.

The proper question is "Did they (CHRC)send this letter?"

Another question this raises is " What are the penalties and consequences of filing a false or malicious complaint?"

While I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, here's what I'd do under the circumstances.

I'd find a lawyer willing to do a little pro-bono work, go down to the court house and file a 'John Doe' suit under the Libel and Slander act for libel and use this complaint as the basis. Then I'd file two motions: one to subpeona all records the HRC might hold in relation to this case, and one to compell them to reveal the name of the person involved.

That would likely only be my initial salvo, but it takes away all the initiative from the complainant and HRC to me and my legal experts. It would force them to respond to me, rather than the other way around.

Well it seems that Richard is on top of it!

Seriously, though:

Free Dominion needs to make it easier for people to send them donations, in case this case blows up. If you click on Donate, the options are pokey and daunting.

Someone tell them to please get a PayPal button.

I suspect the Commission is taking jurisdiction under section 12 or 13 of the act which read:

12. It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or

(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11 or in section 14.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 12; 1980-81-82-83, c. 143, s. 6.

Hate messages

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Interpretation

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

Hmmmmm.

Well, I wandered through about half the thread over at FD before I gave up — too much info, no way to search on it very effectively (and I do have other things to do today!).

One thing that occurred to me — the complaint process may have been tainted from the very beginning simply by the obvious errors made in the process of notifying the website operators of the complaint.  This isn't even Charter territory — administrative law usually requires that judicial or quasi-judicial bodies have to give reasonable notice period, specifics of allegations, chapter and verse on what section of what statute has been allegedly violated, and so forth.  Errors or omissions for any of the above can be grounds to dismiss the complaint.

Mind you, you still have to hire a lawyer to argue these points.  But it seems to me that somebody's screwed up here... (or maybe, he said sotto voce, somebody meant to screw up...)

It may be time to offshore, Kate. How does North Dakota look to you?

Oh, and have a look at the "progressive" view of free speech when directed against politicians in New Zealand:

http://tinyurl.com/yssdxk

"KPD":

1. The Queen is not a "foreign monarch" but I appreciate and understand that this concept is likely well beyond your ken.

2. The Prime Minister has all effective authority to run the "State." He is the leader of the party that garners the most votes. That's as directly democratic as your electoral college system for choosing presidents. And we don't get hung up over chads.

3. We have the same essential property and habeas corpus rights as Americans do. C'mon now, your laws on this came from the British - just like ours.

The Queen sets no government policies nor does the Governor General nor the lieutenant-governors nor do our "appointed" judges and law enforcement officials.

The people responsible for our inane politics are neither "appointed" nor "unelected."

The people responsible are our elected politicians and officials.

Get your facts straight.

The US has just as much of this sort of crap going on as Canada courtesy of its own motley collection of elected politicians.

Spare us the silly, unnecessary and factually inaccurate comparisons. Your puerile Yankee nationalism cuts no ice, chum.

Oh, and God Save The Queen!

The traditional rules of law that most of us have been brought up with and understand to some extent are not applicable to the CHRC.
There is NO burden of proof on the part of the Complainant to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, NOR or a balance of probabilities either.
Draw your own conclusions.

Behead those who contravene the Canadian Human Rights Act(tm)!

We issue Fatwa on Free Dominion. No longer Halal. Free Dominion now Haram! Big time.

Free Dominon you will pay, the jihad's lawyers are on their way!

$$$$$ Akbar!

I have always believed that these so-called "Human Rights Commissions" are redundant and anti-democratic. If someone has a legitimate complaint about the actions of another, isn't that what the regular courts are for? Not that I have alot of confidence in those any more, but at least they do seem to have some rules of evidence and burdens of proof.

The US has just as much of this sort of crap going on as Canada courtesy of its own motley collection of elected politicians.

I'll second that as an American. The left whether it is American, Canadian or European shares the same sordid characteristics. We have our share of lefty idiots down here.

JJM, not to nitpick but: "The Prime Minister has all effective authority to run the "State." He is the leader of the party that garners the most votes." That should be the party that elects the most members to the house of Commons. Most of us have never voted or had the opportunity to vote for the PM. And it is technically possible for a governing party to have less than the majority of the nation's votes.

Oh, and it seems that judges do seem to be making the laws of the land. Numerous examples of the Supreme Court of Canada can be found and the latest example in BC where dude with 50 kilos of dope got off because of a judge's interperitation.

And don't get me started on the senate...

KPD:

Premier appointed by foreign monarch? I guess I missed this one in school. You might want to tell Ontario Premier McGuinty to call off this fall's election.

The Queen is not a "foreign monarch"...

Not even in Quebec?

They can't prosecute all of us...when we learn what precisely the charges are about, we simply repeat the same offense - enmasse, as often as necessary.

I wonder, Free Dominion was the focal point for discussions on how the Conservatives were not living up to their expectations. That led to discussions on the formation of new options.

A few months later, the Government is cracking down on Free Dominion.

??

Hmmm...

July 19, 2007

File 2006057_Idiocracy

M. Investigator
c/o Canadian Human Rights Commission
HighHorse
Toronto, ON

Dear M. Investigator:

Please accept my apologies for missing the deadline of July 18 mentioned in your letter of July 16. Some strange twisting of time and space obviously prevented your letter from reaching me with sufficient time to respond.

Regarding the allegations they are completely true. I held a dinner party for "friends" and excluded all others. The CHRC is likely right is judging this to be unjustified discrimination. I have never met all the people not invited, and perhaps given the chance I might like some of them.

In my own defense, my ALL-WHITE CHEF said there was not nearly enough severed babies heads to feed more than ten, and my ALL-SLIGHTLY-OFF-MAUVE slaves were disinclined to kill any more from the local orphanage for fear of raising suspicions.

I am sure this is the "allegation" you speak of, since what other act could I have committed this week that was so horrible that your liberal sensitivities could not even bare to mention them in the letter requesting my explaination of them.

If the orphaged wishes to discuss settlement I would be open to some sort of financial compensation. I can understand if their budget is in danger of being reduced what with their being so many less children around.

In addition, I would like to draw YOUR attention to my right hand, which at the moment is resembling a closed fist, with the middle finger extended, pointed in the general direction of Toronto.

Sincerely,

"That should be the party that elects the most members to the house of Commons. Most of us have never voted or had the opportunity to vote for the PM. And it is technically possible for a governing party to have less than the majority of the nation's votes."

All of this merely underlines my point to KPD that the selection of our prime minister is about as directly democratic as the selection of their president.

Personally, I like our parliamentary system. As always, it is not the system but rather the mental munchkins we elect to operate it.

"Oh, and it seems that judges do seem to be making the laws of the land. Numerous examples of the Supreme Court of Canada can be found and the latest example in BC where dude with 50 kilos of dope got off because of a judge's interperitation [sic]."

How is this different from the US? Judges in any country will always tend to interpret the law.*

But interpreting the law is not the same as making the law. That would be the job of those pesky elected politicians again.

* That's why they're "judges."

penny: I'll second that as an American. The left whether it is American, Canadian or European shares the same sordid characteristics. We have our share of lefty idiots down here.

To be fair to the US, they also have their share of "righty" idiots too.

Texas Canuck: Oh, and it seems that judges do seem to be making the laws of the land. Numerous examples of the Supreme Court of Canada can be found and the latest example in BC where dude with 50 kilos of dope got off because of a judge's interperitation.

In that particular case, the judge was interpreting provisions set forth in the Customs Act, which was enacted by MPs, who were elected by us.

This FAQ by the CHRC regarding hate on the internet might be of interest:

3w.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/watch_on_hate-en.asp

This complaint against Free Dominion is hardly unprecedented. The same legal arguments go back some 28 years in Canada, and a number of decisions have already been rendered on posting discriminatory/hate speech on internet discussion boards.

The short notice period is a legitimate concern, but one that is easily remedied in theory (extend the deadline), inconsequential in this case (Ms. Wilkins contacted the CHRC in time), and secondary to the substance of the complaint (which is still unknown).

As to this last point, perhaps it makes most sense to reserve judgment until the actual details of the complaint are revealed. For all we know, it could have real merit (e.g., perhaps a poster called for all Canadian Muslims, or Canadian Jews for that matter, to be dragged onto the street and shot).

Hey A'dam.

As a fellow lefty, a guerrilla in the mist here, I need to say that sometimes, a cockup, is just a cockup.

The only thing that separates us from the savages, is the ability to call B.S. consistently.

I know, it's hard to acknowledge that the 1000 monkeys working for a thousand posts sometimes get it right, but that's what separates us from the animals!

Thank you, Kate, for being on top of this.

Besides being one of FD's founding members, I am the co-host of the fundraisers there- and that aside, regard Mark and Connie as personal friends.

Make no mistake- any attempt to intimidate, silence, and punish one site is an attack on all. Left, Right, Libertarian, or Koo-kooka-choo crazy, it doesn't matter-- either all are free to speak, without fear or favo(u)r, or none are.

Here is a link to the four main links which will give you the gist of it:

-poke this--

Kate,

Sorry for making a sort-of off topic posting but I think this whole HRC issue is just a small manifestation of a larger Canadian issue of Due Process and rights of the citizenry at large.

As for my Loyalist friend JJM and who defends the parliamentary system, allow me to correct you.

1. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen. She seeks advice from the Privy Council and others but ultimately it is she, and she alone that makes that decision. She is a foreigner. She is a Monarch. She is not a Canadian. The appointment of the Prime Minister as the leader of the party with the majority in the House is a tradition, and only a tradition and nowhere is it written into law that she need to take into account Canadians choices. This is a fact. Same holds true for the Premier of Provinces.
2. I find it amazing that Canadians in general feel “comfortable” in their form of Government. Truly, what would you prefer, to be lorded over by a foreign sovereign and her unaccountable unelected minions in Parliament, or be the Sovereign yourself and choose a course of self-determination. Duh!

if it is fact, it is just one more reason to remain armed.

jjm, there are zero property rights in our constitution.

Posted by: Drained Brain at July 19, 2007 5:35 PM

"It may be time to offshore, Kate. How does North Dakota look to you?"

Flat? ;-)

Free Dominion has been a thron in the side of HRC and multicult tyranny since the day it logged on the net.

Personally I would not respond to any correspondence or orders or demands from the HRC as I do not recognize its authority to adjudicate legitimate law.

If a HRC complainant has a complaint...lodge it with police and see if they charge the defendant then take it to legitimate court where charter legal rights are respected....the star chamber kangaroo trials of the HRC do not recongnize charter legal rights.

I'd just say "frig ya" to this crap.

"mojo":

"The Queen is not a 'foreign monarch'...

Not even in Quebec?"

Not even in Québec. And you'll note that all those poor, downtrodden Québécois are so dreadfully oppressed by our evil system of government that they're entirely free to vote for separatists at any time.

Huh.

Is the Queen a Canadian citizen? If not, she is a foreigner.

"Is the Queen a Canadian citizen? If not, she is a foreigner."

Oh dear, another person epitomizing the appalling lack of even the most basic civics training in our classrooms.

borderguardwannabe- Before calling someone a "godammed idiot" perhaps you should look in the mirror first. And then learn how to spell "goddamned" properly.
If your handle is any indication of your aspirations, don't hold your breath. As a retired officer of the CBSA, I wouldn't work the same shift with you, for obvious reasons.

The complaint against FD is frivolous and should not bear up under scrutiny. However, on reading some of the 'writings' on that site, I believe a case could be made for 'hate speech' against certain individuals. In fact the case in question is all about one poster in particular, who I'm sure is 'certifiable'. FD isn't doing anyone any favours by allowing that wing nut to continue posting. I've also come across a couple of others who would be more at home on 'stormfront'.

Certain so called 'progressive' websites should also watch their backs as their attacks on religion could come under the same scrutiny, and should.

When will Canadians have had enough? I know I have. Anarchist party anyone?