From Deborah's comments - this should be nipped in the bud and is a good reason why the HRCs need to be reigned in:
"Some of the troubling information that came out of his testimony was the degree of cooperation between various big city police departments, the RCMP and even CSIS!!!!! in investigating hate."
"In one case, a certain city police force had seized the hard drive of some dude after he was charged criminally---with uttering threats or something. Steacy made an inquiry and the police officer sent him a copy of the guy's hard drive, just like that! ... But then, this police officer just hands the hard drive over to the Human Rights Commission, which has much mushier standards of evidence, so a totally new agency can do a fishing expedition without having to go through the hassle of getting a warrant."
"Some of the proposed cooperation between the RCMP and the CHRC include establishing direct contacts between RCMP and CHRC officers; sharing of information; improving access to information; giving direct access to CPIC for CHRC officers, among others."
"Marc Lemire apparently tried to launch complaints against the various police and others who were posting hateful comments on his site. Steacy rejected the complaint because he included too many respondents on a double-sided sheet or some such procedural thing. In other words, he didn't fill out the complaint application properly."
So the police now work hand in hand with a quasi judicial tribunal to secure convictions and appear to provide said tribunal with access to confidential information possibly obtained under false pretense. Said police force also allow access to information from their comprehensive database on citizens also with no judicial oversight. The defendant also complains that police and tribunal members are trolling his site posting hate messages - but is disallowed under the flimsiest of pretenses.
So the question then becomes - do Canadians have a constitution worthy of that name or is it really just a piece of shite. I'm leaning towards the latter. What say Damian, you're the lawyer here.
As for Dawg's account, nice comments on Mark Steyn's outfit and this kind obsevation: "The place was a veritable Who's Who of Canadian fascists and assorted far-right propagandists."
Apparently Dawg forgot to add "and at least one old leftist hack"
One more question, if Steacy is legally blind as Dawg says, how does he determine that Lemire didn't fill out the complaint application properly? Good seeing eye dog perhaps?
Fromm asked the same dumb question. Steacy has an assistant, and in any case didn't lose his eyesight until 2004. He also has up-to-the-minute computer technology to assist him.
The stuff about the cop-CHRC axis is badly garbled. No hard drive was handed over to the CHRC--they don't even have the capacity to deal with it. Instead, a DVD was proffered, after criminal proceedings were ended. Nothing untoward here, as the Commission has the same powers as the police when it comes to warrants.
The Lemire side tried to suggest that criminal proceedings were faked up (in Christie's word, "orchestrated") to allow the CHRC access to materials they couldn't otherwise obtain. If people want to play along with that kind of fantasizing, they should join the 9/11 Truthers.
Access to CPIC is not granted to CHRC officials. Steacy's testimony was that there was no direct reference to CPIC in the materials furnished by the RCMP. This was not contradicted by the Lemire team.
PS: I didn't say a word about Steyn's outfit, suggesting that the commenter maybe needs another cup of coffee.
Posted at 2008-03-26 08:31:08 [PermaLink]"No hard drive was handed over to the CHRC--they don't even have the capacity to deal with it. Instead, a DVD was proffered,"
Great, a DVD with a hard drive image. Of course, no "hard drive" was sent, wink wink, nudge nudge.
As for access to CPIC data, there need not be any direct access, just a quick phone call to see what may lurk within and be useful somewhere down the line.
Re: "He is an insufferably smug man, his sense of self-importance positively oozing from his frame."
Sorry, not quite a comment on his outfit, only his demeanor. "sense of self-importance positively oozing from his frame" - takes one to know one - right Dawg. Now I will make myself a cappuccino.
"Now I will make myself a cappuccino."
Don't do it. That stuff can kill you. : )
"takes one to know one - right Dawg"
Well, projection is a known defense mechanism of Borderline Personality Disorder.
As for so-called progressives (who want more government control over thought crimes) calling Steyn & others (who seems to always call for LESS government control) fascist, I'm sure South Park is eagerly awaiting a spec script about it.
Ah, the old Usenet "I know you are but what am I?" defence, and by proxy, yet.
Calling Steyn a Nazi is about as silly as calling a Nazi a "free speecher," I guess. I've done neither. The two factions do seem to get on famously, though.
John, I was there and I can assure you Dawg's outfit did not ooze self-importance. :-)
You have laid out the issues and the reasons for either repealing S 13 or reining in the Commission very well, but what I don't understand from the sites on our side is this tendency to assume illicit subterfuge in the dark of night on the part of the commission staff. It reminds me of the leftist penchant for always seeing malevolent, diabolical scheming in corporate boardrooms. They are civil servants and therefore will do what civil servants do, which is to try and expand and aggrandize their authority until someone stops them. If there are no rules against working with the RCMP and CSIS, that's what they will do, believing they are fully justified in so doing. What do you think would stop them, good manners? It has little to do with their characters, integrity or even politics. Police will do the same thing, which is why they are subject to stringent oversight and criminal procedure.
Unfortunately, this bitter demonizing of the Commission staff is making it easier for us to line up behind some very unsavoury characters promoting dubious causes that go way beyond the lines of civility and decency. Much as I understand logically and legally the links between all these cases, and that cathedrals are built brick by brick, aesthetically I was sitting there thinking: "What happened to Islamist censorship, anti-semitism and anti-Christian activism and harassment? Where are the actual free speech and human rights issues facing us today? What am I doing here with this embarassing riff-raff?"
Peter: "Police will do the same thing, which is why they are subject to stringent oversight and criminal procedure."
Good comments overall and the above hits the nail squarely. The same constraints and consequences need to be applied to the HRCs. They wield tremendous power to ruin people's lives with little or no checks. As has been written elsewhere, the procedure is punishment enough.
I'm tempted to agree that Commission staff shouldn't be demonized but if they can't see the inherent unfairness in their respective HRCs then to Hell with them frankly. In a real court successful defendants can recover some or all of their legal fees (I'm referring to civil litigation) - more so when the complaint is regarded as superficial or vexatious. Not so with the HRC. In a real court truth is a defense, not so in the HRC. In a real court the judge isn't poking around playing detective, not so in the HRC. In a real court, the judge isn't supposed to be in cahoots with the police, not so in the HRC.
It's unfortunate that a case involving persons we both agree are unsavoury is at the forefront of this issue (i.e. the almost unfettered power of the Commissions). Meanwhile the poor bugger who may lose his restaurant because he objected to someone smoking "medical marijuana" right on his doorstep is left out in the cold.
...to Hell with them frankly...
That's my motto for pretty much every civil servant, whatever he/she is up to.