It's going to be a watershed moment that literally directs the country into which path it should take. I hope it's the one that insures our free speech and preserves our right to think for ourselves (even if we are sometimes wrong).

In the same issue of the National Post I would draw people's attention to the full page advert, page A7, signed by what looks like 140 or so University of Toronto professors, calling the Israel Apartheid Week a hateful and divisive event and demanding that it be stopped.

Progress.

I read all the stuff in the NP this morning, but was very disappointed that, nowhere, was there any information about Richard Warman posting under pseudonyms at various internet sites and then placing complaints with the CHRC against those sites, using his own, anonymous posts as the basis for his hate speech complaint.

Of course, with Richard Warman, it’s hard to choose what’s the worst breach of justice—fairness, transparency, honesty, good faith, professionalism, courtesy (whoops, I’ve gone too far to expect that!) . . .—but I believe the sabotage of using his own posts to discredit and formally indict certain sites is about the most damning in the arsenal against him.

The Post article seems to go somewhat easy on Mr. Warman: the article seems to underplay his skulduggery and, in a one paragraph list, describes Mr. Warman’s activities like this:

“Besides anonymous lurking [sic: it was entrapment] in chat rooms, frequent complaints to the CHRC [even while he worked there, and his 100% success rate netted him close to $40 000], behind-the scenes help with commission investigations [including at least one investigation that was actually instigated by him: I think that’s considered collusion, a possibly criminal offence], and tips to police [in regard to the aforementioned investigation], this strategy [of “maximum disruption”] has at least once involved recruiting a fellow activist to throw a cream pie at a target [now, doesn’t that sound serious?], David Icke, a British author whom Warman considers an anti-Semite.” (p. A11)

I’m delighted to see the NP reporting on this issue in a very substantial way—front page start and nearly two full pages inside—but am underwhelmed by the soft pedalling re Richard Warman. A full article, detailing his very substantial skulduggery, would really alert the Canadian public about what we’re dealing with here. For context, another full article on the deplorable lack of due process at the HRCs would also be helpful.

Here at SDA, we have a lot of context. The Canadian public—often content with bread and circuses, the kind served up by the Librano$ and MSM—does not.

I hope the NP will continue to expose this travesty. I also hope it will provide some hard hitting context in smaller bites so Canadians might sit up and take notice.

Axis of Shove It: great stuff, very well said! Thanks.

My vote as well for Axis of Shove It!
This is to Richard Warman, his HRC attacks are mainly against conservative and christian's, stick this in your pipe and smoke it...HAPPY EASTER, your turkey is soon to be cooked!

After this case is decided, I think it will be safe to officially declare which side of history Warman, Steacy, Kinsella, and the like are on. I just pray that it we can say they were on the wrong side. If this goes the wrong way, lets hope they will still allow you to leave the country and live somewhere else.

While a reasonable overview, Brean's salacious style mars the article considerably. From his opening reference identifying Lemire's legal team only as defenders of Zundel, and closing with his observation that the buzz from white supremacist groups and "merely conservative journalists" is a juxtapositional slur. It is bizarre that Brean, as a journalist, so clearly misses the point of the up-coming session. Joseph, it is not about white supremacists...

The issue of Warman is more troubling - is it not apparent to Warman and others in the commission, that Warman's own zeal, specifically because of that enthusiasm and the manner in which it is practised, is in and of itself the same violation of human rights they profess to chase?

Warman and HRTs--Canada's very own Fatwahs?

Hi Kate,
Thanks for the Axis of Shove It! Good writing and something that the MSM, in most cases is sadly lacking.

Looks like I've got to get a subscription to McLeans Magazine.

Support your friends, punish your enemies.

Pat

Interesting article though there is a glaring error on the front page. Brean claims that even a senior official at B'nai Brith seems to be onside with those wanting to get rid of Section 13 of the CHRA. In fact David Matas the only b'nai brith person mentioned in the article, acknowledges like Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre that there may be some changes needed but still fully supports the CHRC and anti-hate laws. And ofcourse he must since next to Richrad Warman its B'nai Brith that has launched and supported the most Section 13 complaints under the Human Rights Act.

lots of good updates lately kate!

From the back burner to the front burner and kudos to all who have continued to put the microscope on the CHRC/CHRT via mail/phone calls. The efforts of the National Post & Macleans along with the persistent work of Levant and Steyn have really moved the issues past the tipping point.

After March 26, it would be hard to believe that the rest of the MSM can continue to bury the HRC/HRT issues - federally or provincially.

Good articles, but some problems.

First, the statement that the majority of complainants are "Muslim and progressives' while the respondents are Christians and conservative".

This is flat out wrong. {Apart from the FACT that Liberals/NDP are not 'de facto' 'progressive']. The majority of complainants, particularly as third-partied by Warman, are from the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Yes, the NP goes easy on Warman, ignoring that he has financially benefited from the cases, ignoring that his behind-the-scenes advice to commissioners is actually a violation of 'due process'. [Yes, I know; what due process.]

A key factor to be stressed repeatedly is that Section 13.1 ignores actuality, it ignores real events of 'hatred' or 'contempt' and instead focuses only on the speculative fog of the unknown future, on 'likely to expose. Since the future hasn't happened, any earnest commissioner can 'judge' that someone's statements 'might' just might be 'likely to expose'..etc.

And, hatred and contempt are subjective experiences. What one person ignores, another does not.

We already have specific Hate laws (section 318)of the Criminal Code, but they deal with specific actions. This HRAct rejects actions. It is only focused on possible, speculative non-events in the not-now. No-one should be judged on fictional events. That's what the HRAct does.

Oh - what about the 'common law offense of seditious libel', which is "a matter which is producing or has a tendency to produce feelings of hatred and ill-will between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects". Sounds rather like something the Liberal Party could be charged with.

I still wonder how the HRC is going to slither out of March 25th.

The MSM is giving Warman's axis of weasels a pass, Brean included!

Yes, the NP's up-front, first paragraph identification of the issue as a "white supremacist" one, "backed by the legal team that defended Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel" is disturbing.

This information may be true, but to provide it as the first context of the story is more than disappointing. This issue is not about supporting the freedom of speech of white supremacists: it’s about supporting the freedom of speech of ALL Canadians. I believe a lot of readers may have stopped at the end of paragraph one of this story or, if they did continue, did so under a misapprehension. I’m at a loss to know why the NP framed the story this way. (I see that Ezra Levant now has a post on this article. I’ll check it out after I post this.)

At Ezra Levant's web site, I’ve actually read the whole transcripts he's provided of CHRC hearings, where Marc Lemire’s lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka is prominently featured. I had no idea that she was involved with the Ernst Zundel case—MOOT POINT, even if I did: in Canada, all defendants, whoops, unless they’re before a Canadian HRC, have the right to be represented by counsel. (That the NP would frame Marc Lemire’s lawyer in the way it has is distressing.)

Reading the CHRC transcripts, I was totally impressed by Ms Kulaszka’s intelligence, moderation, and knowledge of the law . . . hmmm, her professionalism, despite the astonishingly unprofessional shenanigans of the CHRC lawyers, who behaved like absolute idiots. (The CHRC witness, Ms Rizk, is, I think, a pawn, but not a very intelligent or reliable one.)

I encourage everyone here to go to Ezra Levant’s web site and read, in their entirety, all the links he provides to CHRC hearings. I thought I had a handle on the utter degradation of these kangaroo courts. Then I read the transcripts: the immaturity and willingness to subvert due process have to be seen (e.g., read) to be believed. I thought I knew how bad the HRCs were: I didn’t. The disdain for truth and due process demonstrated over and over again by the apparently adult CHRC operatives is an absolute disgrace. (Children in kindergarten play centres display infinitely more integrity than these clowns.)

That the NP is making the HRC stain on our body politic big news is good. But, I’d have liked to have seen the issue framed in a more balanced manner. Just imagine how the rest of the MSM is likely to do it. I expect more of the NP than I’ve seen so far.

I posted this on another Blog as a possible scenario for Tuesday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

The National Post is doing more than anyone here would have imagined possible 6 months ago. That's why they (and Macleans) need our thanks and support.

You know... all that stuff about not letting "the perfect" be the enemy of "the good"

I paid for my subscriptions for these publications in the last few months, precisely because they are a mainstream media that is at least capable of listening to the right side. When I ordered the subscriptions I told them exactly why I did it. My NP subscription came on the day of Kate's column, and my Macleans subscription came on the day that I found out they were reported to the HRC.

Every day people bitch about the mainstream media and their Liberal bias. If it wasn't for the CBC and G&M liberal bias, I think we would have had a CPC majority by now, but the sheeple are highly influenced by the media. We can bitch about it, but we can't change that fact. We need a MSM that is on our side!

We now have some media that are not Liberal biased - support them! Buy them. Leave them lying around in waiting rooms and subways to read, give them as gifts, etc etc.

We can continue the campaign of education and investigation from the blogosphere. Over a period of months and years we might be able to make the Canadian media a teeny bit less liberal biased. We can make it more respectable for a journalist to publish right-of-centre opinions. We can gradually change public discourse. But it will take years, decades of constant and careful pressure from many different sources. And every bit of bickering and stupid ranting that we do only enables the enemies of real freedom.

Torquemada Warman at work at the Kangaroo Court, aka Inquisition: $15,000 + = "pain and suffering".
...-

"APPEARANCES:

Richard Warman On his own behalf

Pam MacEachern For the Canadian Human Rights Commission"

[FRED KYBURZ: no APPEARANCE/representation]

"Mr. Warman signed up to join the web forum, using a false name, and, as a result, was able to access the information posted there."

"ii) Mr. Kyburz shall pay to Mr. Warman the sum of $15,000 for Mr. Warman's pain and suffering;"

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne
BETWEEN:
RICHARD WARMAN
Complainant
- and -
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Commission
- and -
FRED KYBURZ

I. INTRODUCTION

"[1] Richard Warman is a lawyer in Ottawa. On February 2, 2002, Mr. Warman filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against Fred Kyburz. Mr. Warman's complaint alleged that Mr. Kyburz communicated messages through his Internet web site, messages which expose identifiable groups to hatred or contempt, in violation of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Mr. Warman's complaint was subsequently amended, with leave of the Tribunal, to include the allegation that Mr. Kyburz retaliated against Mr. Warman for having filed his human rights complaint, contrary to section 14.1 of the Act. This retaliation is alleged to have occurred through the use of Mr. Kyburz' e-mail account and web forum."

"iii) Mr. Kyburz shall pay to Mr. Warman the sum of $15,000 as special compensation, pursuant to subsection 54(1)(b) of the Act;

iv) Interest shall be paid on the monies awarded to Mr. Warman as special compensation, in accordance with Rule 9(12) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure. Interest will start to run from the date of this decision to the date of payment. In no case, however, should the total amount payable on account of special compensation, including interest, exceed $20,000; and"
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=453&lg=_e&isruling

Lori says, "And every bit of bickering and stupid ranting that we do only enables the enemies of real freedom." Translation, please.

BTW, I'm a NP subscriber from day one and have got my special-ex-Western-Standard (from day one) subscription to Macleans.

I wouldn't expect too much, except maybe for one gigantic ass covering procedural merry go round. I have no doubt the tribunal will live up to my definition of a liberal, a finger pointing excuse.

Good news, but mixed feelings. Really, really too bad it's Lemire at the storm, er, forefront. The optics are poor. Lucy, after all, albeit a little too enthusiastically perhaps, was fighting for a noble cause, and all that.

As others have pointed out, the very first paragraph of the "conservative" NP piece engages in the "juxtapositional smear" (great phrase, Skip). White supremacists, Zundel defenders. Depressing.

I lack confidence that this counry can sustain a robust debate on the merit of a principle rather than the demerits of the principal player.

Lori says, "And every bit of bickering and stupid ranting that we do only enables the enemies of real freedom." Translation, please.

BTW, I'm a NP subscriber from day one and have got my special-ex-Western-Standard (from day one) subscription to Macleans.

__________________________________

Well, nothing stands a out right this instant. It's been a really couple of weeks of good news all around.

But my point is that postings on this and other right wings sites are watched by two groups that do not participate in the discussions.

One group is those who want to bring down SDA and like sites, demonizing us as haters, racists, etc.They freely use quotes out of context and repeat them endlessly in the attempt to make the stick and tar Conservative bloggers. We know who they are and have seen them use these tactics against SDA and other side. As we approach what could be a very successful outcome against the HRCs, we do not want to give any more ammunition to those who would paint the HRC opponents as racists or haters. So far we have been very clear that this is a fight for free speech. We need to keep it that way.

The other group I'm thinking of are mainstream conservatives who come here to get informed, to put their pulse on the conservative heartbeat, but for whatever reason do not post. Still, when we engage in civil and educated (and educational) debate we draw them in to our way of thinking. When we get a bit heated under the collar (I recall, for example a very uncivil discussion relating to abortion a few weeks ago) they are repelled. As more attention is drawn to the HRC issue there will be more "mainstream" conservatives looking at SDA and like sites. They need to be presented with reasoned discussion and civil discourse if we want to draw them in.

Important as the HRC situiation is, it should be just a springboard to further discussino of issues in CAnada that until now were "off topic" in polite circles, but increasing are being questions. Multiculturalism, the role of the CBC, immigration/refugee policy.

My point is that we are the sharp tip of a long sword that has broken the skin of a very fat enemy that has been living of our land. We must remain sharp, and pierce deep, and see what other puss oozes out of the wound we create.

'Splain Lucy, 'splain!

Me No Dhimmi said: "I lack confidence that this counry can sustain a robust debate on the merit of a principle rather than the demerits of the principal player."

Normally I would dismiss your comment as cynical, but I am afraid you are absolutely right. This entire CHRC process is an example of how immature our democracy is in this country and how we allow the government to perpetuate the notion that we cannot think for ourselves. It's our lack of involvement in the political process and political astuteness, and our reluctance to debate that brought us to this point. If this goes badly then we have ourselves to blame.

I just want to point out that we have the right to be wrong in our opinions and it's the "velvet totalitarianism" which we should fear, not our thoughts.

I agree with you, MND, which is why I don't believe the NP deserves kudos, hands down.

With the vast majority of the MSM and the left—virtually all of our institutions in this country—against the rule of law, I had hoped that the NP would have played this story, about restoring some law and order, differently. Yes, the players are perhaps unsavoury—hey, on BOTH sides, though, in the MSM, the HRCs get a free pass—but the principle is pretty clear.

Unfortunately, Canadians, generally, seem to have a problem with matters of principle. Add some smoke and mirrors—like Brean seems to have done today, up front—and most Canadians are sitting ducks for the propaganda.

Pity. And, re the NP, how very disappointing.

Meanwhile, Ezra seems OK with the article. So, let’s wait and see.

The next time I get another "can we count on your support?" call from the CPC, the answer will be "not until you get rid of the HRC's."

I canceled my subscription to the Post a long time ago.It was about the time when the post thought us subscribers would like to read Sheila Copps opinions.Couple that with Kinsella's musings and I think I made the right choice.

*
"MM says... The next time I get another "can we count on your support?"
call from the CPC, the answer will be "not until you get rid of the HRC's.""

can you imagine if people actually started standing up for what they believed?

that's a place i wanna live.

*

The Post is trying to redeem itself. Do not prematurely abandon the National Post.

The Saturday Issue is worth buying. Did you see the *Bomb on Turban* cartoon?

There are a whole raft of reasons to make this issue a keepsake. = TG

st. i agree.

The problem with the HRCs is multiple.

First, There's the violation of due process, where the complainant is provided a lawyer by the Commission, while the respondent, who may be equally unable to afford one, is not given equal legal support.

Second, But above all, there is decision-making based on non-events. Based on what hasn't happened. Based on pure supposition that such-and-such 'might happen' in the future.

What nation sets up a legal system that considers events that haven't happened, and hands out judgments against people about events that haven't happened? Only in Canada, you say?

Third, And furthermore, what 'might happen' is a purely subjective emotion. Not an actual observable event that would be valid for a number of people. It's purely subjective.

What nation sets up a legal system that is focused purely on individual subjective emotions - feelings that can't be replicated in others, feelings that one can't even confirm or prove are due to the Original Words or Speech? Canada?

Can you charge someone for writing some opinion that can't actually be proven to have any result, but that a third person, the HRCommission and the complainant, assert might make someone feel exposed to hatred and contempt - if, if, that someone read that opinion? There's no proof of such a result.

Fourth, What if X-person is actually viewed with contempt? How do you know that it's due to that article? Couldn't it be due to their own contemptible behaviour?

Fifth, Can you charge Mike Duffy for expressing an opinion that Stephane Dion's inability to pick good candidates might expose him to 'hatred and contempt'? No? Why not?

Ahh, there's yet another problem. Apart from the above four problems. The only people who can act as complainants within the HRAct, are 'minority groups', such as those defined by religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. If you are Stephane Dion, you aren't protected against internet hateful comments.

And, of course, there's a sixth problem. The HRAct section 13.1 violates the Charter, that document beloved of Liberals. It violates our fundamental right to freedom of speech. That right, as fundamental, is superior to our non-right not to be offended.

So - whither the HRCs?

Lori...I'm from the "other" group and I think you are a voice of reason. Here's to you.

It was good that the NP published the article, even though it was way too careful in its tone. I continue to be worried that the commission will pull some last minute legal shenanigans and try to appeal Hadjis' ruling to federal or supreme court and apply to have the hearing stayed.

The out come of Tuesday's media scrum on the CHRC abuses allegations will basically be the spark that determines whether we live in a free nation or not....it's of no less importance....and where are the usual suspects from CBC and CTV on this story?

By the way, lori, in addition to the topics you mentioned that we should be exploring in Canada, which include multiculturalism, the role of the CBC, immigration/refugee policy - all of which need to be opened and cleaned up - I'd add:

Bilingualism. Now, there's a really disastrous policy.

Our political structure which rests on unvetted appointments rather than elections or vettings, eg the Senate, judges, etc.

Our lack of legal statutes dealing with the right to private property;

Our refusal to develop an investor class, ie, to move institutions out of relying on the public purse, and enable private investment, and private foundations. I'm sure there's lots more!

"Fifth, Can you charge Mike Duffy for expressing an opinion that Stephane Dion's inability to pick good candidates might expose him to 'hatred and contempt'? No? Why not?"

Good point. Further, at what point is any negative comment about anything or anyone to be deemed hateful? And is hateful truly harmful?

Where is the line?

I suggest there be no line on speech save for incitement to violent actions.

Frank Zappa said it best. "There is no sound you can make with your mouth (keyboard) that can send you to hell."

I interpret that as meaning you can say whatever you want. It's actions that should be considered, not mere 'street talk'.

If Worman and his ilk are dragged over the coals for their nonsense it should prevent these brown-shirts from harassing the public for having an opinion. When opinions are forbidden we are no better than slaves of the state.

Gus
I agree. I thought the Post article was little cautious. But I won't abandon it just yet as I have my local Liberal rag.
What I fear is that the MSM will attend the HRC hearing, squeeze out the objective bloggers, because "We're the Mainstream Media" we deserve to be here. Then after they've taken up all the seats, go to press with their usual, sickening spin.

Wouldn't it wonderful if the searing heat of public scrutiny were sufficient to inspire members of the HRC to resign? And then nobody joined up. Evaporation. A clean solution.

shaken - remember, these are members of the civil service. They have only one interest - their salaries, their benefits, their pensions. They won't resign until and unless they are offered an equal-or-better government position.

Incitement to violent actions? Why, Richard Warman was video-taped encouraging several young men to 'pie-in-the-face' David Icke (sp?) at a bookstore.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code is quite specific. It refers to actions, i.e, a 'breach of the peace' (that pie?) against an identifiable group. Actions against individuals are equally criminal. But, if we are referring to groups, then, Section 319 is the rule. Why do we have the HRAct, Section 13? It doesn't refer to actions. It refers to feelings. Feelings of 'being hated' or 'viewed with contempt'.

Again, what possible empirical proof can ever be found that can link X-statement to A-Person's emotional feeling that he is hated? What if he feels that someone hates him..because he's a bully; not because he's Y-religion, or Z-ethnicity. Just because he is, who is is. Because of his personality and behaviour.

How can the HRC demonstrate that they have the methodological capacity to separate multiple causes from multiple effects?

Say what you you wish about the NP article.
Remember, in Hollywierd there's a saying that
ther's no such thing as bad publicity.
I think Bream took the high road on this. He couldn't talk about Warman and his alleged noms-de-plume because it could be used by Warman to throw a curve into the hearings.
I will give him a free pass on this one.Give him a break, he did bring it to the attention in a national newspaper. That's more than I can say about the other ones.
Let's wait and see how this all plays out before throwing brickbats at all and sundry.

Mark Steyn will be there! If I were the HRC folks, I'd be very nervous.

As far as I know, on March 25th, it's Marc Lemire and his lawyer cross examining the HRC about their dubious, possibly criminal, modus operandi, not the other way around.

Yes, the MSM will play up the white supremacist angle, but the main story is that the CHRC’s in the dock. Perhaps the National Post will keep that in mind.

(This is Holy Saturday and we find ourselves where humankind, whose nature, despite what the utopians think, never changes. And where is that? With Truth and Love in a tomb, killed by our naked ambition and cruelty. And then, there’s Easter because, in the end, Truth and Love are stronger than death. Alleluia!

To its credit, the NP also has an article about this today by the very fine Ian Hunter.)

This matter did play a big part in my recent decision to buy a Macleans subscription, what the heck, I had them toss in a Chatelaine subscription while I was at it.

I think the very fact that the NP is running this story speaks, in no small part, to the power of the blogosphere. Equally, and without any clear evidence to back this up, I feel that MacLeans' willingness to stand up to these thugs at the HRC comes in some part from knowing that they are not alone in their sentiments, thanks again, in part, to the blogs. Ezra's publication of his inquisition on You-tube was brilliant. It gave the story of this travesty of justice a momentum and traction it could never have gotten a mere ten years ago. In short, this whole story is a story of a true democratization of information. Sure, the NP put some spin on the story. But like salmon getting reeled into the boat, the MSM are finding it increasingly difficult to turn a blind eye to the new media, and fight as they might, we're landing them, flopping and fighting until the knock on the head that turns them into our lunch -- viz Dan Rather. We're the longbow of the mediaeval battlefield. The knights of the elite can glitter and dazzle, but our arrows are piercing their armour.

Hector M. wrote, "He [Brean] couldn't talk about Warman and his alleged noms-de-plume because it could be used by Warman to throw a curve into the hearings."

Under oath, Warman has already conceded this fact, so I don't know to what you're referring here. Perhaps you could elaborate.

As I said, I've been an NP subscriber since day one. It's head and shoulders above most of the MSM. That's why this article today—better than no article—was disappointing: knowing what I do from SDA and Ezra Levant, I believe that stressing the white supremacist angle, which is secondary to the matter in question—the dubious to possibly criminal actions of the CHRC—diminishes how serious this issue to ALL Canadians. For those who want to discredit and/or downplay the seriousness of Tuesday’s proceedings, Brean’s emphasis on a sideshow, which I’d altogether expect from CBC, CTV, or the Globe and Mail, provides an easy out re considering the crux of the matter.

As I’ve said, perhaps the NP will do better on Tuesday.

Quite apart from the fact that it's the Feast of the Annunciation, I consider Tuesday to be a Red Letter Day. I'm anticipating it gladly!

P.S. ET, good to hear from you on this. I agree 100%.

John West,another great Zappa line from the song "I am the slime","you will do as you are told ,until the rights to you are sold". We are treated as pawns by the people in 'power',this is how you should think,act,and speak. Kudos to the 'uppity' that may bring down the politically correct pedestal an inch or two on Tuesday.

Well, shaken, if I recall correctly the HRC flunky who ran Ezra Levant's interrogation did subsequently resign, so it's a start.

On another note, it looks like there could be the makings of another "poll gone horribly wrong" at the G&M website. The question is "Should Omar Khadr be tried in Canada as a youth?" Currently, it as 80% no and 20% yes.

Dont get your hopes up.....I suspect that there will be much procedural wrangling if not subtrefuge.

Expect litte

"Well, shaken, if I recall correctly the HRC flunky who ran Ezra Levant's interrogation did subsequently resign, so it's a start."

Is that true?! Was there a news item or a link somewhere? Did she give any reason publicly?
(so many questions, so little time...)

DrD, I altogether agree that this story has some MSM legs because of the blogosphere. However, re Macleans, it's more than that: 1) Macleans is a defendant in a CHRC case and 2) Kenneth Whyte, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief is one of Ted Byfield's "boys". (In a way, so is Mark Steyn as well.)

Ted is a Canadian original and hero of mine. He started The Alberta Report, the precursor to The Western Standard. He (and his savvy wife, Virginia, and their son, Link) has always been an iconoclast and has fought the l(L)iberal establishment in this country tooth and nail for decades. Kenneth Whyte and Ezra Levant are his media progeny. (Mark Steyn too.) That being the case, it’s unthinkable that they’d cave to pomposity and lies. Kenneth Whyte, Mark Steyn, and Ezra Levant are doing what they saw Ted do, with courage and panache, over and over: telling the Emperor he has no clothes.

(Incidentally, IMO, though he doesn’t have a swelled head, Ted’s been just about 100% right—no pun intended, though it’s right on—about every major political and social trend in this country. In the words of Sir Thomas More’s daughter, Margaret, in “A Man for All Seasons”, if this country were “half good”, Ted would have been the recipient of the Order of Canada many times over. As it is, I’d say he’s far too good for it.)

The blogosphere is the David to the Establishment’s Goliath. The Establishment mocks us and thinks they’re in charge. With people like Ted, Ken, Mark, and Ezra around, I think they’re in for a surprise or two.

Ed Minchau/DaninVan:

I think Shirlene McGovern resigned from Ezra's case but not from her job with the AHRC.

Lori:

Thanks for your comments regarding the tone of the discussion. I have long felt that the cause of the right can be presented much more clearly and by using reasoned words than can that of the left. There is no need for expressions of anger when Canadians are starting to wake up to this very large issue.

right, Shirlene McGovern resigned from Ezra's CASE. Not from the AHRC. Remember, she needs her salary and benefits and pension and...

She resigned because she didn't like the publicity. After all, she was part of Ezra's video

I'd like to add Kate to my 6:33 p.m. list.

With Canadians like these "standing on guard" for us, things could be far worse!

Good points lookout. Seems the CHRC thought they were poking a gopher and have just discovered they've poked the tail of the head of a pride of lions.

I didn't like the direction of the article, but to those who read the whole thing, the glaring problems posed by HRC's should be self-evident.

Given that HRC's are using illegal tactics in dealing with people they don't like, what are the chances that they give a fair hearing to people who are accused of employment/housing discrimination. I suspect that HRC's are completely rotten and that the only way to deal with the problem is to completely disband them. It will be interesting to see if the NP article gets people who have been brought up before the HRC for non-political "crimes" start speaking out now.

Brent Weston said

" I have long felt that the cause of the right can be presented much more clearly and by using reasoned words than can that of the left. There is no need for expressions of anger when Canadians are starting to wake up to this very large issue."

I second that. Very socially thoughtful and quite politically prudent.

Not to mention just plain truthful!

Well, finally got enough time to read the whole NP piece. I found it to be seriously short of satisfying. For one thing, Warman was soft-soaped. Brean simply neglected to point out Warman's scandalous personal profit angle made even more scandalous by his having been a former employee of the HRC. And note the reference to how heart-broken Warman would be if the "baby gets tossed out with the bathwater"?

And what's with the Mercer reference to Levant as one of the most annoying people on the planet. And why refer to Levant as a gadfly? That's a bit demeaning, eh?

We've talked about this columnist before, what? He's an a**hole, or perhaps, using penny's immortal phrase, a "young person". He doesn't get it. He's doing copy to a deadline.

An odd piece: sorta sounded like, "well, this is 'conservative" paper' so I have to say to at least hint at the basic principle of free speech but, er, I'll try to balance that out as much as possible with lotsa nuance ... unlike that loud and obnoxious Jew-boy; but ya know, maybe he's not all that bad, after all Mercer is a "good friend".

Two things:

1) What's the concern on this thread with a lack of courtesy or reasoned argument? I don't detect a problem.

2) I'm really concerned about the possibility that the CHRC babies might actually sabotage the hearing on March 25th. I've reread Ezra Levant's March 20th post—below—and it seems that the most blatant grandstanding and snivelling on the part of CHRC lawyers has been allowed.

Read the incredibly ridiculous excuses of the CHRC lawyer, Vigna, which were accepted by the Chairman of the Tribunal, who allowed the Lemire hearing, in May, to be stopped.

For the CHRC lawyer and Chair of the Tribunal, the adjournment was all in a day’s work, for which they’d be paid—by you and me, dear taxpayer. The expenses of Lemire, who was using his vacation time, and his legal team, all from out of town, were being borne by Lemire.

(I have NO sympathy for the views of white supremacists, but I do have a lot of sympathy for a fellow citizen whose rights to due process are being trampled upon. An interesting double standard: the most egregious ACTIONS on the part of certain minorities are excused, while the WORDS of a person like Lemire are actionable. Oh, Canada.)

When you read Vigna's juvenile excuses, just think: would YOU be relieved of your professional resposibilities if you tried on such a ridiculous, time and cost consuming excuse?

Below the line, minus quotation marks, is part of Ezra Levant's post on March 20th, "Even the human rights tribunal is sick of the human rights commission".

Cast of Characters:

MR. VIGNA: CHRC lawyer

THE CHRT CHAIRPERSON: Athanasios Hadjis

MS. KULASZKA: Marc Lemire's lawyer

MR. CHRISTIE: lawyer and intervenor (I
believe) on Lemire's behalf
______________________________

There has always been a quiet compact between the CHRCommission (the kangaroo investigators and prosecutors) and the CHRTribunal (the kangaroo judges and court apparatus): each would pretend that they were operating as parts of a legitimate legal system, even if there was a nod and a wink between them as they ground out a 100% conviction rate by systematically violating norms of natural justice. But the CHRC broke that deal -- when Marc Lemire started using the Tribunal's rules against the CHRC, the CHRC started treating Hadjis and the CHRTribunal with contempt, making absurd objections and doing whatever else it took to avoid Hadjis's authority.

But the fear of the Federal Court has caused the CHRC to drop its absurd national security objections; and so now they're back before Hadjis. Fool me once, the saying goes, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Hadjis read the embarrassing whine that that CHRC filed as a legal "argument" for keeping out the press again, and smacked it down hard -- essentially calling the CHRC liars. Tuesday's going to be interesting.
Or will it?

The CHRC's section 37 national security objection is gone. And the Tribunal's secret trial provision is gone. Does this mean that we really will get to hear about the inner workings of the CHRC? Maybe. But the CHRC still has a few tricks up its sleeve yet.

Do you think a rogue, secretive, abusive organization that regularly defies the rule of law -- hell, forget those abstract principles; how about the embarrassing political optics of an "anti-hate" agency that admits to posting hateful messages on the Internet itself -- would really go willingly into Tuesday's hearing, with the national press assembled there to record their every misdeed and malefaction?

The CHRC already tried the "but they're angry at us" argument. I think it's just as likely that we'll get the "I'm not serene" objection next.

What's that? The CHRC tried it last year, and it worked. Look at this bizarre exchange last May (at page 4867 of this transcript). It literally goes on for 20 excruciating pages of stenography.

Giacomo Vigna was the CHRC's lawyer, and the way he ground the hearing to a halt reminds me of a student pulling the fire alarm to get out of writing an exam. Here are just a few excerpts. You really must read the whole thing. Do it for the laughs alone -- it's really better than reading fiction. If this were a TV courtroom show, audiences just wouldn't buy it -- it's a farce, not a drama:

MR. VIGNA: Sorry. Mr. Chair, I don't have the flu but I don't feel in a serene state of mind to proceed with the file today. I don't feel very well. I feel dizzy, I feel anxiety, and I am not in a serene state of mind to proceed with this file today.

I have a lot of things worrying me right now and I don't want to elaborate, but my colleague said, Mr. Fine, there are some certain incidents that have occurred which I don't feel at liberty to elaborate right now, which have had an impact on my ability to proceed in a professional way on this file, at least for today, because I wouldn't be rendering the Commission a just service by proceeding in this condition.

I am not dying, Mr. Chair, I don't have the flu, but I am not mentally capable of proceeding under these circumstances.

THE CHAIRPERSON: But the witness is here?

MR. VIGNA: The witness is here. It's not the question of the witness. The witness is here. I thought until this morning that I would proceed, but I really don't feel primarily mentally able to proceed, and physically too.

MS. KULASZKA: I am very concerned about this very hush hush allegation that some sort of breach of security has happened. The only people who have been here for the last two days are us, either counsel or a representative of the party. No one else has been here in this room. I know of no incident outside that's happened....

MR. CHRISTIE: I have heard two explanations which are as frivolous as any I have ever heard in justifying an adjournment of a whole proceeding… To say I am not feeling well, but sit here and talk about it, is inconsistent. There is no medical certificate, and I heard very faintly Mr. Vigna say I'm not physically sick, I don't have a serene state of mind. Very few of us in the difficulties we face always have a serene state of mind. I don't know what that means.
This is not a case of a nervous breakdown or a mental state justifying a psychiatric examination. I am certain of that. To say I don't feel like doing it today is insulting...

MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, I will provide a medical certificate.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down, Mr. Vigna.

MR. VIGNA: I feel insulted by that comment.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down.

Now that kind of acting, that plain old brazening it out, that looking someone right in the eye and fibbing, that fantasism, takes a lot of chutzpah. But Vigna did it without blushing. Vigna's gone --perhaps like Ms. Rizk he went on stress leave.

Do you think the CHRC's new lawyers have the gall to try a gambit like that on Tuesday with the press there? It's a tough call: face national execration and ridicule for pulling a transparent stunt like that; or face national execration and ridicule for the abusive way the CHRC conducts its thought crimes investigations. That's called a lose-lose proposition.

I'd say there's a 50/50 chance the CHRC's lawyers or staff will pull a Vigna vignette and claim they've lost their "serenity" and scupper the hearing -- or pull the fire alarm, or do some other childish stunt of the same calibre as their childish Internet costume parties where they dress up as bigots, but then later say they didn't mean it.

A Vigna vignette would be humiliating and cowardly -- but a humiliated coward survives. I don't think the CHRC can politically survive the full disclosure of their dirty tactics.

Read the transcript, and tell me what you think is going to happen on Tuesday.

____________

lookout again. Until rereading this, I'd have said there's no way the CHRC can wiggle out of the indictments against it. In "real life", people are not allowed to use the weasel tricks it seems the CHRC lawyers are allowed.

If any person out there with legal training or insight into this strange phenomenon, of a paid professional being allowed to behave like a toddler and be excused from his/her obligations on a whim, I'd be very interested in your input.

This whole think of the CHRC is crap. If any one has a problem with what some one says it should go be for the courts, not some some brain dead government body staffed by their people. 1984 is coming to pass with people that even agree, that we should have a commission. It's no more than a court of thought crimes. Power does corrupt as we can see. Give powers like that to a group of government people and you have problems. Nothing can fix it except cancel it. Leave it to the judicial system where it belongs period.

MND, my sentiments, exactly, expressed a few hours ago.

lookout

"What's the concern on this thread with a lack of courtesy or reasoned argument? I don't detect a problem."

Exactly! Re-read Brent Weston's observation.

The courtesy here UNDERLINES the Rights' political views whereas the Left tends to UNDERMINE political courtesy and fairplay by supporting star chambers like the HRCs.

Now, I'm sure some yahoo will from the left will come along and point to some yahoo from the right. However, the right yahoo won't call for retribution and government censorship or prohibitions whereas the left yahoo will..

Well, that's why we have this thread, isn't it? Canadians have finally begun to recognize which yahoo is the greater threat.

h2o-plus, I copy that!

I have been gleefully watching this entire mess unfold on the CHRC.

They made a sh*t decision in 1990 against a young CF Private.

Their arrogance is coming around to bite them in the ass.

It was just a matter of time that they would exceed themselves with someone who'd take them out behind the woodshed.

Re all of this: Mark Steyn's latest post and his links to Deborah Gyapong, a Canadian journalist, are must reads.

It would be interesting to get a real Judges & lawyers opinions. On why this anti social psudo-legal group has been allowed to exist? Why has not the real justice establishment not spoken up about this abuse?

dfasdfa exaggerates but he/she certainly has a point.

Canadians seem to have been sleepwalking for some decades. There are many reasons for this: loss of faith in God and in ourselves as a people whose Judeo-Christian, British common law culture is valuable; the subsequent lack of discernment as we accept and follow more and more the false gods of materialism and relativism; the subsequent clouding of our minds and our willingness to be hoodwinked by propaganda, e.g., Trudeau tells us we’re getting a Charter of “Rights and Freedoms” and—“My those words sound nice!”—we believe him. (Someone has called it the Charter of “Fights and Fiefdoms”, which is a much better description.)

The vaguely worded Charter, which has actually divided us as a people, who squabble for their share of the “rights”, has been used to hollow out our democracy: appointed, activist judges have used the Charter to end run Parliament and rule from the bench, by, at their usually left-wing, ideological whim, “reading in” or “reading out” “rights” they want to add or which they don’t like. To expect that these people, who are all too willing to abuse due process themselves by using the Charter to impose their own ideas about what society should be like, to “rescue” us is hardly realistic.

Then we have our politicians, who are either left-wing ideologues themselves—the four opposition parties come to mind—or, even if they are conservative, with a majority, are too afraid to use Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause (NWC) of the Charter to rein in the heavy handed, often left-wing judges with a “progressive” agenda. Part of the reason for all of this is the duplicitous MSM, which regularly lies to the people of Canada, e.g., the MSM frame the NWC as undemocratic and an abuse of government’s power. Nothing could be further from the truth: the NWC is PART of the Charter and restores democracy by returning power to our elected representatives. (Our judges are all appointed—most by the Liberals).

Then that gets us to the people themselves, who have basically sat back and allowed this undemocratic and radical restructuring of our society to happen. (Ideological, unelected judges actually MAKE law in this country: think how our social norms have been drastically altered by our judges, not Parliament, in the last few decades). Part of the problem is our appalling public school system, hijacked also by a left-wing, revisionist agenda. History is mainly propaganda about how horrible the West is: the false ideology of victimhood is promoted big time. The Charter is taught as a societal good, period.

Canadians have been brainwashed and, because they no longer know who they are—“You-are-what-the-“progressive”-state/MSM-say-you-are”—they no longer have the strength of their convictions. (Most SDA types are different.) So, when the Liberals, whose main agenda is getting and keeping power, decided to “protect our rights” by the establishment of “Human Rights” Commissions, Canadians again fell for the lie: “human” and “rights” are such nice words: let’s go for it! Then, of course, Canadians went back to their own lives and allowed the “experts” to wreak havoc. And here’s the MSM again: they LIKE the havoc and so have either deep sixed the story—e.g., the March 25th hearing—or spun it as good for Canada: hmmm . . . isn’t it good that Canadians’ basic freedoms to the rule of law and due process are being trampled in these kangaroo courts?

This is a democracy. Like freedom, it’s not free. Constant vigilance is needed. In this country, the Establishment is staunchly collectivist and materialist. Virtually all of our institutions, public and private (all kinds of churches, the “Y”, etc.) promote the left-wing ideology and agenda. Follow the money. The Human Rights (sic) Industry uses up vast amounts of resources, and, the more “rights” they can discover, the more cases they’ll have, and the more jobs and resources they’ll need. Like so many of the government programs in this country, it’s a sham and a scam. But, most Canadians live their “I’m OK; you must be OK (let’s not be judgemental)” lives, with no clue about what’s really going on. Canadians don’t like “not nice”.

That’s too bad because “not nice” in many guises, one being the corrupt Human Rights (sic) Commissions is curled up, like a poisonous snake, and living amongst us. Until—and if: it may be too late—Canadians stop being hypnotized by the propaganda of the Powers that Be, ably aided and abetted by the corrupt and self-serving MSM, we’re sitting ducks for the Orwellian society we’re fast becoming.

Today is Easter, the return to Life of the Truth that I believe sustains us all. There is hope, true hope, if only we are able to see it amidst the smoke and mirrors of our kaleidoscope, bread and circuses world. I’m now going to quote Jesus: let’s stop to consider that under the human rights (sic) rubrics of this country, my right to do this in a public place is severely restricted. I might “offend” someone. Remember, too, that in our courts, when Charter rights have been in competition, religious “rights”—no, the “rights” of orthodox Christians—have been trumped every time. Kyrie eleison.

Jesus said, “In this world you will have tribulation. Be of good cheer. I have overcome the world.” Amen. Alleuia!

Make that "Alleluia!"

You have said it all lookout and you have said it well!! Every Canadian in this country should be forced to listin to someone read your post to them.

Would you mind if I copied it and sent it to all the people on my e-mail list?

THANK_YOU. God Bless You.

Thank YOU, Jema.

Please feel free to send the post to whomever you wish—with my blessings. (But, if you leave in the last two paragraphs, please copy them into "Word" first and correct the spelling of "Alleluia"!!)

God bless you and your loved ones this holy season.

Thank -you lookout - it is going to the presses as soon as I finish posting this note of appreciation.

Jema54, you're welcome!