May 20, 2008

Jadewarr, Son Of Encryption: Updated

Ezra has the story and the links;

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have begun an investigation into alleged criminal conduct by members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The conduct in question was revealed at an extraordinary hearing on March 25th, a hearing the CHRC desperately tried to keep closed to the press.

An officer of Bell Canada, appearing under a subpoena, testified that the CHRC had hacked into a private citizen's Internet account, to cover their electronic tracks as they surfed anti-Semitic websites under the alias "Jadewarr". You can read the transcript of the hearing here -- a transcript the CHRC did not release to the public.

The victim of the CHRC's illegal hacking, Nelly Hechme, told reporters that she was "completely shocked" by the CHRC's conduct. Canada's Privacy Commissioner, who has jurisdiction over the CHRC, is now investigating the matter.

As usual, there's a round-up of recent CHRC commentary at Free Mark Steyn

Previous entries.

Posted by Kate at May 20, 2008 10:29 AM

Where are the Conservatives in all of this? I have written to the Minister of Justice but got no reply. This is an issue which almost everyone (with the exception of Kinsella and the members of the Human Rights Commissions themselves) is in agreement. The right to free speech, subject to actual criminal laws covering slander and hate speech, should be a fundamental right in Canada. The Human Rights Commissions are a disgrace, having moved into the realm of thought police, using illegal and immoral tactics to persecute their targets. But our supposedly CONSERVATIVE government is saying nothing on this issue. The only stand being taken is that by Keith Martin, a Liberal (and full credit to him). Where is the Prime Minister? Leadership is getting in front on an issue and taking a stand. I expected a lot more from Stephen Harper. I guess he really is trying to prove that there is nothing to fear from the scary Tories. They're just the same as the Liberals. That explains why they can't make any headway in the polls. People percieve them as just as bad. It is really sad. First Mulroney and now Harper.

Posted by: bobzorunkle at May 20, 2008 10:57 AM

I have written to The Minister of Justice, the PM, my MP, my MLA and Premier.

In February, the Premier (Stelmach staffer) conveniently said since the case is before the Alberta Human Rights Commission he can't comment. What a cop out. There will always be a case before the AHRC. The PMO (staffer) forwarded my letter to Nicholson, who has said nothing. My MP never bothered to reply, neither did my MLA.

So, I resent all the letters again yesterday with an update included re: the unlawful antics of the CHRC, wiretapping etc. My MP (staffer) did respond this time: "Please be assured that your correspondence will be brought to Mr. Lake's attention at the earliest opportunity and that your views and suggestions will be carefully considered.". Nothing yet from the rest.

Posted by: Sounder at May 20, 2008 11:23 AM

Where are the Conservatives in all of this?

And where are the Alberta conservatives in all of this? The AHRC has been one of the egregious violators of the fundamental rights of expression and conscience, and Ed Stelmach has done nothing.

Dear tories: No protection of fundamental individual rights, no vote.

Posted by: rabbit at May 20, 2008 11:45 AM


Posted by: Eskimo at May 20, 2008 11:45 AM

bobzorunkle wrote: "The right to free speech, subject to actual criminal laws covering slander and hate speech, should be a fundamental right in Canada."

And exactly how does that differ from the present situation? Now, slander and libel are civil offenses, and there is a remedy for them in the civil courts.

And "hate speech" is PRECISELY what the various HRCs claim to be fighting. The problem with "hate speech" lies in WHO gets to define it. We have to take "hate speech" OUT of the criminal code, and be content with fighting the haters in the arena of ideas.

IMHO, the only speech that should remain criminalized should be sedition, incitement to riot or to commit criminal acts, and threats.

I believe the Conservatives are treading softly on this because they are afraid of being painted as being on the side of "neo-Nazis". It's a political minefield. But I agree with you that they need to grow a set.

Posted by: gordinkneehill at May 20, 2008 12:03 PM

Brilliant, will that finally wake up the conservatives?

Posted by: Aaron at May 20, 2008 12:04 PM

I can't help but think that the lack of action on the part of the Conservatives is strategic (for some unknown reason).

Recall, Levant gave up his bid for the seat that Harper now occupies. He claims there was no inducement to him to do so, other than Harper's thanks.

I find it hard to believe that two prominent Conservatives from the same "neck of the woods", linked as they are by this past "favour", are not in contact with one another.

I feel that there MUST be some trap to spring or some goal to accomplish before they act on this. But then again...maybe not.

Regardless, I'm willing to give them a bit more time. It would be nice if we could be given at least a smoke signal, or something.

Posted by: Eeyore at May 20, 2008 12:22 PM

I agree Eeyore. I truly believe Harper to be principled and forward thinking. It is impossible that he does not see the HRCs as a problem. His silence on the issue must be strategic.

However, that is not to say that I am pleased with the situation. I will not be supporting the CPC financially until this situation is addressed. They can expect to receive my membership card and sustaining donor cards from the past few years in the mail pretty soon.

I recognize, though, that it may be exactly his plan to get the grassroots all worked up and demanding a total dismantling of the HRCs, and let them do all the slogging with no political cost to him, and then he can step in with a moderate proposal that would leave him looking "prime ministerial" while accomplishing changes that would have been unthinkable a year ago.

He is definitely an incrementalist, not a revolutionary.

Posted by: Lori at May 20, 2008 12:43 PM

"Dear tories: No protection of fundamental individual rights, no vote."


Posted by: Kathryn at May 20, 2008 12:56 PM


Posted by: Mississauga Matt at May 20, 2008 1:09 PM

In a spirit of public minded concern for the greater good Blazingcatfur has been supplied the e-mail of the officer investigating the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Concerned citizens are invited to e-mail the Officer, Stephane Turgeon, with helpful information:, per RCMP public solicitation:

High-profile investigation

“A” Division’s federal law enforcement role has expanded significantlyover time. Today, the division carries out criminal investigations offederal offences such as drug importation and trafficking, smuggling,government fraud, white-collar crime, high-tech crime, money laundering,war crimes, immigration and passport, fraud, organized crime, andnational security threats.

Anyone who has information concerning a person(s) who may be involved in the commission of an offence in relation to the above is invited toreport their concerns to the nearest office of the Royal CanadianMounted Police or contact:

RCMP Federal Investigation Unit
N.C.O. in Charge
A Division - Federal Investigation Unit
155 McArthur Avenue,
Room 523
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada K1A 0R4

Telephone: (613) 993-6884
Fax: (613) 998-2906

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at May 20, 2008 1:11 PM

Hmmm, got me wondering now. I dropped an email to my MP, dipper Peter Stoffer, on a different matter a few months ago and no staffer emailed me back. Stoffer called me. Matter of fact he called me twice since I was not home the first time he tried.

Hate the man's politics, but he is one on the ball consituency MP. Probably why he keeps getting re-elected in a military heavy riding.

Posted by: AtlanticJim at May 20, 2008 1:12 PM

A good beginning. Pity it took a white supremest fruitbat to dig this particular worm out of the woodwork. The RCMP should be the ones breaking ground on this stuff, not being dragged along behind by the collar.

Still, I'll start holding out some hope for this circus when the RCMP "discovers" what we already know from testimony.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 20, 2008 1:55 PM

For Rabbit, Kathryn and Mississauga Matt:

"Dear tories: No protection of fundamental individual rights, no vote."

Good luck with that. Tell me, do you like the sound of "Liberal majority government" any better? Are you expecting said Liberal majority to protect your rights better? Good luck with that too.

Or is it more reasonable to ask, do you have the faintest grasp of practical politics?

Posted by: cgh at May 20, 2008 2:07 PM

Where is the media on this? The RCMP announce an investigation into a government department and not one breath of this story can be found in any mainstream media outlet???

Posted by: john g at May 20, 2008 2:13 PM


God save us from practical people.

If you won't use your vote to stand up for your principles, why should any political party pay attention to your principles?

And if none of the parties think individual freedom is something worth fighting for, maybe it's about time we built a new party. It's been done before here in Alberta, it can be done again.

Posted by: rabbit at May 20, 2008 2:37 PM

"Good luck with that. Tell me, do you like the sound of "Liberal majority government" any better?"

Without respect to the most important, most fundamental rights, rights which are the prerequisite to all other rights, what good is the conservative government if they won't stand up for them?

In fact, I don't like the sound of "Liberal majority government" but it seems that despite the Conservative's defacto majority, a liberal government is exactly what we have.

It's better to have a Liberal government with a Conservative opposition than a liberal government with a Liberal opposition.

Posted by: Warwick at May 20, 2008 2:41 PM

john g
The msm will have to wait until the opposition has their chance to spin this on the floor of the Commons. You know, blame Harper with the proper amount of righteous indignation.

Posted by: Kelly at May 20, 2008 2:44 PM

john g - @2:13 pm

"Where is the media on this? The RCMP announce an investigation into a government department and not one breath of this story can be found in any mainstream media outlet???"

Canadian leftist MSM are basically as corrupt as the HRC's

Posted by: Joe Molnar at May 20, 2008 3:07 PM

Lemire was contacted by CTV today but is unable to be interviewed - rumour is tha Ezra will stand in. Also note the BC Civil Liberties Assoc. is applying for intervener status in Lemire case. Don't hold your breath Hadjis - Hadjis of the Tribunal denied 3rd party status to the Canadian Constitution Foundation on Friday.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at May 20, 2008 3:18 PM

Rabbit, try not to get carried away with your enthusiasm. It's now a matter of a criminal investigation. So, are you suggesting a criminal investigation be compromised by political action? I can't think of anything that would unseat a government faster than that, and in so doing reinforce the position of the CHRC. Principles are fine; putting them into action needs something else, namely some intelligence and a sense of tactics.

Warwick, if you actually imagine that this is a de facto Liberal government, just wait for the day when Dion & Co. win an election. Like Rabbit, you need to understand the difference between having principles and selecting the timing to act upon them.

Posted by: cgh at May 20, 2008 3:20 PM


Haven't a clue what you are on about. I was talking about the conservatives notable failure to reign in the HRC's abuse of Canadians' basic freedoms. I wasn't referring to the current investigations.

Posted by: rabbit at May 20, 2008 3:32 PM


I was on board the "give them time to get a majority" on overspending. I was on board for all the other liberal and Liberal priorities. I used terms like "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" and such things. I was willing to give it time. I was willing to make "strategic withdrawals" in order to win the final battle.

I'm NOT on board for their support for the HRC's.

Cowardly neutrality would even have been somewhat defensible. Actual support for these atrocities is not.

I jettisoned my support for Harper when they lent their no-longer-extant credibility to the thought-nazis.

There's a difference between Churchill quitting at Dunkirk to regroup and General Petin joining the other side.

The conservatives can earn back my vote very simply but it must be done by the next election: eliminate the CHRC in total. Repealing section 13 is no longer enough. There is a concept in marketing: the standard an organization must live up to in order to maintain customer loyalty is lower if the client has never been betrayed. To regain loyalty is far harder than it is to get the first time around and requires a higher standard to be maintained. Another way to put it is "once bitten twice shy."

Posted by: Warwick at May 20, 2008 3:33 PM


My MP is Jason Kenny and he doesn't need my vote to win election. My MLA is Heather Forsyth and she didn't need my vote to win.

I don't in live in ridings that are too close to call so I suppose my non-support won't make any difference either way. But I'll be damned if I'll do anything to make it easier for politicians to deny me or any other Canadian fundamental rights. And when/if they deny anyone these rights, they will not get my support.

Call it a point of principle or call it stupid; it's my vote and I can do what I want with it.

Posted by: Kathryn at May 20, 2008 4:07 PM

Ah BCF - hot on the trail again.

Thanks and for those with "Brown Envelopes" - that E Mail again is:

Useful background or concerns only as suspect his Box will be a heavy one.

Posted by: The LS from SK at May 20, 2008 4:21 PM


Let's try this one more time. Rabbit, the two things are the same thing. How do you think you make fundamental changes in something as intractable as a bureaucracy? You demonstrate that it routinely engages in criminal behaviour in pursuit of its mandate. The specific abuse leads to the general reform. It's the only way change gets made here.

Warwick, I don't support the HRC's and neither I will bet does anyone in the government on this issue. To deal with it, you have to let the criminal process work first. It's not at all clear to me that the government has voiced support for the HRCs and their activities with respect to section 13.

Kathryn, principles are fine; I have them too and many I suspect are the same as yours. Principles however don't matter in the real world unless they are acted upon, and that's the difficult part. You can indeed withhold your vote, and that's your free right. But let me ask you this, which politician is more likely to respond to you when you say, "I'm furious and I want to to do something about this." The one you vote for, or the one you don't vote for?

Posted by: cgh at May 20, 2008 4:33 PM


Up until today there was no criminal process. This is an excuse after-the-fact.

There was no criminal process when the government put out its 50 page excuse list for thought-nazis.

They didn't have any reason to do that. They don't have any reason to openly defend the indefensible. They have no reason to continue this farce.

They did and they do. I don't.

If you never have any point where you have to put your foot down, no absolute principle you must defend, you may as well join the Liberals because that is what you are.

Posted by: Warwick at May 20, 2008 4:48 PM


How do you think you make fundamental changes in something as intractable as a bureaucracy? You demonstrate that it routinely engages in criminal behaviour in pursuit of its mandate. The specific abuse leads to the general reform. It's the only way change gets made here.

Nonsense. You don't have to prove something is criminal to get it changed. You just need a governing party who has the will.

Posted by: rabbit at May 20, 2008 5:01 PM

cgh, I understand your argument. I have argued the same until recently.

One can even argue that Nicholson intentionally let the retarded Justice department lawyers loose with their retarded 50 page document in order to give them enough rope to hang themselves.

Given Ezra Levant's rapid and effective dissection of that document and its sources, it almost seems like he knew about it in advance so that it was set up for him to take down.

One could argue all those things, but to those who have been fighting this battle from day 1 or soon thereafter, the thought that the CPC is in any way supporting the HRC process is very hard to swallow. They need to toss us a bone. Some of Jason Kenney's words have served that purpose, but otherwise the silence has been deafening, and the 50 pager from the Justice Ministry was been sickening.

There is no conceivable set of cirumstances under which I could ever vote Liberal, and my riding is hopelessly lost to the CPC forever (Bob Rae's), so withholding my vote won't kill anyone.

But to me this is the single most important political issue of our era - I am not confident that the CPC sees it the same way.

Posted by: Lori at May 20, 2008 5:01 PM

a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. carry on parsing.

Posted by: old white guy at May 20, 2008 5:27 PM

I predict that Macleans/Steyn will be the battle ground where Harper & co. will take a stand on HRC thought police lunacy. I agree with previous comments that taking an anti-HRC position based on some possibly isolated fraudlent activity right now has bad optics.

The findings from the RCMP & Privacy Commissioner investigations on the Lemire file might be the icing on the cake but the main show will involve a professional journalist and his employer.

This won't be an easy process. The gov't will probably wait until after the dust settles after round one before taking a meaningful step. That won't happen if Macleans/Steyn drop out of the picture or if all the HRC's suddenly cancel hearings.

Posted by: Martin B. at May 20, 2008 5:43 PM


you realy, realy don't git do you?????

the conservatives could still save their a$$es by stepping in politcally and taking action, without interfering with the RCMP investigation, thusly leading, instead of playing "liberal" politics, which we can git by electing Liberals.

Harper has blown it and will lose a lot of support becuse of this, mark my words!!!!!

Posted by: GYM at May 20, 2008 6:10 PM

Just send an e-mail to the CPC ..... tellem there's no donations coming unless there's a change of attitude about these abominations.

I'm sure any of you who are members get at least one call a week looking for funds~! Tell no because.....

Posted by: OMMAG at May 20, 2008 6:15 PM

You either have principles and stand up for them or you don't. Failing to stand up for principle is no different from not having any in the first place.

You either get it or you don't ... let them know you get it! And the BS is not going to be accepted.
For one thing you can refuse to contribute to the CPC and you can tell them why.

Posted by: OMMAG at May 20, 2008 6:23 PM

Hmmm, got me wondering now. I dropped an email to my MP, dipper Peter Stoffer, on a different matter a few months ago and no staffer emailed me back. Stoffer called me. Matter of fact he called me twice since I was not home the first time he tried.

Hate the man's politics, but he is one on the ball consituency MP. Probably why he keeps getting re-elected in a military heavy riding.

Posted by: AtlanticJim at May 20, 2008 1:12 PM

Jim, Peter is a good man. I lived on base for eight years and I voted for him and I'm Conservative. He is there for his constituents, he'd never betray the people for his party.

I hate to break it to the hardcore Cons but Harper hasn't shown one ounce of Principles since elected, I sincerly doubt the man remembers what the word means. The Conservative MPs are mere lap dogs doing as their master instructs them to do. The Conservative MPs have forgotten who they work for and it's not Herr Harper but the people who elected them. Their refusal to openly respond to their constituents regarding the HRC abuses is absolutely horrific and cowardly and this won't be forgotten on election day.

The Conservative Party abandoned Conservatives in Canada, one doesn't place party loyality ahead of those that elect them and get away with it.

As for the investigation, it will be white washed. I have no confidence in our Federal Government to do the right thing, it's all about power and how to garner more of it.

Posted by: Rose at May 20, 2008 7:28 PM

Hi guys,

Does anyone have a link of this story from a newspaper or something? I really wanna facebook it.

Posted by: tony at May 20, 2008 7:49 PM

I'd love to see Nelly Hechme sue the CHRC under among other thing breach of privacy ... lets be honest here ... her name is forever linked to antisemetic statements. She's only 26 and those group of statements can and potentially will affect any future employment. Who knows what the future damage this attachment will bring to her reputation. This was such a flagrant violation of her privacy rights that I'm actually surprised she hasn't hired a lawyer and launched serious legal action.

Posted by: Sheila at May 20, 2008 8:11 PM

For me, I say:

BTW, Rose, I believe the Conservatives are actually letting the CHRC self-destruct and make the case for their own abolition. Patience...

In time, the HRCs will indeed be abolished. They simply cannot continue much longer, what with this kind of exposure.

Be sure to see tonight's CTV national newscast. They're doing a big story on it, according to Duffy.

I don't agree that the Conservatives have "abandoned" us conservatives. It only feels that way sometimes. The thing is that, unfortunately, in Canada, the way to get things done is normally to have them happen over time. In fact, this is how the Left has done things, such as the SSM thing, which was actually years in the making, with gradual desensitization and slippery-slope movement, with littler things paving the way to it one at a time.

We can't do everything overnight. It takes time, certainly when we've got so many terrible, radically-leftwing things going on at once.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at May 20, 2008 8:11 PM

"The Conservative Party abandoned Conservatives in Canada, one doesn't place party loyality ahead of those that elect them and get away with it."


Typically I agree with you, and I enjoy reading your posts but I have to disagree with you on this. My personal recollection of federal elections doesn't go that far back, but I do remember the poundings the Reform and the CA took in the 90's. The reason we are even in the position to lead the country in a conservative direction is because of the lessons learned in the 90's. S.H. has shown exceptional leadership mainly because he has recognized that the west must vote for the Conservatives; therefore, the party had to move center to marginalize the Lib's and increase their market share. Any sudden movements play into the hands of the left.

We're just at the end of the first quarter and we need to keep running the football. We must keep the opposition honest(which they haven't been) and go for the big play when the opportunity presents itself. If it doesn't, we have to be content with "metric-u-lating" the ball down the field and playing tuff defense(not dropping the ball).

There will not be another federal conservative party, this is our only horse in this race. If this little experiment fails we will have to look for different alternatives.

Posted by: Play'nWitYoMomma at May 20, 2008 8:21 PM

The Conservative party can drift to the centre, tactically. The base must remain immovable, else the tactical shift becomes a strategic one, and the party sells its soul for power.

I informed PM, MP and AG, that, as a consequence of the fatuous 50-page pretence to competent counsel, I would no longer support the party, neither financially, nor as an advocate, nor with my vote.

Posted by: Tenebris at May 20, 2008 9:26 PM


the CA got no support because "sumone" couldn't figure out that the flintstones wasn't a docu-drama!!!!

Day, like GW Bush should not be leaders of countries

Posted by: GYM at May 20, 2008 10:00 PM

The only way this will be resolved on freedoms side is you. The government doesn’t care, big deal so what! Big surprise there, we should not look to them. In the end where the real power, not the circus. We just rent out our responsibility with a vote.

Its heartening to see so many give of lifespan to write letters, give money, follow this story. It will be those who cared enough to be moved to action. That will have won the day for free expression with emancipation re-established . Not political Mandarins nor the MSM or the Church who should all have howled at this grab for power.
Lets not forget the heroic leadership from political lions like Ezra Levant with Our own 21st Century humorist Mark Steyn, in the style of
Mark twain or Will Rogers. I am sure both would have looked upon Mark Steyn as one of a band of brothers. As all who are being put upon by these Witch hunters & there play trials that break lives on there rack of their tortuous process & 100% conviction rate. Mark Twain being an atheist had to hide his name in his "Letters to Earth". He knew the sword welded by a censors hand well. Fortunately for him & Will Rogers both did not contend with HRC's gunning away with triple jeopardy quasi-courts.

After all the Fool in the medieval court or the troubadour where sacrosanct of body, to speak the truth no matter who they spoke to. In Rome a tribune. Among the Jews a prophet. A safety valve the west has had for millennia is now been turned into "shoot the messenger". In the end I believe wisdom will rein. If not vote for the party that will end our destitution the fastest. For if the conservatives are not energetic on this the dissolution of this Dominion is not far behind.

Stand on Guard for Canada Least these jokers slips us a knife in the gut of this Country.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at May 21, 2008 12:51 AM

Well said Revnant Dream - I totally agree with everything you say. This is a war for our Freedom of speech and we have Ezra, Mark Steyn, Kate, Kathey and all the posters here on the side of Freedom. What fool would try to argue an ethics issue with Mark or Ezra or Kate? They would be toast!! Perhaps the Prime Minister knows that this controversy is in very capable hands.

Trust is a two way street and is a true compliment to both parties.

Where is Ed?

Posted by: Jema54 at May 21, 2008 2:54 AM

GYM, actually I do get it. Like Rabbit and a few others in this thread, you've joined the club that Liberals will call, to use Lenin's memorable phrase, "useful idiots". As noted above, if you dislike the CPC so much, welcome to Liberal majority government. HL Mencken's line about voters getting what they deserve will turn out true once again. Citizenship has obligations; if you're not part of the political process by at least exercising the vote, you have no right to complain about the outcome. It's mere sniveling.

Posted by: cgh at May 21, 2008 9:00 AM


Useful idiot? Cool. But the analogy is a poor one, and you should temper your arrogance. I'm not being manipulated by anyone.

You, CGH, view politics through partisan glasses. You believe that if one is not for the conservatives then one is for the liberals. You believe that blind partisanship is the only path to success.

But I hope to get more out of the political process than just "my side wins". I have ideas about what Canada could and should be, and individual freedom is at the very top of that list. My support for any one party is directly related to how well they support these ideas.

Posted by: rabbit at May 21, 2008 10:18 AM


Funny how you only mention the obligations the citizenry has. What about the obligation the government has to the citizenry, in this case, their obligation to guarantee and protect fundamental rights?

If the government can turn its back on me, I'm under no obligation to support them. And if no party will guarantee and protect my rights, I'm exercising my obligation to democracy by not aiding and abetting them.

I will not cast my vote in the hope that someday, just maybe, the government might get around to fulfilling one of their most important functions.

Now, if you want to support a party as they tromp on rights, go right ahead. But when you realize that you have lost your fundamental rights, don't complain. It'll be mere sniveling.

Posted by: Kathryn at May 21, 2008 12:59 PM

Marcuse invented "repressive tolerance". Tolerance is extended to "tolerant" people, who are on the left, but not to "intolerant" people who, in the opinion of the left, try to use western patriarchal linear logic to rape people's minds to agree with them.
If the Frankfurt School stuck to its original purpose, training sidewalk hot-dog vendors, we would not have this problem.

Posted by: hyoo at May 22, 2008 7:26 PM


I thought it was the philosopher Karl Popper who first talked about being "intolerant of intolerance".

Posted by: rabbit at May 23, 2008 2:17 PM


I thought it was the philosopher Karl Popper who first talked about being "intolerant of intolerance".

Posted by: rabbit at May 23, 2008 2:27 PM