Thanks for that Kevin,

Were any real MSM types attending?

CBC, CTV, Global, Red Star, Toronto Sun, Globe & Mail?

Just wondering - again.

Thanks again Jaeger!

So the CHRC calls in the police to do the heavy duty investigating, don't come up with anything to take to court and so settle on "Gestapo/KGB lite" with the CHRC, when the police file contents are 'shared' with the CHRC.

Quite the scam to make sure the populace at large doesn't stray from LIEberally orthodox 'approved speech.'

And my relatives in East Germany said: 'The walls have ears'.

Same schtick, different century.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Star chamber, my ass! Read Dawg's blog on this non event. It's wonderful. This so-called war for and against free speech is a creation of, by and for the blogosphere. Boooooring!

Kevin, I'm expanding this post to full front page, just so you know.

[quote]there is no formal or informal agreement between CHRC and police forces on section 13 hate complaints”.[/quote]

That is a problem! What police duties are not official? If no agreement existed the police were acting outside their mandate/official duties. This suggests that a Vigilante group of RCMP officers is providing a Quasi-Court investigator with tainted evidence without the record of custody. What about privacy laws?

Nothing quite so boring as you JohnnyMaudlin. If you don't like the proceedings here then bugger off.

Jaeger -

Everything you need to know about the poem by “Jesse Destruction” referring to Totenkopf is available from from the CHRC exhibits posted on Marc Lemire's Freedomsite here.

Basically, Richard Warman tried to introduce a Stormfront post including the poem as evidence in a December 12, 2006 CHRC hearing in a case he brought against Jessie Beaumont. At the top of the printout was the phrase "Welcome, Jadewarr". Warman testified that he didn't know who printed that page out, but that it originated "in the broadest sense with the Commission."

Reading between the lines, this is what was likely accessed by someone using the Jadewarr Stormfront ID on December 8 (at 3:29 a.m., according to Deborah Gyapong's post on the hearings). And I'm guessing that the Stormfront logs show that whoever printed it out did so while logging on the Internet using that innocent woman's wireless network.

Yet another reason to make sure that if you live in a dense neighbourhood, you secure your wireless router. You never know when government agencies or their henchmen might use your network to investigate - or even impersonate - alleged Nazis.

or just plain steal

people have been charged with theft for using an unsecured wireless access point to surf the net....minor point but a government official or lawyer should know better.....anyone checked the addresses of the commissionaires?

The offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission at 344 Slater Street in Ottawa are about 400 metres (1/4 mile) from the innocent woman's apartment. Someone who is more technically inclined should chime in about whether a wifi signal can travel that far (assume the innocent victim was on a high floor and the Commission's offices are on the 8th floor). I doubt it.

If Deborah Gyapong heard correctly, the website was accessed in the middle of the night. I'm not sure that's necessarily correct, even if that's what was said - Jadewarr's last login date in the Tab 18 materials provided at Freedomsite showed 3:29 p.m., not a.m. But if it is, who would be at the Commission's offices at 3 a.m.? Nobody, I'd assume.

Assuming my hypothesis and the Stormfront logs are correct, it's more likely that someone who lived or worked in the innocent person's building or very nearby accessed the website using the innocent victim's wifi. The two folks mentioned in the Tab 18 materials who also were directly involved in the Lemire case are Mr. Warman and Mr. Vigna, the Commission's former lawyer on the Lemire case.

Thanks, Jaeger, for these notes. YOU should have live blogged the hearing yesterday. You know who the main players are and the significance, for the most part, of the questions asked and answers received.

Very informative.

Good stuff, Jaeger, we all owe you. And thanks to Kate for posting it.
And of course, thanks to the usual whiners - various johnnies and dawg - for your contribution. Your efforts prove how important this is.

I had expected strident and confident replies from a CHRC operative confident in their task and the means of execution of their duties. Thanks to the bloggers for their efforts to make vivid the nonverbal aspects of the hearing, as well as the actual words spoken.

Wow! The CHRC criminals accessed the web through someone else's unsecured wireless network. I've read that people who traffic in child pornography do the same thing.

1/4 mile is too far for your standard wifi transmitter. You would need a pretty sensitive antennae on the computer end to tap in.

If her apartment was anywhere up to about the 4th floor it could be done from the street, assuming her transmitter was near a window.

It is not an accident to jump on someone elses wifi it is a deliberate act. Which shows it was either deliberate theft, or it was a deliberate way to cover up the access.

In the pantheon of crimes it is pretty minor BUT it seems to be a pattern and indicative that the CHRC knew they were doing things that were incorrect. You expect a government agency and bureaucrats, let alone lawyers on their own to follow the law. If they dont why should anyone else.

So before someone chimes in and minimizes the 5 minute stealing in Web access that isnt the point, just like the burglary at the Watergate wasnt really the issue....it was the larger web of actions and intent behind it that was important. A difficult point to make stick in peoples minds. But it isnt the crime it is the cover up...my spidey sense says the individuals involved knew they were doing something they shouldnt be doing and were doing their best to hide their tracks.

So the choices are

1) Either Warman got the JadWarr ID from the comission to gather the evidence, this has been denied.

2) Someone from the comission got the evidence at midnight, stealing someone's wifi signal and web access to cover their tracks.

In either case it shows an agency out of control, engaging in cowboy extra legal tactics. Hey I am no fan of the message on stromfront but the state must follow rules or else the stormfronts of this world have won....we would exist in a state of bureaucratic convenience with no solid righs for citizens.

As for it being Boooooring....most court cases are. This was over hyped by some, it is one step in correcting abusive state behaviour...it takes time and it takes effort and it takes process and procedure....but hey thats what a democracy does, at least one that follows rule of law.

What the consequences for those involved should be, best left to a court. If I were that poor lady I would think about suing the CHRC since the evidence came from them, they stole her signal and have now thrown her into this mess by doing so. The CHRC really is caught in this matter....She could get a large sum, some enterprising lawyer should approach her....Ezra?? Interested in a contingency fee?

Assuming the accuracy of the proceeding's reporting by various bloggers, it would appear that the Commission's members are violating various basic principles of administrative law, established via centuries of common-law process and case law.

As legal professionals, most of them ought to know better.  What's particularly disturbing is the apparently biased way in which they determine which expressions of "hate" get their scrutiny and which don't.  It's a fundamental principle of administrative law that such procedural bias be eliminated to maintain public confidence in said proceedings.  You either go after all incidents of "hate" or you have a rigorous, consistent methodology by which your selective attentions may be justified.

It sounds like the CHRC has neither.  If true, this failing demotes the CHRC from "administrative tribunal" to "bunch of vigilante bums."

Which would also explain why "freespeechers" believe that the expressions of "hate" which the CHRC investigates are best left to the actual court system, where they at least attempt to pay attention to the niceties of administrative law.

Thanks, Jaeger. Very useful.

Johnny, the fact that free speech is not being understood by the HRC as a 'fundamental right' but is instead being fought for, ought to be a serious concern to you and everyone.

I don't read Dawg, as I consider him superficial, illogical and therefore intellectually entrapped within semantics.

If you are bored by this case, your focus is obviously not on the issues, not on the facts but only on personalities. That's not what free speech is about (good guys and bad guys as determined by the HR Politburo); it's about the rule of law.

And what we see here is a government bureaucratic body that has moved outside of the rule of law and into a murky, self-appointed agenda of citizen harassment.

Is our freedom safe yet?

I am genuinely surprised someone was prepared to go to that extent in spending money to expose CHRC. Not that I am a big fan of it - I maintain, that CHRC must be simply ignored. The best tactics so far was chosen by Ezra Levant - he spat in their face and got away with it. This is how it should be, there should not be hundreds of thousands spent to feed their lawyers. That's just wrong.

Aaron, Ezra’s efforts do not fit into your purported best practice of ignoring the injustice. He obviously expended a great deal of resources in his quest. You can’t slay the dragon by ignoring it.

"No agreement with the cops"

Yet they are given evidence seized in police raids.

RIIIIIGHT!

"No difference between Stormfront and Freedominion" !?!!
What!!,
I mean a guy would have to be...er uhm, never mind.

Thanks Jaeger, nice going

The most interesting part of Steacy's testimony was his failing and then recovering memory syndrome.

He had stated before, in transcribed testimony, that he was "not aware" of anyone else using the "Jadewarr" account...yet in this testimony he admits that many staffers had "access" to it and knew the pass words...he even intimated that Warman could have had access to the Jadewarr account and that all he needed was the password which others in the HRC office knew.

Did Warman use the jadewarr account to post?

Did he have the password that others had?

Guess we'll never know because Steacy was not ordered to give a precise answer and refused to offer the identity of who else had the passwords,,,and Warman was a no-show....so these questions will have to asked in a legitimate court if we want answers.

These kangaroo trials may have subpoena powers over defendants but not the complainant or HRC staff.

As far as I'm concerned there was enough procedural bumbling, stalling, inconstancies and unchallenged witness vagueness including a refusal to answer direct questions...that the CHRC should change their logo to a Kangaroo on a red star.

Cinyc asked: "Someone who is more technically inclined should chime in about whether a wifi signal can travel that far (assume the innocent victim was on a high floor and the Commission's offices are on the 8th floor). I doubt it."

Look up "pringles wifi" on google. Wifi signals can -easilly- be boosted to go a quarter mile, no problem. I know of a company that used a beamed wifi setup to connect two offices across Toronto airport from each other. They got in heck from the regulatory commission for using too "loud" a signal, but it did work.

There's commercially available equipment that will let you listen in on Bluetooth at over 400 meters, never mind wifi. Cheap too, cheaper than a laptop.

Besides, how hard is it to park your car down the street from the office for five minutes?

Stephen wrote: /4 mile is too far for your standard wifi transmitter. You would need a pretty sensitive antennae on the computer end to tap in.

If her apartment was anywhere up to about the 4th floor it could be done from the street, assuming her transmitter was near a window.

I can think of one group that would have no problem accessing her signal, a COP sitting in his patrol car or private vehicle with their laptop? And the HRC employees have worked in tandum with the police before haven't they? Ergo I think perhaps the HRC employees shared the Jadewarr account and password to Stormfront with the police (or one police officer) to aide each other in entrapping "Neo Nazis". Then again I could be wrong, and I do have an active imagination.

One other question....who has oversight over the CHRC bureacracy....is that ultimately the PCO?

If I were the head of the privy council I think I would start to be concerned my employees were out of control, that there was no administrative oversight and that stuff was happening that was opening up the government, not the political government but the functioning government, to liabilities and lawsuits.

I think I might want to get one of the Deputy ministers to start asking some questions down the line, perhaps there was a strong need for admistrative review....in business it s called "help from head office".

I would think Steacy and his boss have some important internal questions to answer about how the work is done, controls etc...even under existing legislation.

I think that would be a wise thing to do before questions regarding procedures started coming up in the house and the PMO starts to ask me questions.....thats just me though....

Aaron, your comment displays an astonishing misapprehension: Ezra Levant has anything but ignored the AHRC: by his own admission, fighting back has cost him about $100 000, so far, and countless hours. And that's before starting his excellent web site, which provides detailed information about the workings of Canada's HRCs, including transcripts of hearings.

Re the March 25th hearing, among others, I'm still at a loss as to why the CHRC staffers, who had plenty of time to prepare and gather documentation (which, surely, they must have), were allowed to show up--or not, in Richard Warman's case--and give vague answers, useless answers--"I don't recall"--or non answers: Steacy outright refused to answer one question. In a real court, would this apparent lack of cooperation not be construed as contempt?

I guess, because this hearing is not a court, and the CHRC has its own, apparently, arbitrary ground rules (sic), this kind of obstruction is allowed. (Is there anyone reading this who can explain why the CHRC staff is allowed to behave in such an unprofessional and partisan way during a hearing?)

Certainly, these kinds of procedural anomalies strengthen the case of those of us who oppose the Human Rights (sic) racket in this country and believe it needs either a complete overhaul or, better yet, disbandment.

I think that the HRC has moved completely out of any respect for the law and into a vigilante group.
A few comments.

1) Why is Warman not required to show up? After all, he lodged the complaint.

2) What is this MOU between the HRC and the RCMP? What's it about? The HRC says it has nothing to do with 13.1. Really? Then why not inform us what it IS about? The answer is 'prevention'. Prevention of what? No answer.

3)The situation of Nellie Hechme means that the HRC has moved out of the boundaries of the law; it is engaged in illegal practices.

4) HRC staff signing up and posting hate-messages on blog sites is unethical. Why? Two reasons. The first is because, as pointed out, this means that the HRC could be investigating a site for 'hate-messages' when the hate was initiated by themselves. And second, HRC staff have no business engaging in 'set up' situations. We all know of drug deals where police will act as a drug buyer to catch a seller, but this only occurs in a situation where someone is known to be dealing in drugs.

For the HRC to themselves move onto a blog and activate hate messages, and then, file a complaint against the blog owner (Warman does this) - is a violation of law.

5)Further proof of the vigilante nature of the HRC is their rejection of Lemire's complaint, not on the hate message (police against natives) but because it was written on 'two-sided paper'. Even though it was faxed one-sided. Hmmm.

6)Joseph Brean, in the National Post, still doesn't quite get it; he's stating that the objections to the HRCs are from 'the army of bloggers'. This ignores the support from textual authors, such as various pundits in the Globe and Mail, National Post; it ignores PEN, it ignores Borovoy and etc.

7) It is obvious that the HRC, who are unaccountable, have become an unlawful vigilante group. Close it down.

Thanks for the update - the chick (and I use the term deliberately) at MacLean's who is blogging the hearing is frickin airhead - she clearly had done no prep work, and was not really paying attention. Yes, Doug Christie is a bit of a loon - we all know that - but this is still an important case.

Lori:

I am going to post my reply to your comments from the other thread here since the discussion seems to have moved to this thread. All very good thoughts. I often like to think in terms of analogies and so I will offer an attempt in this comment. The analogy involves the medical world; I will tread lightly since I recall that you have previously mentioned that you are a physician - I hope I have that part correct.

Suppose we were to step back a moment and ask another question about the HRC staff and their motives. Is it possible that, although seriously misguided and most certainly needing supervision, these employees have embarked upon a mission that they seriously believe to be correct and that their motives, though being evil, are not quite as evil as their actions might suggest? Suppose we perform a thought experiment and we ask the HRC employees "What was your intent?". (Maybe we could appoint Ezra to ask that question.) Let us further suppose that "somehow" the evasive tactics displayed yesterday are not able to suppress that truth from being revealed. Let us now turn to the medical analogy.

It seems to me that, particularly here in the States, the medical people are very specialized. Suppose an overzealous doctor specializing in one area made an attempt to completely eradicate a certain type of bacterium from a body. His motives would be the health of his patient. Suppose that to do so, he knew that he needed to invoke some very strong measures, say the use of a strong form of anti-biotic, in doses that are far outside the realm of normal usage. Let us further postulize that studies existed in accepted medical journals that proved to an acceptable level that such doses actually did more harm to the patient than good. Let us say that, although an almost complete eradication of the type of bacterium was achieved, the cost to the patient also did mean ill health due to some other cause. Now, in spite of this particular physician's "good" but very naive motives, would he not face disciplinary action? That action could involve a revoking of a license to practice? Now consider taking the analogy just a step further. I had already mentioned the wide acceptance of the medical research; the physician knew that he was expected to know this type of information. He then also took some precautionary steps outside of normal documentation to hide his actions in an effort to make it harder for others to detect his practices. Now, suppose that subsequent investigation revealed some wrong doing and it also revealed the attempted coverup. Is this grounds for criminal charges or is it dependent upon the damage done to the patient (I understand no malicious charges could be laid in my analogy but what about charges related to negligence)? Is the fact that he thought his motives were "good" a factor in any of this?

It does seem to me that we may have a case here of some very specialized bureaucrats who would like to eradicate what they believe to be some very viral thoughts from society. That history shows that the methods to accomplish this are detrimental to the larger society seems to be lost on these specialists. Members of the larger professional body are beginning to notice.

ET, I concur with your analysis. (I gather MOU means Memorandum of Understanding. Is that correct?)

I, too, am disappointed by Joseph Brean's reporting in the National Post. He doesn't seem to see the forest for the trees. From my knowledge of this affair, mainly gathered from Ezra Levant's very comprehensive analyses and primary documentation at his web site, I believe I could have done a more comprehensive article than Mr. Brean. He has not clearly presented the problems of the HRCs’ arbitrary procedures and the dangers they pose to all Canadians.

I think the Ottawa Citizen article by Don Butler was much more coherent: he outlined quite clearly the dubious kinds of investigations done by the CHRC. However, I was disappointed that he didn’t follow up on this statement:

“There are no guidelines for when investigators can go under cover online, he [Steacy] said, adding the decision [to go under cover] was always ‘complaint driven.’”

Why didn’t Butler point out that, in the case of Freedominion, this was not the case? (It appears that Steacy went undercover in order to entrap. So it also appears that he lied at the hearing.)

It’s very clear—and another important fact I don’t believe the MSM has emphasized—that the criteria for following up on complaints to the CHRC has everything to do with who the complainant is: the criteria are altogether arbitrary and partisan. In all, after reading the MSM coverage so far, I’m not sure the “bombshell[s]” Ezra Levant predicted would explode at this hearing did. If I were “average Joe Canadian”, I think I’d be overwhelmed by a lot of detail and still not be quite sure what all the fuss is about.

It will be interesting to see what happens now. Another Section 13 defendant guilty? It seems that the outing of the HRCs needs to continue. How? Court cases? By whom?

Ezra Levant has other, good ideas, “We're not at the end of this battle, not at all. But as of tomorrow [March 25], the informational part of the battle -- where Canadians en masse [I’m not so sure!] will learn about the misconduct of the HRCs -- is joined in full. That's the denormalization of these HRCs. My hope is that before Parliament breaks for the summer, we start to see the second part -- more and more politicians looking to harvest the public mood. As Kinsella himself proves, it's dangerous to make predictions about what MPs will or won't do, but I'm willing to bet that before the year is out, there will be a bi-partisan political initiative to rein in the HRCs, and that it will pass.

“We're winning.”

Certainly things are much better than before the HRC skulduggery came to light. But there’s obviously a lot of tough slogging still to do and it's clear there are a lot of stakeholders out there who like things just the way they are. We’ve got a pretty good opposition team assembling though. Let’s hope the momentum keeps up.

Dangnabit... I wish I wasn't so fecking busy this week with an unusually insane amount of work, else I'd be all over this, too. Fortunately, I see that the thrusting of crosses, sprinkling of holy water and opening of drapes against the liberal fascists will go forward just fine without me, so all isn't lost!

Keep the fire under the liberal fascists' asses!

Aaron...if you want to ignore them, move to North Korea.They don't have or need HRCs that do everything BUT stand for human rights. That should keep you happy,and your Mom, once you are out of her basement.

There's a lot of tough slogging to do because a government bureaucracy, which has evolved itself into an unaccountable vigilante Set, has enormous resources to protect itself.

It has the bureaucracy itself which can't admit to such illegal actions. Note how the HRC staff are allowed to get away with enormous lapses of memory.
It has its connections, undeclared, to other forces, such as the police and RCMP.

It has its allies, such as the CJC, who have vested interests in controlling criticism, in many cases, of Israeli political policies, by defining such criticism as instead, anti-semitic.

It has its new allies in Muslim groups, who have vested interests in controlling criticism of their political policies, eg, Sharia Law and a refusal to assimilate, by defining such criticism as instead, 'Islamophobia' or 'racist'.

It has its allies in the social engineering policies of the Liberal Party, who cater to immigrant groups by deliberately discouraging integration and assimilation, and instead, funding adversarial isolation - to garner votes for the party.

It has its allies in the naive and juvenile postmodern rhetoric of relativism, where 'all ideas, ideologies, thoughts, beliefs' are equally valid.
Its name: Human Rights - is enough to terrify any uninformed critic to silence. Who can argue against such a Goddess as 'Human Rights'?

The fact that the HRCommission has degenerated to a closed cabal of vigilantes, unethical activists engaged in witch hunts - needs to be articulated openly, often, and loudly.

The fact that the HRCommission is ignoring a fundamental right, Free Speech, and furthermore, has no understanding of the importance of Free Speech in a democratic society, has to be analyzed and repeated. Often and loudly.

The fact that Section 13.1 of the HRAct refers, not to actual actions, but to possible future events, to events that have-not-happened, to events that might-not-happen - and that our nation actually passes judgments and punishes its citizens for actions-that-have-not-happened. That has to be yelled from the rooftops.

ET writes, "The fact that the HRCommission is ignoring a fundamental right, Free Speech, and furthermore, has no understanding of the importance of Free Speech in a democratic society, has to be analyzed and repeated. Often and loudly."

Yes, indeed. But what have we seen so far in the MSM? Either silence or, in most cases, incomplete, disjointed coverage. If I were not already quite well informed about yesterday's hearing and its background, I believe the articles I've read would be confusing.

The scant MSM coverage certainly wouldn't give me the impression that a war--yes, a war--is being waged, where my--yes, MY--free speech rights are in the line of fire: in fact, in many circumstances, already a prisoner in enemy territory.

It'll be very interesting to see how this plays from here. And I predict that the MSM won't be much help.

What was so disappointing is that Steacy did not seem to have even a grasp of the inappropriateness and immorality of what he was doing.

Clearly crimes have been commited and a neutral police force needs to move in to investigate before more evidence goes missing. I hope MP Keith Martin can order a Parliamentary Inquiry as the CHRC reports to the PCO I believe.

An interesting side note is that while Steacy admitted investigators and outsiders including the police - CAN be charged under 13.1 for posting "hate messages" - none have.

Now since he and Chamberlain are part of the overall structure - who decides if a complaint (and several have) against Warman and Steacy is to proceed? Steacy himself was involved in dismissing Lemire's against the police and personally was instrumental in rejecting that of others who filed against CAHR - of which their other poster boy Shane Martinez is a member.

Seems like a Catch 22.

Can complaints go in now that we know the sources of some hateful information and that there is no protection? (for example Warman, police, etc)

I am always for using the enemy's tools against them.

I love the part where the witness keeps saying that CHRC has no "formal or informal" information sharing arrangement with the police. Right.

So if I decide I'm offended by somebody, I can charge them with a hate crime, have the local cops do the "investigation", drop the charges because the cops didn't find anything illegal, and then get the results of the police investigation faxed over to my place? Because that's what they seem to have done here, with the RCMP and with CSIS too.

I had no idea our police were so "open" with their information sharing.

I have today's copy of the National Post. I find that the piece titled: "Jeers and loathing at tribunal", has already been copied and posted. It is too obvious that, although Joseph Brean is at least giving it a try, he is nervous of being tabbed. Tabbed as a sympathetic reporter to the persons he should be partly representing, as a concerned citizen/reporter. He thus feels he has to set up a smoke screen. "See, what a good boy am I". I will have to review it further though and pick out the positive side of his work.

My money was indeed so very well spent on this issue. Page A13. Letters. Titled: Debunking Trudeaumania. There is a large and splendid picture of Trudeau doing a pirouette. Three letters blister the iconic statesman.

Lovely stuff.

Joe - I only saw the Macleans folks there, I didn't recognize any big name journalists from any of the other media. And I haven't seen any other coverage from the other outlets, either.

Garth Wood @ 9.05 But that's just it, Gartrh. These HRCs are not governed by centuries of jurisprudence. They are not courts but bureaucratic commissions.

There is clearly a bureaucratic clique that has set itself up as agent provocateur, police, accuser, judge, jury and executer.

"They are not courts but bureaucratic commissions."

Even that's too generous. Legitimate bureaucracies adhere to preexisting understood principles of administrative law. Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically protect Due Process? I ask because my own educated guess as an American lawyer is that an administrative body with such unfettered power and such opaque procedures would find itself, its powers and its activities radically curtailed, if not its entire statutory basis struck down, if it existed in the US and had to face judicial review.

Yes Dave J ... and not subject to the rule of law.

From todays Ottawa Sun from a real court:

"Drug Dealer goes Free"

Improperly obtained evidence that operates unfairly must be excluded and if justice is to be done, it must be done fairly," Forget said.

...it wasn't until during Tohl's trial last week that the crown disclosed to the defence documents used to obtain the after-hours search warrant by phone from an out-of-town justice of the peace."

The article is worth reading and hope Lemire's lawyer and MP Keith Martin see it as has application here but then----the CHRC are EXTRA-JUDICIAL and like the STASI - above the law of the land.

It certainly seems that the CHRCs and the CHRT (Tribunal) are a closed shop. They work in tandem but the CHRT seems to have no jurisdiction to make the CHRC staffers "come clean": at a hearing, if they don't want to "remember" certain facts or to produce documentaion, it seems they don't have to. Heck, it seems they don't even have to show up if they don't want to, e.g., Richard Warman.

The procedural anomalies are worse than I'd imagined. And what recourse? One hopes the MSM might meaningfully pitch in--e.g., expose this utter travesty--at some point, that someone might sue the CHRC--is one allowed to?--or that our spineless politicians--except for Keith Martin, it seems--might strangle their very own Frankenstein monster. And how long, how many more tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and the private $$ and very lives of law abiding Canadian citizens, caught in the Shelob-like HRC web, will this take?

Honestly, this Charter-ridden country is too much!

Brent Weston:Is it possible that, although seriously misguided and most certainly needing supervision, these employees have embarked upon a mission that they seriously believe to be correct and that their motives, though being evil, are not quite as evil as their actions might suggest?

I don't have the slightest doubt that Dean Steacy and the others at the CHRC sincerely believe in their mission and they think they are doing good work by grinding away bad people's lives in their bureaucratic machinations.

They simply don't believe that anyone they consider to be bad, racist, insensitive people have any rights.

At some point in time the proponent / supporters of the HRC's as they currently operate must come to the conclusion they have created a monster that could very well consume them as well.

Some light has been shed on the putrid workings of commission memebers posting to target sites with the ability to then charge those sites with hate crimes.

What is truly frightening is the silence of MSM ivory tower denizens, the self appointed public opinion shapers, seemingly oblivious of the monstrous government approved apparatus which the HRC's have morphed.

One more time , thank you God for the internet, because Canadian MSM would never have driven this into the open as have the internet blogs.

But the work has only begun, insofar as the dismanteling of the HRC's ( as they are presently constituted ) in Canada is concerned.

Joe Molnar: "At some point in time the proponent / supporters of the HRC's as they currently operate must come to the conclusion they have created a monster that could very well consume them as well."

Wanna bet?

Actually, it's a monster quite supported by the insiders--the HRC flunkies and the MSM who appear to have not a clue about hubris, which is obviously a phenomenon that happens to others, not them.

I've written the CBC Ombudsman to complain about the lack of coverage: on that alone, the CBC knows about it, but they already knew. IF they cover this story, the spin could be worse than no coverage.

As I've already said, this Charter-ridden country is a huge burden . . .