Were we all spirited away to North Korea or perhaps Cuba in our sleep? How can this be happening in Canada? Secret Trials? No public participation?

We are in for a fight.

...time to slay the dragon.

And our PM and Government sit on their hands and do nothing. What an injustice!!

Who do I complain to?
I tried both the provincial and federal governments and got a 'thank you for your letter... we believe... blah, blah... nothing' from my provincial government and a cone of silence from the federal government. The media (snicker). The only thing I can think of is to get someone to wear a wire for that meeting.

And not a peep from the yappers that dominate the 5:00 pm braaaawwwwdcaaasts on Canadian politics TV!!

Or how about some hard hitting Editorials from the leftist Canadian rags.

Simply because the guy that's being pilloried by HRC may not seem worthy or fit the mould of those deserving protection, in the eyes of the MSM yappers.

"Who do I complain to?"

Mark Lemire. He's the one who wants a closed door meeting.

The mainstream media is complicit in allowing the HRC to go unchecked.

Only when the HRC comes back to bite them in the self-muzzled butt do they start to expose the mismanagement and shenanigans.

Who is paying Warman right now anyway? Taxpayers.

Provide proof of your allegation, Robert McClelland.

Go to Ezra Levant's site
http://ezralevant.com
and read a different outline.

I'd say that the HRC's activities as themselves manipulating speech on blogs and as censoring speech, are becoming public knowledge. They don't want more publicity about these two facts.

Have you got a little more proof there Robert or is this just some more of your drive-by BS?

Too bad, really. March 25 will be my last full day in the country, barring another snowstorm like the one Ottawa is currently trying to dig itself out of. I would have loved the chance to attend.

*
speaking of human rights commissions...

"The Liberal government’s Bill 212 was in response to a complaint launched by the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the extent to which racialized students and students with disabilities were unfairly treated through the zero tolerance approach to student discipline."

well, not to split hairs here... but it was actually
a zero tolerance approach to violence on school
property... and what the hell is a "racialized
student" anyway?

*

We should do as the lefties do and have as many people as possible out front of the kangaroo court building on the 25th screaming our heads off. If the MSM doesnt show the show, especially the cbc, we can use that later to cook there scummy gooses.

neo...simple. A rationalized student is anyone that the PC crowd can use against the horrible whites.

Opppps...meant racialized.

Provide proof of your allegation, Robert McClelland.

Ms. Fournier,

The testimony of the witnesses on March 25th in the above-cited matter
is a continuation from a previous sitting with these witnesses which was
held in camera, pursuant to an order by the presiding Tribunal Member.
Unless the parties indicate that this is no longer required and if the
presiding Tribunal Member agrees, the hearing of the testimony of the
scheduled witnesses will remain closed to the public.

Regards,

Carol Ann Hartung

This is what I love about Robert McClelland and pretty much the whole Lefty Trollosphere in this country. He will have some kind of tortured, circuitous "reasoning" for that statement, which upon examination will add up to: Mark Lemire did NOT request a closed session.

But, he will righteously proclaim this to be true anyway. Furthermore he will call anyone who disagrees, including Mark Lemire, a liar. His statement is true because it would be convenient for his world view if it were true. He'd like it to be true.

And so it must -be- true, and will continue to be true until such time as it is no longer convenient. At which point it will be false, and McClelland will never have said it.

Hence my liberal use of the word RETARD regarding Lefties. Its not an ad-hominem attack, its an observation.

My own view is that any non-military government business that needs to be done in secret is probably something that they shouldn't be doing. Governments and their minions (while on the job, obviously) shouldn't have privacy, that is a right of individuals.

"pursuant to an order by the presiding Tribunal Member."

What does that have to do with Lemire. Last time I checked he wasn't a tribunal member.

Anyway, based on the reading of the website, it seems that audio CD recordings of the session should be available essentially immediately upon completion of the session.

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/noticeENG.htm

It would be essential to get this ASAP, and also confirm that it is not doctored or "edited" in any way. Probably multiple people need to put in request for a copy of the audio CD, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and pressure them into not stalling with release of that information.

Robert McClelland would be funny if he wasn't so very, very pathetic. What a maroon.

FREE @ 12:15:

That's a good suggestion. Another one might be application to a judge in a real court to overrule the tribunal's directive of secrecy. Just because the MSM is too cowardly to do it doesn't mean that someone else with a real interest in the case couldn't.

Evan if Mark Lemire DID request that the 'Tribunal' hold their trial in camera, what's that got to do with anything? The unmentioned third party here is the Public, whose benefit this whole circus is allegedly in aid of!
The fact that these secretive trials are even allowed to exist in a democracy is a huge blot on Canada's reputation. The fact that Canadian politicians don't get it is a huge blot on the Canadian Electorate!
Baaaa.....

Quote: pursuant to an order by the presiding Tribunal Member."

Robert you might want to educate yourself on how the HRC works, Mark is the defendant he doesn't work for the HRC he's being persecuted by them. Also a tribunal member is an employee of the HRC, no where in your post did you prove Mark want's a closed door secret hidy hearing.

Write to the editor of your local paper, make sure you explain why you are writing to inform the public on our lack of legal rights because of Section 13 and it's supporters justify communist doctorine and ideology. Get angry, stay angry and demand that your local paper cover this issue. It's only a secret hearing if we don't speakout, let's start yelling at the media for it's silence.

Infiltrate, record, expose.

A patriot must always be ready to defend his Country against his government. I don't know who said that but are we getting close?

Never trust a government that doesn't trust it's citizens with guns. Thomas Jefferson.

robert McClelland. Please provide proof of your allegation that Mr. Lemire wanted the hearings private. Remember - YOU'VE made this assertion. Prove it.

Your copy (without attribution of its source) says nothing about Mr. Lemire requesting anything. The 'presiding tribunal members' (unnamed and it obviously can't be Lemire)..requested it. And the decision to both remove and retain the private hearings is up to the tribunal membership. Again, not Mr. Lemire.

Therefore, again, please provide proof of your assertion of 11:36am:

"Mark Lemire. He's the one who wants a closed door meeting".

Proof, please.

The HRC poses the greatest threat to intrinsic rights in Canada.

I believe the competency of the overarching tribunal is brought into question by proceeding in camera. The constitutionality of a measure as vague as "competency" needs to be challenged. The onus must be placed on the tribunal to maintain and to prove its competency, which it cannot do if it proceeds in camera. In other words, the implementation of the HRC may be unconstituional, if shown to be incompetent.

Further to my previous comment, one motion taken to HoC, whereas The People Of Canada, through their duly elected representatives, find the HRC incompetent, might very well establish the setting under which the courts must strike down this horrid legislation.

It would just be a finding, a documentation of opinion, voiced by The People. Then let the chips fall where they may.

No fair minded Canadian would ever agree that secret hearings are tolerable. I believe it would be a politically safe way to kick the stool out from under this star-chamber.

The HRC can hide, but they can't hide forever.

tick, tock, there time is up.

They just don't know it yet.

The sooner the better

Connie at March 9, 2008 1:44 PM said all that matters about the one of the biggest maroons who shows up on SDA. 'Robert McClelland would be funny if he wasn't so very, very pathetic. What a maroon.'

Please don't feed the trolls, especially not a maroon like Robert McClelland, who never has any thing intelligent, meaningful, or even reasonable to say. What a maroon!

Look what the leftist mindset has got this country into. Rot, moral and legal rot.

"Look what the leftist mindset has got this country into. Rot, moral and legal rot."

Don't blame the leftists. They just looked after themselves and their own selfish needs, nothing evil or unusual about that.

Right wingers, or at least those who would present themselves as right wingers, who sat on their hands for decades while their rights were systemically deleted, are the ones to blame.

A left winger standing up for his rights is logical and difficult to describe as evil. A right winger who does not stand up for his rights, or the rights of his family and friends, would have a hard time justifying his apathy as either moral or logical.

It's like the biggest cottage industry in Liberal Democracies these days is citizens feigning disbelief over what has happened to their country. The schtick is not credible in the slightest, at least to anyone under 40.

Given the landslide victory of the PCs in the AB election - nothing much is likely to change as regards the AB HRC.

A couple things to watch in the next week/10 days. Who becomes the minister in charge of the AB HRC.

Let's hope that the HRC will at least be moved out from under the ministry of Tourism, Parks, Recreation, & Culture (speaks volumes about its importance).

Does the Calgary Alderman retain her Human Rights appointment after also being the campaign manager for the former AB Justice Minister?

The chief commissioner of the HRC is retiring soon so let's see who, if anybody is appointed.

With the amount of flak the HRC Commission has received from the blogoshpere, hopefully at least some change(s) will be both made and be transparent.

The Edmonton filing against Ezra L. is apparently still in process but let's see if the HRC has the guts to rule on this one in a way that just doesn't bury the issue.

I hope the people protest will be a factor on the March 25 federal hearing.

Who knows - perhaps the Liberals will do another end run with K. Martin's motion as they have done with the RESP private members bill.

terrence, insisting that someone like Robert McLelland provide proof for his spurious allegations isn't 'feeding a troll'.

It's insisting that someone, who makes a declaration which he defines as 'fact', provide proof that it is indeed 'factual' and not both a lie and an act of malice.

So far Rex's show is disappointing.

One of the Osgood Hall students is on now.

She claims Maclean's printed "innacuracies."

"It's insisting that someone, who makes a declaration which he defines as 'fact', provide proof that it is indeed 'factual' and not both a lie and an act of malice."

ET...wish we could expect that of our MP's.

I don’t want t sound like a broken record but...I told you so!

The whole problem is fundamental. The Canadian people constantly and erroneously claim an abridgement of rights and freedoms such as this secret hearing nonsense, where no such rights technically exist.

Canada is a monarchy, plain and simple. In the Canadian realm of law you are merely subjects to the Queens government and not citizen sovereigns. You have no rights to oversight in these matters.

KPD- that's complete nonsense. Our monarchy is representative not absolute.

What we are, is citizens of a political entity, Canada, and are subject to its constitution, charter and rules of law. Period.

Are you seriously doing to suggest that the Queen runs the HRCs?

Now, back out of one Dreamworld and into another Dreamworld...

The HRCs are a postmodernist's idea of reality. The HRCs operate within a postmodernist relativism, where the Author of the Text is totally irrelevant. What the Author meant, what the Author wrote - doesn't matter. What matters is How a Reader FEELS when he 'reads' that Text. His subjective Feeling defines Reality.

There is, in postmodernism, no such thing as objective reality. No such thing as Facts. No such thing as Truth. It may be true that the highest percentage of welfare recipients are immigrants from X-country and Y-ethnicity. Irrelevant. What matters is how those recipients FEEL about these fact being written about them. And if it makes them FEEL 'hated' or 'viewed with contempt', then, you, the Author - are wrong.

Not the facts are wrong. Facts are irrelevant in the HRC World. What is wrong is FEELINGS. Not your feelings; you are the lowly Author. No, the Reader's Feelings are the only ones that matter.

That's cultural relativism; that's postmodernism. That's the HRC World.

I almost agree ET. There is, however, one TRUTH in postmodernism, and that is, all flaws in current society have a Judeo-Christian ancestry. For instance, North America would be a verdant Utopia if not for having been stolen by Europeans. Hence, this evil, dominant culture must be defeated in all ways, at every turn, to both save the planet, and achieve "social justice" (atonement for all the sins in history).

What I find hilarious is that the left constantly whines about how justice is not served in Gitmo, but yet are perfectly happy to let these "Human Rights" Star Chambers operate in a far more closed manner. Can you say "hypocrites", boys and girls? I knew you could.

Now, wait a minute, shaken. At one time, Europe was 'pristine', er..unsettled by any human Footprint. It was Original Man, the Africans who moved out of..Africa...and settled the world. Blame it on Africa.

Yoo hoo, Robert McClelland. I'm still waiting.
You wrote, in answer to 'who wants a closed door HRC meeting':

"Mark Lemire. He's the one who wants a closed door meeting".

When asked (nicely, I might add) to Prove It, you came up with a clip from Carole Ann Hartung(?)

"The testimony of the witnesses on March 25th in the above-cited matter
is a continuation from a previous sitting with these witnesses which was
held in camera, pursuant to an order by the presiding Tribunal Member.
Unless the parties indicate that this is no longer required and if the
presiding Tribunal Member agrees, the hearing of the testimony of the
scheduled witnesses will remain closed to the public."

This clearly states, Robert, that the order was by the Presiding Tribunal Member. I didn't know that Lemire was either the Presiding Member of indeed, even a Member of the Tribunal! Yet, you inform us that Marc Lemire is the one who wants a closed door meeting! Not at the first meeting or at this meeting.

So, Robert, Again. You informed us that Lemire wanted the meeting held in private. Provide proof. And remember...the Presiding Tribunal Member isn't Lemire.
We await your proof.

Most countries recognize Canada's independence date as 1931. It's actually a myth that Canada was founded as a country in 1867.

Canada doesn't have much of a history of free speech, or freedom, or rule of law, for that matter. That's another myth. Don't believe me? Take it up with Bob Tarantino:

"In railing against censorship, we should take care not to falsely simplify the evolution of free expression in this country. Modern pundits tend to cast our history as one in which a tradition of untrammeled free speech has given way to the predations of politically correct thought police. In fact, censorship has long been a feature of the Canadian legal landscape."

www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=272604

The provincial run HRC's and the federal CHRC are part and parcel of the Canadian Government.

AS per Wikipedia..

The Government of Canada, formally Her Majesty's Government in Canada, is the federal government of Canada.

Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, is the sovereign and head of state of Canada, and gives repository of executive power, judicial and legislative power; as expressed in the constitution: "the Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is and be vested in the Queen." However, sovereignty in Canada has never rested solely with the monarch due to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, later inherited by Canada, which established the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, the monarch is still known as the sovereign of Canada.

Though the sovereign or viceroy rarely intervene directly in political affairs, the real powers of the position of the monarch in the Canadian Constitution should not be downplayed. The monarch does retain all power, but it must be used with discretion, lest its use cause a constitutional crisis. Placement of power in the sovereign's hands provides a final check on executive power. If, for instance, she believed a proposed law threatened the freedom or security of her citizens, the Queen could decline Royal Assent. Furthermore, armed removal of her by parliament or government would be difficult, as the monarch remains Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces,[3] who swear an oath of allegiance to her.

ET and others. You live in a country where the highest elected political office is a measly MP, not even as powerful as a U.S. House member! Even at that, any government, official elected or not, and or governmental agency like the CHRC, serve at the pleasure of the Queen and not to the Canadian people as you so emotionally and erroneously state.

Just believing it's so is not enough.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I just received an email from The Public Service Association of Canada.(PSAC)
I have been advised that it is no longer correct to refer to visible minorities as..well.. visible minorities.
Henceforth they are to be referred to as the "Racially Visible". I responded asking if I was included in this description as I am racially visible as well, being a pink male.
To date, there has been no response.

2010 census:

"What is your race?" Ans: "Racially Visible"

Prime Minister: "What is the census tally of Canadians by race Minister?"

Minister: "Haven't a F'N clue. They're all the same."

Racially Visible. This really has to be some kind of a joke.

How wonderful if we have no more "visible minority" label but to replace it with something (another pejorative label) is simply pathetic.

KPD - same to you. Just because you believe the rhetoric that you write doesn't make it valid.

As you copy - the Bill of Rights vests power in the elected Parliament. Not the monarch. So, try again.

The Monarch cannot veto a bill. Oh, rubbish, the elected officials serve at the pleasure of the electorate. The Monarch can't overturn their election. Get with it. You obviously have a 'nasty' against monarchy. Move on, move on and grow up.

Now, why is an MP defined by you as 'measly'? Please clarify. Yes indeed and certainly, we live in a country where no single individual has ultimate power. That includes each and every MP. Measly or not. We prefer it that way.

Hector Mauvaise - are you serious? Racially Visible? What the heck is that? Apart from the biological FACT that there is no such thing as 'race' - what does that mean? Does someone with red hair fit in? After all, that's a genetic characteristic. What about height and body build? I don't believe it....

The CHRC should be scrapped, period.

ET: "I don't believe it...."

You're also on record as saying there is no employment equity in Canada and that Sarkozy is a French surname, so it is doubtful anyone besides your pathetically obvious sock puppets cares what you think.

ET is a left wing academic.

Posted by: fdsfafd at March 9, 2008 3:49 PM

** Don't blame the leftists. They just looked after themselves and their own selfish needs, nothing evil or unusual about that. **Posted by: fdsfafd at March 9, 2008 3:49 PM **
========================== fds

Hey, *False declaration*, How can you say 200 and more Liberal Scams are just **Libs looking after themselves** . . .** nothing evil ** ??

Remove your blinders.. . . break free of Robert McClelland types ..

bendgovernment.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html

or just Goggle * Scamslist* = TG

So ET why was it when my company was screwed by the federal government and we tried to sue we were told, "You can't sue the Crown"?

BTW, you are encouraged to produce a list of 200 Conservative Party scams.

Remember Mulroney accepting 250K of German corporate promo cash to speak for an armoured car plant in Quebec has nothing to do with OUR tax dollars. eh? = TG

Take it easy now ET and don’t bust gasket.

I just don’t want to get too far off topic or Kate will get mad at me. Having said that ET, I don’t per se have a problem with the Queen. I, like her, enjoy the rights of peerage (just like His Lordship Conrad Black) as I am a sovereign also, a citizen sovereign of the USA. I may not also be a Head of State, but I have like her appointed one in our President, and with the Queen in the Governor General.

In a representative democracy power literally and legally flows from God, to the people, and then is lent on a temporary basis to the Government in limited ways.

You on the other hand are the subject and ward of a Queen and you are commanded to serve her. Power flows from God, to the Queen, and then trickles down to her Peers and Nobles. It never reaches the Canadian people at all. The Canadian “citizen” has no constitutional or electoral recourse against the Government.

The Government for lack of a better word is the property of the Queen and by her grace she allows the Canadian people have very limited say-so in the day-to-day operations of government. They (being the indivisible entity of the Queen and the State) are exempt from the Canadian Constitution as it applies only to the governed. That means you.

If you don’t believe me then just ask yourself a simple question. When was the last time a Canadian “citizen” appeared on the ballot for the position of Head of State, Prime Minister, Senator or Premier?

And yes every Bill requires the signature of the GG. And yes the Queen can dissolve parliament any time the feeling hits her thereby negating any election of measly MP’s. And yes the Queen even appoints your Chief Executive (PM) as a matter of courtesy and tradition, in a manner that is not even codified into law.

I, ET wholeheartedly invite and hope with all my heart that you and your Canadian Brethren may too join me and my Peers in this rarified world of self-governance. Be like Leonidus in “300” and refuse to kneel before the Gay King of Serbia Xerxes. Assert your own sovereignty and rightfully claim your estate.

ET said 'insisting that someone like Robert McLelland provide proof for his spurious allegations isn't 'feeding a troll'.'

In fact, ET, ANY response to troll like Robert McLelland is, indeed, feeding a troll. Do you seriously think Robert McLelland drops his crap here to engage in a discussion? He unfailingly makes nothing more than a series of silly statements. If he does ‘address’ another commenter, it is only with the sort of silly comment for which you asked to prove. Do you seriously expect him to provide any proof?

A troll like Robert McLelland does not intend to engage any one; such losers come here to be provocative and to get a response, any response. In effect they say ‘Please respond to me, please, please, please; ANY response will do’.

If you want to encourage trolls, go right ahead. But don’t expect an exchange, let alone an intelligent response to your insistence that he provide proof for his silly assertion. Don’t expect him to be concerned about truth or malice; and don’t hold your breathe waiting for him to provide any proof.

"Don't believe me? Take it up with Bob Tarantino"

Wow, Bob Tarantino! That settles it for me! Seriously, that comment is true if viewed in historical context; I swear every law student in the country writes a paper with that sentiment. But it changes nothing and certainly doesn't justify accepting the past.

"Racially Visble."
That's a horse that wins by 20 lengths!

Why haven't we heard that David Coles, the CBC lawyer who regularly demands public access to just about every legal proceeding that takes place, is planning to file papers demanding such access to the HRC hearing?

loboy, don't be dumb; 'Crown' is a metaphor for the federal government. Ever heard of the term 'metaphor'?

Oh, for heaven's sake, KPD, power doesn't 'flow' in a representative democracy, in a constitutional monarchy. Go read some texts on political theory.

The Canadian govt is exempt from the constitution? Really? Such as? The Canadian govt is ruled by the Constitution.

I think you ought to learn how a parliamentary system works. The leader of a party is not elected in a general election but by the members of the political party. The general election then votes for the party. That's how the parliamentary system works. Since you, in the US, operate differently, why does it bother you? Don't you think it ought to be up to Canadians to decide what type of system they use?

Actually, no, the Queen can't dissolve parliament whenver she feels like it; she has to be asked by the PM or parliament to do so. No, the Queen doesn't appoint the PM; the PM is the elected leader of their party; the people elect a particular party - the party with the most seats gets to form the govt.

I suggest you read the Canadian Constitution. Your last paragraph was a bit too hippie-romantic for me.

terrence - I disagree. An unaccountable and ignorant person like Robert McClelland should be confronted each and every time he posts something ignorant. I certainly agree with not responding to trolls (such as fsdas or whatever he calls himself)...but McClelland's ignorance is deeper than that of a superficial troll.

"...McClelland's ignorance is deeper than that of a superficial troll."

Indeed. That's something to be said for all inbreds.

If Marc Lemire refuses to appear before the HRC Kangaroo Court would it go to a real court?? If so I would be refusing to talk to the HRC clowns.

ET,
The English system is not actually transparent. The Peoples government (Elected to Parliament) is separate from the upper Class (Lords), although laws are meant to be equal, that class has remained & enjoys special economic benefits.

The upper class Peer Group in England has "phenomenal" wealth, as a VP of Chase Manhattan once told me, they make our (US) wealth look like chump change. I am sure that Lord Black’s wealth placed him near the Court Jester.

Major parts of London are SOLD on term contacts for 30 years and then the property is deeded back to the original owner. This insures that each generation gets to resell the same property.

England is still a Class System with great benefits.

Actually, this is an excellent development. It conclusively confirms to the public that the HRC has something to hide. That's the single fact that will be taken away from this. Had the hearing been public, thee would be something for the apologists to obfuscate.

Vis a vis, Carol Ann Hartung's letter: "The testimony of the witnesses on March 25th in the above-cited matter is a continuation from a previous sitting with these witnesses [SO?] which was held in camera, PURSUANT TO AN ORDER BY THE PRESIDING TRIBUNAL MEMBER [my emphasis].

The wording, alone, has bells ringing: ordered by the Presiding Tribunal Member???

By whose authority does this Tribunal Member "order" an in camera meeting? Just because the last meeting was private doesn't mean that this one has to be, does it?

Who's running this show? I'm beginning to feel like a powerless Russian peasant, and can only imagine what Mark Lemire's feelings are right now.

Where's this hearing being held?

In any democratically based system, be it a constitutional monarchy or a republic, power flows from the bottom up, not the top down. Power at the top is titular - nominal only. Most all laws and assignments provide, as they must do, for the delegation of authority to those who can,in fact, wield it.
As an officer of the Crown (oath of allegiance to Her Majesty in Right of Canada, I and my colleagues are the government. Parliament, the Queen, Congress, the President, can only govern at the pleasure of the civil service. If the civil service choses to do other than the direction of the titular heads or the guidance of the statutes, the only remedy at the top, is to play one group of civil servants against another.

The Government, royal or otherwise, is wholly dependent on the assumed adherence to loyalty sworn to by oath. The chasm between the people and the titular heads is sometimes yawning and deep. Its only the thin line of actions provided by the civil service that allows any of it to work at all.

Further to Hartung's note, it takes two to agree to removing the in-camera status:

"...Unless the parties indicate that this is no longer required and if the presiding Tribunal Member agrees..."

In-camera hearings are not uncommon where third party depositions are being given. Often, its to protect the deposer as much as the process. Investigators who work undercover may need their work protected. This isn't necessarily an indictment of the process, but a reflection of the gravity of the work.

Neither is this a defence of the HRCs either, simply a reality of the nature of law enforcment (regardless of the morality of the law). The surest way to crack the HRC would be to go to court for a judicial order opening the doors. However, don't assume that the court will support openness.

Skip, thanks for the clarification.

McClelland supporting the HRC's...

He must be retarded. Is he not the same anti-Semitic leftard who claimed to have spray painted "f*** the Jews" on a building?

Is he so stupid he thinks he couldn't be hauled up in front of the HRC's for that? In fact, the surprising thing (given his feud with Kinsella over it) is that he hasn't been put through the wringer already.

And yet McClelland is foolish enough to support them? Does he think he's immune?

Leftards are 'special'

Just sent an e-mail to my MP:

"Mr Jean:

I've been following the stories re Human Rights Commissions.
They have become an abomination, a black mark on any free society:
Hearsay evidence, charges filed by "agent provocateurs", frivolous charges, with NO COSTS to hte complainant, et cetera.

An upcoming sitting is scheduled March 25 2008, to be held in camera.


"Ms. Fournier,
The testimony of the witnesses on March 25th in the above-cited matter
is a continuation from a previous sitting with these witnesses which was
held in camera, pursuant to an order by the presiding Tribunal Member.
Unless the parties indicate that this is no longer required and if the
presiding Tribunal Member agrees, the hearing of the testimony of the
scheduled witnesses will remain closed to the public.

Regards,
Carol Ann Hartung"


Mr Jean, we don't have secret trials in this country.
Or we SHOULDN'T.
What can you do to ensure public access and disclosure, to what is looking more and more like a kangaroo court, a court that is in fact able to smother Canadians freedoms?"

Time to get these commissions neutered...

Skip re: "In-camera hearings are not uncommon where third party depositions are being given. Often, its to protect the deposer as much as the process. Investigators who work undercover may need their work protected."

To quote King Juan Carlos, "Why don't you just shut up". You do not know what you are talking about. We do not do "depositions" in Canada. In camera court hearings at any time are exceedingly rare in this country and are strongly discouraged by the Courts of Appeal even in criminal matters. Not including informational publication bans, (generally in family or custody matters, to protect children) I doubt there has ever been a true in camera hearing in a civil matter in Ontario. Such orders have been requested but have not been sustained when the media has applied to have the right to attend an open court hearing. Examinations are not public: neither are they court hearings so the concept of 'in camera' does not apply.