It should come as no surprise;
… that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing on March 25th — where human rights commission staff themselves are to be cross-examined on their dubious tactics of anonymous infiltration of websites, entrapment and even the bizarre practice of commission staff themselves planting bigoted remarks on websites — is going to be closed to the public.
It is hypocritical in the extreme that HRC staff who scrutinize every public utterance and private thought of their victims will be exempted from public scrutiny themselves. There is no legitimate reason for this blackout, other than the HRCs simply being HRCs and engaging in censorship and the restriction of public debate. Usually they censor political expression they disagree with; this time they censor their own embarrassing conduct from being seen and heard by taxpaying Canadians
Ezra will be a guest on Cross Country Checkup this afternoon with Rex Murphy, at around 4:40 ET.
.
BTW, you are encouraged to produce a list of 200 Conservative Party scams.
Remember Mulroney accepting 250K of German corporate promo cash to speak for an armoured car plant in Quebec has nothing to do with OUR tax dollars. eh? = TG
Take it easy now ET and don’t bust gasket.
I just don’t want to get too far off topic or Kate will get mad at me. Having said that ET, I don’t per se have a problem with the Queen. I, like her, enjoy the rights of peerage (just like His Lordship Conrad Black) as I am a sovereign also, a citizen sovereign of the USA. I may not also be a Head of State, but I have like her appointed one in our President, and with the Queen in the Governor General.
In a representative democracy power literally and legally flows from God, to the people, and then is lent on a temporary basis to the Government in limited ways.
You on the other hand are the subject and ward of a Queen and you are commanded to serve her. Power flows from God, to the Queen, and then trickles down to her Peers and Nobles. It never reaches the Canadian people at all. The Canadian “citizen” has no constitutional or electoral recourse against the Government.
The Government for lack of a better word is the property of the Queen and by her grace she allows the Canadian people have very limited say-so in the day-to-day operations of government. They (being the indivisible entity of the Queen and the State) are exempt from the Canadian Constitution as it applies only to the governed. That means you.
If you don’t believe me then just ask yourself a simple question. When was the last time a Canadian “citizen” appeared on the ballot for the position of Head of State, Prime Minister, Senator or Premier?
And yes every Bill requires the signature of the GG. And yes the Queen can dissolve parliament any time the feeling hits her thereby negating any election of measly MP’s. And yes the Queen even appoints your Chief Executive (PM) as a matter of courtesy and tradition, in a manner that is not even codified into law.
I, ET wholeheartedly invite and hope with all my heart that you and your Canadian Brethren may too join me and my Peers in this rarified world of self-governance. Be like Leonidus in “300” and refuse to kneel before the Gay King of Serbia Xerxes. Assert your own sovereignty and rightfully claim your estate.
ET said ‘insisting that someone like Robert McLelland provide proof for his spurious allegations isn’t ‘feeding a troll’.’
In fact, ET, ANY response to troll like Robert McLelland is, indeed, feeding a troll. Do you seriously think Robert McLelland drops his crap here to engage in a discussion? He unfailingly makes nothing more than a series of silly statements. If he does ‘address’ another commenter, it is only with the sort of silly comment for which you asked to prove. Do you seriously expect him to provide any proof?
A troll like Robert McLelland does not intend to engage any one; such losers come here to be provocative and to get a response, any response. In effect they say ‘Please respond to me, please, please, please; ANY response will do’.
If you want to encourage trolls, go right ahead. But don’t expect an exchange, let alone an intelligent response to your insistence that he provide proof for his silly assertion. Don’t expect him to be concerned about truth or malice; and don’t hold your breathe waiting for him to provide any proof.
“Don’t believe me? Take it up with Bob Tarantino”
Wow, Bob Tarantino! That settles it for me! Seriously, that comment is true if viewed in historical context; I swear every law student in the country writes a paper with that sentiment. But it changes nothing and certainly doesn’t justify accepting the past.
“Racially Visble.”
That’s a horse that wins by 20 lengths!
Why haven’t we heard that David Coles, the CBC lawyer who regularly demands public access to just about every legal proceeding that takes place, is planning to file papers demanding such access to the HRC hearing?
loboy, don’t be dumb; ‘Crown’ is a metaphor for the federal government. Ever heard of the term ‘metaphor’?
Oh, for heaven’s sake, KPD, power doesn’t ‘flow’ in a representative democracy, in a constitutional monarchy. Go read some texts on political theory.
The Canadian govt is exempt from the constitution? Really? Such as? The Canadian govt is ruled by the Constitution.
I think you ought to learn how a parliamentary system works. The leader of a party is not elected in a general election but by the members of the political party. The general election then votes for the party. That’s how the parliamentary system works. Since you, in the US, operate differently, why does it bother you? Don’t you think it ought to be up to Canadians to decide what type of system they use?
Actually, no, the Queen can’t dissolve parliament whenver she feels like it; she has to be asked by the PM or parliament to do so. No, the Queen doesn’t appoint the PM; the PM is the elected leader of their party; the people elect a particular party – the party with the most seats gets to form the govt.
I suggest you read the Canadian Constitution. Your last paragraph was a bit too hippie-romantic for me.
terrence – I disagree. An unaccountable and ignorant person like Robert McClelland should be confronted each and every time he posts something ignorant. I certainly agree with not responding to trolls (such as fsdas or whatever he calls himself)…but McClelland’s ignorance is deeper than that of a superficial troll.
“…McClelland’s ignorance is deeper than that of a superficial troll.”
Indeed. That’s something to be said for all inbreds.
If Marc Lemire refuses to appear before the HRC Kangaroo Court would it go to a real court?? If so I would be refusing to talk to the HRC clowns.
ET,
The English system is not actually transparent. The Peoples government (Elected to Parliament) is separate from the upper Class (Lords), although laws are meant to be equal, that class has remained & enjoys special economic benefits.
The upper class Peer Group in England has “phenomenal” wealth, as a VP of Chase Manhattan once told me, they make our (US) wealth look like chump change. I am sure that Lord Black’s wealth placed him near the Court Jester.
Major parts of London are SOLD on term contacts for 30 years and then the property is deeded back to the original owner. This insures that each generation gets to resell the same property.
England is still a Class System with great benefits.
Actually, this is an excellent development. It conclusively confirms to the public that the HRC has something to hide. That’s the single fact that will be taken away from this. Had the hearing been public, thee would be something for the apologists to obfuscate.
Vis a vis, Carol Ann Hartung’s letter: “The testimony of the witnesses on March 25th in the above-cited matter is a continuation from a previous sitting with these witnesses [SO?] which was held in camera, PURSUANT TO AN ORDER BY THE PRESIDING TRIBUNAL MEMBER [my emphasis].
The wording, alone, has bells ringing: ordered by the Presiding Tribunal Member???
By whose authority does this Tribunal Member “order” an in camera meeting? Just because the last meeting was private doesn’t mean that this one has to be, does it?
Who’s running this show? I’m beginning to feel like a powerless Russian peasant, and can only imagine what Mark Lemire’s feelings are right now.
Where’s this hearing being held?
In any democratically based system, be it a constitutional monarchy or a republic, power flows from the bottom up, not the top down. Power at the top is titular – nominal only. Most all laws and assignments provide, as they must do, for the delegation of authority to those who can,in fact, wield it.
As an officer of the Crown (oath of allegiance to Her Majesty in Right of Canada, I and my colleagues are the government. Parliament, the Queen, Congress, the President, can only govern at the pleasure of the civil service. If the civil service choses to do other than the direction of the titular heads or the guidance of the statutes, the only remedy at the top, is to play one group of civil servants against another.
The Government, royal or otherwise, is wholly dependent on the assumed adherence to loyalty sworn to by oath. The chasm between the people and the titular heads is sometimes yawning and deep. Its only the thin line of actions provided by the civil service that allows any of it to work at all.
Further to Hartung’s note, it takes two to agree to removing the in-camera status:
“…Unless the parties indicate that this is no longer required and if the presiding Tribunal Member agrees…”
In-camera hearings are not uncommon where third party depositions are being given. Often, its to protect the deposer as much as the process. Investigators who work undercover may need their work protected. This isn’t necessarily an indictment of the process, but a reflection of the gravity of the work.
Neither is this a defence of the HRCs either, simply a reality of the nature of law enforcment (regardless of the morality of the law). The surest way to crack the HRC would be to go to court for a judicial order opening the doors. However, don’t assume that the court will support openness.
Skip, thanks for the clarification.
McClelland supporting the HRC’s…
He must be retarded. Is he not the same anti-Semitic leftard who claimed to have spray painted “f*** the Jews” on a building?
Is he so stupid he thinks he couldn’t be hauled up in front of the HRC’s for that? In fact, the surprising thing (given his feud with Kinsella over it) is that he hasn’t been put through the wringer already.
And yet McClelland is foolish enough to support them? Does he think he’s immune?
Leftards are ‘special’
Just sent an e-mail to my MP:
“Mr Jean:
I’ve been following the stories re Human Rights Commissions.
They have become an abomination, a black mark on any free society:
Hearsay evidence, charges filed by “agent provocateurs”, frivolous charges, with NO COSTS to hte complainant, et cetera.
An upcoming sitting is scheduled March 25 2008, to be held in camera.
“Ms. Fournier,
The testimony of the witnesses on March 25th in the above-cited matter
is a continuation from a previous sitting with these witnesses which was
held in camera, pursuant to an order by the presiding Tribunal Member.
Unless the parties indicate that this is no longer required and if the
presiding Tribunal Member agrees, the hearing of the testimony of the
scheduled witnesses will remain closed to the public.
Regards,
Carol Ann Hartung”
Mr Jean, we don’t have secret trials in this country.
Or we SHOULDN’T.
What can you do to ensure public access and disclosure, to what is looking more and more like a kangaroo court, a court that is in fact able to smother Canadians freedoms?”
Time to get these commissions neutered…
Skip re: “In-camera hearings are not uncommon where third party depositions are being given. Often, its to protect the deposer as much as the process. Investigators who work undercover may need their work protected.”
To quote King Juan Carlos, “Why don’t you just shut up”. You do not know what you are talking about. We do not do “depositions” in Canada. In camera court hearings at any time are exceedingly rare in this country and are strongly discouraged by the Courts of Appeal even in criminal matters. Not including informational publication bans, (generally in family or custody matters, to protect children) I doubt there has ever been a true in camera hearing in a civil matter in Ontario. Such orders have been requested but have not been sustained when the media has applied to have the right to attend an open court hearing. Examinations are not public: neither are they court hearings so the concept of ‘in camera’ does not apply.