sda2.jpg

January 21, 2008

Tactic for defunding the Human Rights Commission

(Sent by a member of the Facebook group "Support Free Speech in Canada-- Support Free Dominion!")


"I would like all people who support getting rid of government agencies like the CHRC, the Status of Women Agency--and others-- to participate in the government’s online pre-budget consultation.

"This year’s pre-budget consultation uses a different process — and is frankly a bit more annoying.

"On the first page, you have to put in order what the government’s priorities should be. I feel a bit miffed that we’re forced to make these choices to get to the second page (where we can make suggestions). (...)

"When you press 'continue' you get to the 'good part' — so to speak. You get to type 50 words to each point. For my #1 priority — I wrote that I think that the government should defund the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Status of Women Agency and the CBC. I wrote for #2 that I want to eliminate unnecessary state interventionism.

"The page says that there were 8000 responses last year. If 1000 people write to say that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be abolished, they cannot ignore that point.

"I feel giving input on a pre-budget consultation is even more effective than writing an MP. MP’s can’t necessarily do anything about the CHRC, but the Finance Minister sure can."

NOTE: this online process has a deadline of February 11.

Posted by KShaidle at January 21, 2008 8:59 AM
Comments

The purpose of the Charter is to free Canadians from traditional morality. The purpose of the HRC is to impose the state's views of right-and-wrong on the populace. Canada has always been a governed rather than governing people. We didn't rebel against the alleged tyranny of the British Crown; it is unlikely that we will rise up against the velvet totalitarianism of the present regime.

Charter judges and HRC rulings provide a very useful service: they tell us how to think. They also provide a form of social cohesion amidst the shards of anti-Christian multiculturalism.

Posted by: Richard Ball at January 21, 2008 9:32 AM

Thanks for the link. Now I've done my good deed for the day.

Posted by: DrD at January 21, 2008 9:51 AM

DONE!

Don't forget to defend CBC and CFC- the Canadian gun registry bureaucracy as well.

Time to trim the fat and lose the parasites.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 21, 2008 10:09 AM

I've just sent the following to the CBC Ombudsman with CCs to Senator Anne Cools, the PM, the Justice Minister, and some other MPs. (I'll not use quotation marks, except for the ones in the original correspondence, as I extensively quoted Mark Steyn.)

Dear Mr. Carlin

I am writing to let you know that the CBC appears to be ignoring a huge Canadian story, to do with skulduggery, miscarriage of justice, and our own Human Rights (sic) Commissions (HRC), which, because the CBC receives nearly $3 million a day from the Canadian taxpayer, it has a duty to report. (The CBC seems to think it’s the official opposition to Mr. Harper’s Conservative government. Wrong, Mr. Carlin.)

In its on-going news coverage, CBC’s deliberate omission of the HRCs’ cases against Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, which are state approved attempts to muzzle the media—the CBC IS part of the media, is it not?—is censorship, plain and simple.

The latest allegations of skulduggery—and possible criminality—are very serious, indeed, and Canadians deserve to hear the degree to which these kangaroo courts will stoop in order to protect the interests of left-wing, politically correct operatives against law abiding Canadian citizens who don’t toe the left-wing, all l(L)iberal, all the time party line.

I quote from Mark Steyn’s January 20th web site (SteynOnline, where many links may be found), where he discusses the very serious allegations against Richard Warman, a Canadian lawyer and ex-employee of the Canadian HRC, who is a “serial [CHRC] plaintiff”: he initiated 26 cases with his ex employer in order to keep Canadians with whom he disagrees silent, as well as punished, including substantial fines—to the tune of about $40 000—which he has pocketed. And that’s just the beginning. From Mark Steyn, read on:

“Many of us have been caught in a quandary by this Human Rights farrago of a travesty of a farrago. As David Warren suggests [in his January 20th column in the Ottawa Citizen] we could easily counter-sue and pile up a zillion nuisance suits. But to do so would offend against a principled belief that these human rights tribunals are illegitimate. However, given that [Richard Warman] has been a plaintiff on EVERY SINGLE [emphasis mine] Section XIII case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal since 2002, and that IN NOT ONE OF THESE CASES [emphasis mine] has the CHRT found in favour of the defendant, I wonder if we might not make an exception in favour of Mr Warman. Just to reprise, these are words written and electronically communicated by Richard Warman [emphasis mine]:

“Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is [sic] a Negro, she is also an immigrant!
And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt.
She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before
there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced
their bullshit down our throats.
Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place…
And that place was NOT in public!

“Quite the prose stylist, eh? As I said previously, this isn't entrapment; it's manufacturing the crime. Mr Warman posted these words on a website and then used them as part of his complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is Scandal #1.

“Furthermore, when the defendant [of freedominion] then made plain that he wished to subpoena the records of the ISP [Internet Service Provider?] to uncover the author of the above post, the Canadian Human Rights Commission mysteriously dropped it from the case. This suggests an explicit collusion between the CHRC investigators and their former colleague, Mr Warman. That is Scandal #2.

“For posting these words on the website and then taking said website to the Human Rights Commission, Mr Warman has been substantially enriched by the Canadian state. That is Scandal #3.

“At this point, the Minister of Justice needs to step in. The administration of Section XIII is a public disgrace. I agree with Pundita [web site] that it is, in fact, a criminal act in itself. The Minister should order a judicial inquiry into the systemic corruption of Section XIII. Furthermore, in the interim, [CHRC] Agent Dean Steacy [who is on public record as saying that freedom of speech is an American concept, with which the HRCs need not concern themselves] should be removed from all ‘hate’ cases, all current cases suspended, and the judgments in those cases brought by Richard The Anglo-German [his own words] Warman vacated. The mountain of phony-baloney ‘jurisprudence’ based on the Warman racket should be tossed in the trash.

“In the end, Maclean's and I might prevail over this thug racket. But why should we have to spend significant six-figure sums doing so given the prima facie evidence above? Section XIII is misbegotten in theory and a shakedown racket in practice. It's time to end it . . .

“If [the above allegations are] correct, I don't see how it's possible to regard the Canadian Human Rights Commission as anything other than a racket for one of its former employees. Why should Richard Warman collect five-figure sums from suing websites for ‘crimes’ in which he has himself participated?”

Quite the story, don’t you think, Mr. Carlin? The CBC should be all over it. (Though I’d be interested to see how it would spin the facts to take Mr. Warman’s side, which it would surely try to do, as well as try to place the blame on the Conservatives, rather than the Liberals, who both instituted and have promoted these Canadian star chambers.)

Remember Churchill’s words of warning: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” If the HRCs win in the Levant and Steyn cases, the CBC will be vulnerable. On one hand, I like the thought of that! However, on principle, I don’t. It’s interesting, isn’t it, that none of the legions of us on the conservative side, who’ve complained to the CBC for decades, has ever thought to have the state, via an HRC, try to rein the CBC in.

In your correspondence to me of January 17th, re the Levant case, after I’d mentioned CBC’s censorship of this issue—virtually no news coverage so far—you wrote, “CBC's Office of the Ombudsman is independent of CBC program management and thus has no say in day-to-day programming decisions. However, I have shared your e-mail with senior information programmers so that they may be aware of your concerns.”

As I’d be interested in hearing from CBC’s “senior information programmers”, perhaps you could send me their names and email addresses so I may write directly to them. I’ll request that they write back with some explanations.

Sincerely . . .


P.S. I’ll be sending copies of this to Senator Anne Cools, as well as to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and many MPs.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at January 21, 2008 10:20 AM

Richard Ball, a very fine, succinct analysis. Well done and thanks!

WLMR, I'm sure you meant "defUnd", not "defEnd"! The difference one letter can make . . .

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at January 21, 2008 10:24 AM

Thanks Kathy I went and gave them my 2 cents worth. How many of us would know this without the good work you guys do? Thanks again.

Posted by: eliza at January 21, 2008 10:24 AM

Thank you for posting this. I would also like to bring to the attention of Ontarians that the Ontario provincial government is also having pre-budget consultations online--

The form is here:


One very interesting question on the form:

Are there any programs or services the provincial government provides that are no longer needed?

I suggest that you write down that abortion be de-listed and that the Human Rights Tribunal/Commission be abolished.

No word limit!

Okay, I doubt it'll come to pass, but you never know.

At least it'll become an issue. And you can add whatever other opinions you want-- it's a very open-ended questionnaire.

Posted by: SUZANNE at January 21, 2008 10:38 AM

Done...
I feel better

Posted by: Paul at January 21, 2008 10:58 AM

Done...
I feel better

Posted by: Paul at January 21, 2008 10:58 AM

Very good point, WLMK: don't forget to mention the gun registry.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 21, 2008 11:11 AM

Done! Defund the CBC and the HRC. And don't forget to mention that health care reform is needed under the point about the aging population. Health care will bankrupt us as a nation unless free market alternatives are added in the next few decades.

Posted by: SheilaG at January 21, 2008 11:45 AM

Done too! I can't believe I forgot to mention the CBC directly, but I did mention defunding all repressive and regressive anti-conservative programs: that certainly includes the CBC! (I'll write Jim Flaherty about that personally.)

Remember the federal, Liberal instituted Court Challenges Program, run almost entirely by feminists and homosexuals, to pay for their social engineering Supreme Court cases on our dime. Much like the HRCs, the defenders of the tradtional family had to finance their cases, while the taxpayer paid the very considerable expenses of the feminist and homosexual challengers. The Conservatives have stopped the funding, but there are serious attempts to reinstate it.

Posted by: lookout at January 21, 2008 11:54 AM

(BTW, the feminists and homosexuals won every case too--paid for by you and me--and Canada, as we used to know it, is gone forever.)

Posted by: lookout at January 21, 2008 12:15 PM

Human Rights Commissions are aimed at protecting people from bigotry. Based on the comments I've read here today, I think the case can be made for HRC for many decades to come...

Posted by: John Murney at January 21, 2008 12:19 PM

Done.

Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2008 12:27 PM

Done!
I've also emailed my MLA and MP.
Thanks, Kathy.

Posted by: Mike_RoA at January 21, 2008 12:28 PM

Want to know what the Canadian Jewish congress thinks of Richard Warman? Here is the reply from Len Rudner, regional director for the CJC in Ontario ..considering that this story broke fairly recently, how thorough of an 'investigation' did they do? Notice, i sent the e-mail to Bernie Farber, but was replied to by Mr.Rudner

"Dear Mr. Kursk -

Thank you for your note.

We have done our own investigation into this matter. Considering the
sources of the allegations and taken into account that Mr. Warman has
specifically, under oath, denied that he authored the posting, we deem
the allegation to be without basis.

It is the targeted vilification of an honourable man that should be
drawing your concern.

Len Rudner
Regional Director, Ontario
Canadian Jewish Congress
4600 Bathurst Street
Toronto, Ontario M2R 3V2

Tel: 416-635-2883 x.147
Fax: 416-635-1408

lrudner@on.cjc.ca

www.cjc.ca


Targeted vilification of an honourable mean?
Good luck on that one, says i in my reply...

Posted by: Kursk at January 21, 2008 12:40 PM

Really John Murney, care to give us some examples!

Posted by: GrantK1 at January 21, 2008 12:41 PM

concerned canadian - excellent letter. My only point of contention is that it hasn't been objectively proven that Warman wrote that blog post against Sen. Cools. All that has been shown is that it has the same online address as the online name to which he, apparently, has under oath, admitted as his (Lucy).

John Murney - no, you are quite wrong in your assumption. No government can 'protect' against bigotry. If you forbid someone to express bigotry, you cannot control their thoughts of bigotry. Furthermore, what is bigoted to one person is not bigotry to another person. That's because it's a subjective rather than objective description.

And, the HRC have no capacity to protect against bigotry. Or anything else. That's because they specifically, in Section 13, reject objective evidence of RESULTS of the expression of an opinion. They focus only on speculating what 'might be' or will 'likely be' the results of your expressing an opinion. The fact that no results need happen - none at all - and yet the HRC will CONVICT you for your expression - I think that ought to be of serious concern to you.

After all, do you really want to live in a country where you can be punished for a 'pre-crime', for something that hasn't even happened? I like Orwell and Kafka too, Mr. Murney, but only to read. I don't want to live in such a world. Do you?

Posted by: ET at January 21, 2008 1:09 PM

"If 1000 people write to say that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be abolished, they cannot ignore that point."

Want to put money on that asertion? They can and will ignore that point. Do you think they care what the little people have to say?

Posted by: Warwick at January 21, 2008 1:12 PM

Vote and vote often! Did my duty as well,recommended that cbc either be totally scrapped,or if not possible,to seriously cut their funding.As well suggested that cbc be held more accountable for their less than forthright 'reporting'..felt good!

Posted by: Sammy at January 21, 2008 1:17 PM

Done!

This should be kept at the top of the page until submissions are closed...or reminders should be posted.

Posted by: mecheng at January 21, 2008 1:34 PM

Thanks for posting this link. I suggested that CBC be de-funded, HRC's be disbanded all together. That supplemental hydrogen add on systems for vehicles be funded and available. better 70mpg than 25 mpg. also
mentioned that a full size eco freindly pickup truck would sell well. Also suggested a ten fold increase to the Canadian armed forces due to world instability, without this one we can forget about all the other suggestions.

Posted by: wuberman at January 21, 2008 1:36 PM

kursk - Which posting has Mr. Warman, under oath, denied posting? To my knowledge, he has only been asked, under oath, once about his online postings.

This was about his postings under the name of 'Lucy'.

You ought to read the testimony. He 'slithers' until confronted.

On Feb 1/2007, he testified under oath in the Warman v. Lemire case before the CHR Tribunal, Case T1073/5405). He was asked if he had ever signed up a 'user account at the message board'. He replied" No, I don't believe I did.
He was then asked - 'an account that would enable you to participate in the messaging'.

He replied: Yes.No. I didn't need to; I could access everything that I needed to as a guest".

Chair: As a guest, so only to view. But you did not sign up in order to add material to it?

Warman. No, I did not.

Now, the slithering that Warman uses is the Chair's ignorance of blogs. You don't always need to 'sign up' in order to post, in order to add a message. In this particular blog, you didn't need to sign up. You could just access the site..and post. And that's what Warman did.
The slithering dishonesty is that by ceding to the Chair's ignorance, it appears that Warman could NOT have posted any messages to the site! Because he didn't sign up!

However, Lemire's lawyer (which Lemire had to pay for, while Warman had NO costs)...Kulaszka, caught him. She asked him:

"Do you recognize this user account called Lucy?"

Warman: "Sorry, I stand corrected. Yes, I do. That is an email address that I used".

So, he admits, finally, but only after attempting to use the ignorance of the court, that he DID post to the site.

Now, what 'oath' is Rudner referring to? I'm not aware whether Warman has ever been questioned about the other ISB and the Anne Cools post under the name of 90sAREover. But, they have identical data bases.

Posted by: ET at January 21, 2008 1:38 PM

I'm in too. Thanks to Kathy for such a relevant link. And thanks for the link to the Ontario equivalent.

Posted by: Brad in Waterrloo at January 21, 2008 2:26 PM

The CJC is denial, guys. As far as they are concerned, millions of big bad Nazis are still out there somewhere like it is 1935. Meanwhile we all know where the real threat is coming from.

Some folks find it more invigorating, and oddly comforting, to live in the past. You can often spot these people -- they call themselves "progressive" :-)

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 21, 2008 2:39 PM

That was relatively painless. Still, I'm not optimistic about the response to telling them seven times over to eliminate waste (firearms registry, CBC, other Crown corporations, CHRC, social spending) and use the savings for increased military spending and tax cuts. And that our population can look after the implications of their own aging if the government cuts taxes and allows them to amass savings and retirement funds.

Posted by: Charles MacDonald at January 21, 2008 2:43 PM

Kathy, you are right concerning the CJC. As I already stated elsewhere, it is run by the secular left. Yes, this is the bunch preaching the dangers of pogroms resulting from the right and especially from Christians. They have their agenda and will not be deterred by truth or facts.

I am hoping to find a list of all the other special interest groups (such as the Status of Women) being subsidised by the government in order to include all of them in my comments on the budget. Where can one find this information?

Posted by: Alain at January 21, 2008 3:07 PM

The Ontario government is also holding pre-budget consultations. After telling the feds what you think about the CHRC, you might also want to tell McGuinty what you think about the Ontario Human Rights Commission here.

Posted by: Steve at January 21, 2008 3:19 PM

Thanks for that link Kathey. I went and put in my 2 cents worth, I forgot to mention that useless gun registry but I did remember the Wheat Board .... Next step, sda speaks for Canada -* on the top of sda page 1. SDA rules!

Posted by: Jema54 at January 21, 2008 3:47 PM

to John Murney

Yes, please do give us examples of this bigotry you mention.

Posted by: Sean at January 21, 2008 4:15 PM

ET, thanks.

But I WAS very careful to say, "The latest ALLEGATIONS of skulduggery—and POSSIBLE criminality—are very serious, indeed ...

"I quote from Mark Steyn’s January 20th web site (SteynOnline, where many links may be found), where he discusses the very serious ALLEGATIONS against Richard Warman . . . " (emphasis mine).

The CBC Ombudsman's already responded. He's handed my concerns over to his "senior information programmers", but hasn't yet given me their email addresses, so that I may ask for their explanation for the virtual non coverage of this important matter.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at January 21, 2008 4:34 PM

I already filled in the federal survey a couple of days ago and I posted this to the ontario site:

2.
Lower business taxes, so they will be more competitive in the international market. This will also help to reduce prices and competition which benefits the end users and promotes greater savings/spending. Both are needed for a strong economy.

Beyond that, a carbon tax is pointless (CO2 concentration has increased for 8 years with no increase in temperature) and will only hurt business. The only tact that should be brought in that area would be continued measures to reduce pollution like smog of which CO2 is not a component.

To pay for the lowering of taxes, reduce the amount spent on things like daycare for dual income families and replace that with income splitting.

Just because something bad happens in the province does not mean the government has to make a new law.

3.
First is the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It is not needed. If someone broke the law, they should be taken to court. If they did not break the law, then there should be no governmental course of action.

The largest areas of waste have to be health care and education. Allow the increase in the amount of privatization that will foster competition and higher quality.

If you prefer to attack some of the smaller items hoping they will add up to big savings that can eventually balance your budget, why not sell things like GO Transit. And why would a province need a ministry of culture. It is the people that create culture, not the government. And a Women's Directorate ministry? That should be gone too. Lobby groups can work toward educating people about preventing violence against women. Taxpayer funds should not be used for only half the population. If anything, the government should promote prevention of violence against people. The best way to do that is to enforce the rule of law. The promoting of community action should be done by communities and not the province. Finally, the province should be investing in training for low-income and at-risk PEOPLE -- not just women.

Getting rid of some ministries would also allow you to reduce the size of the government. Soing so will have the largest benefit to the economy including increasing outside investment due to greater confidence and less interference.

4.
Fairness for Ontario with respect to equalization payments is one thing, but neither the federal nor the provincial governments should be involved in manufacturing. That is up the the manufacturers to cope. If they cannot, they will be replaced by competitors. Lowering business taxes would be a boost for all businesses and help make them all more competitive. You could lobby the Feds to reduce their business tax faster and to a lower rate. You should do the same. The consumers will also save in the more competitive environment.

Other areas where the feds should be more fair to Ontario is in dealing with the land claims, so we don't have to put up with situations like Caledonia. In the interim, arrest those that break the law. Without the rule of law, government has no purpose. The power is yours to enforce.

The feds have been usurping provincial jurisdiction for a long time. Fight to take it back. That kind of power struggle would likely go over well with the current Conservative government.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury at January 21, 2008 4:37 PM

Here's what I put:

Stop funding things like the CBC, Canada Council, Human Rights Commissions, Status of Women agency, etc. etc. etc. At best, these social engineering projects which attempt to manipulate the beliefs of the people of Canada simply do not work. At worst they represent Orwellian utopianism. Especially HRC. GO EZRA!!

Posted by: Karl at January 21, 2008 5:30 PM

Done. Thanks for the heads-up.

Posted by: gordinkneehill at January 21, 2008 7:51 PM

Should I do this? I'm not Canadian.

Posted by: Dave M at January 21, 2008 9:29 PM

Thank you.

Fantastic. A positive way of adding my voice. This is like doing a poll but the answers are less controlled.

Everyone should do this.

Posted by: Geoff at January 21, 2008 10:27 PM

I put comments on the Ontario site:

2. What can the Ontario government do to continue to foster economic growth and job creation in the province?

A = Enforce the law.

3. Are there any programs or services the provincial government provides that are no longer needed?

A = Human Rights Commissions - ask the people in Caledonia.

Posted by: LEDA at January 21, 2008 11:19 PM

"Really John Murney, care to give us some examples!"

How about the libellous controversy that this blog is now up to its neck in, thanks to Kathy?

Posted by: John Murney at January 23, 2008 1:32 AM

How about the libellous controversy that this blog is now up to its neck in, thanks to Kathy?
===================
How in God's green earth could that be construed as "bigotry"? She was referring to the alleged nepharious behaviour of one man. Buy a dictionary, John. As a former journalist you should really know the meaning of words, vis. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

Careless us of these kinds of words renders them useless in situations where they are truly deserved. Shame on you.

Posted by: Louise at January 23, 2008 9:14 PM

i draw the line on expressing bigotry when it is used to incite hatred against a certain group of people. Otherwise I'm against placing restrictions on freedom of expression and free speech.

Posted by: John Murney at January 25, 2008 3:33 AM
Site
Meter