Tuesday, June 30, 2009

[TRANSCRIPTS] CHRC Grilled in Parliament on Criminality, Hate Postings and Abuse + Prof Robert Martin's Testimony

 

Transcripts are now available for the recent hearings before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (Parliament of Canada - House of Commons).

 

The last two meetings of the Subcommittee investigated the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission and their abusive tactics and questionable investigative techniques. A video of Conservative MP Russ Hiebert grilling CHRC heavyweight David Langtry before the subcommittee has been posted on the YouTube video site.

 

 

 

 

Subcommittee on International Human Rights (SDIR)

Transcripts

 

Meeting 27 – June 18, 2009  

Witness: Prof Robert Martin, Professor, University of Western Ontario

 

Meeting 26 – June 16, 2009
Witnesses: David Langtry, Deputy Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission and Alan Borovoy, General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

 

 

 

 

Relevant articles and blog posts on the Parliamentary committee investigation of the Human Rights Commission

 

 

 

 

 

MONTREAL GAZETTE: Rights commission threatens our liberty

Rights commission threatens our liberty

 

The Gazette | Monday, June 29, 2009

 

The Canadian Human Rights Commission appears to have learned little from its adventures of the last few years. In its latest report to Parliament it stubbornly defends its authority to police the Internet - or any other electronic medium - for opinions that are "likely to" expose people to hatred or contempt.

This is, as we have said previously in this space, an unacceptable assault on free speech.

With frightening eagerness to rein in Canadians' free expression, the commission finds the authority to restrict honest opinion in Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, a notoriously vague bit of legal writing that forbids transmissions "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." The subjective power of that "likely to" makes everyone vulnerable to bureaucratic whim, malice, or distemper.

The section was designed to protect people - especially members of minority groups - from any kind of hateful telecommunication messages. That was later expanded to include the Internet, and as just about every organization of any size has a Web presence now, that means that the commission can police just about everyone, from newspaper columnists to Christian parsons. Ironically, it could even include the commission itself, which published its report on its website, complete with a verbatim citation from a telephone message it had ruled to be hateful. The horror!

The report does ask Parliament to define hatred and contempt more clearly, which could be an improvement. But the definition the report favours is the woolly-minded one the Supreme Court read into the Human Rights Act 18 years ago. The Supremes ruled that expressions of "unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny, and vilification" that are "ardent and extreme" are not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedom. In other words, the commissioners are to judge not just the content of questionable transmissions but the mental state of the transmitters.

The report does make suitable noises about freedom of expression being a fundamental right and the commission not wanting to limit the rough and tumble of democratic debate. But then it says that every citizen has the right "to be treated with equality, dignity and respect," not just by the state but by everyone - a frighteningly vague notion.

The report also asks for an amendment to the act that would allow it to dismiss quickly any complaint it deems trivial or unfounded. That would have saved it the embarrassment of having to rule on complaints against Maclean's magazine columnist Mark Steyn and journalist Ezra Levant.

But it would be far better for Parliament simply to repeal Section 13, and leave the question of hate speech to the criminal courts where it belongs - if it belongs anywhere. If a citizen's liberties are to be threatened, that citizen deserves the full protection of the law.

The commission likes to cite a Supreme Court decision that ruled its speech-limiting powers constitutional. But that decision was simply permissive, not obligatory. A courageous Parliament would ignore it and rein in the commission.

 

http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=b084ee2b-ed22-4e08-a689-f1c7dc989a51

 

 

 

Monday, June 29, 2009

JERUSALEM POST: Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canadian NAZI Party

Several spies and a bottle of rum

 

Jun. 18, 2009
Rhonda Spivak , THE JERUSALEM POST

In 1965 the Canadian Jewish Congress hired a spy, John Garrity, to infiltrate the Canadian Nazi Party, and even went so far as to spy on at least one other Jewish group.

This rather bizarre chapter in Canadian Jewish history has come under scrutiny recently following the release of Canadian lawyer and journalist Ezra Levant's new book, Shakedown, in which he makes the claim that in the 1960s, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) paid John Garrity, "a small-time mercenary, to build up the fledgling Canadian Nazi Party."

Levant argues that although Garrity's "mission was justified as an attempt to learn more about neo-Nazism," Garrity and CJC ultimately helped turn "the Canadian Nazi Party into a media sensation."

Levant wrote in the Ottawa Citizen on May 16 that in his view, the CJC has always been eager to "trump up the... specter of Nazis in Canada as a pretext to get censorship laws." Levant told The Jerusalem Post he believes the CJC's conduct in 1965-66 was designed "to convince Parliament to give them more 'hate' laws."

Is there any basis to Levant's claim that the CJC "built up" or "propped up" or helped finance the Canadian Nazi Party, and turned it into a media sensation to serve its agenda of pushing for anti-hate speech laws?

RABBI REUVEN Bulka, then still serving as co-president of the CJC, wrote to the Ottawa Citizen that the only money "expended by a private detective [Garrity] hired by the Congress to expose the Nazi group was money put out to purchase a bottle of rum," to which Levant responded in the same paper that even though buying a Nazi a bottle of rum is "pretty strange in itself," the CJC did far more than that.

Levant referred to an exposé that Garrity, an ex-cop, now deceased, published in Maclean's magazine on October 1, 1966, about infiltrating the Canadian Nazi Party for the CJC. At the time, the leader of the Nazi Party was John Beattie, 24, an unemployed clerk who, Garrity wrote, had been "evicted from his fifth apartment in a year from not paying his rent."

Levant said that article shows that Garrity had far more street smarts and know-how than Beattie, drove Beattie around in his car, acted as his bodyguard and usually paid for his drinks, for over a year.

Garrity's article states that "early in 1965... there was just Beattie and a couple of teenagers... in the Nazi business...." He describes Beattie's Nazis as "misfits" and said that there were "only a dozen active members, plus perhaps 100 unseen supporters...." He noted that Beattie was in touch at the time with the leader of the Nazi party in the United States, George Lincoln Rockwell, and had even met Rockwell.

According to Garrity, before sleuthing for CJC, he had spied on Beattie on behalf of a Jewish splinter group, N3, made up of Holocaust survivors who felt that the CJC was not doing enough to confront the Nazi threat.

According to Garrity, he was hired in September 1965 and the most he was ever paid was $200 a month. Assuming he worked for CJC up until his article was published in McLean's, he was in their employ for 13 months.

"If Garrity was paid by CJC $200 per month for 13 months in 1965-1966," Levant points out, "that's $2,600 in fees... That's about $17,000 in 2009 money, plus disbursements... I'd like to know if the [CJC] donors involved knew what their money was going to."

Regarding Beattie's security, for example, Garrity wrote, "I'd often have to dash across to wherever Beattie was living to inspect a caller he'd refused to admit to his apartment, to make sure the man wasn't a potential assassin."

At one point, Garrity got a tip that the N3 was going to disrupt a planned meeting of Beattie's with stink bombs. He wrote: "…I told my Jewish Congress contact. When I drove Beattie past the hall and he saw about 15 cars full of people plus a score of police cars posted there on the advice of the Jewish Congress he quickly cancelled the meeting - and thanked me."

It would appear that CJC had tipped off the police about the planned illegal activity of another Jewish group, which resulted in Beattie not being physically harmed.

TODAY, BEATTIE is 67 and works as a paralegal court agent in northern Ontario. He told the Post that Garrity, who he learned was a spy only with the release of the Maclean's article, had acted as his driver.

"I had no car," he said. "Garrity drove me everywhere and Garrity fed me. He bought me lunches and snacks all the time, every day... and sometimes he'd buy me groceries... He bought me lots of drinks... I had a baby then and he'd bring used clothing, sometimes."

In his exposé, Garrity - who called himself the party's "Heinrich Himmler" - wrote that once the Nazis started meeting in secret locations, supporters would be "picked up, often by me" and driven to the gathering.

Levant said that Garrity's and Beattie's versions of events show that the CJC, by providing him with food, transportation and security, was helping to "prop up" Beattie.

But Ellen Scheinberg, director of the Ontario Jewish Archives, rejects any suggestion that Garrity built up the Nazi Party. She told the Post that, on the contrary, Garrity's work destroyed it. She notes that Garrity described his role thus: "I was chosen secret-service chief, with the job of checking applicants for membership. Later I did check about 15 prospective members, and turned down those who seemed intelligent and therefore dangerous."

"How could Garrity have been building up the party," she asks, "if he was eliminating precisely those members who would have been the most useful to it, rather than seeking them out?"

Scheinberg repeats the assertion that CJC's "financial support of [Beattie's Nazis ] was in fact limited to the purchase of a bottle of rum."

Beattie says, looking back: "I was insane at the time... I know that's no excuse for what I did" and "I just loved the media attention I was getting."

ONE OF the most controversial aspects of what occurred in 1965 involved a rally that Beattie announced he would hold at Allan Gardens in Toronto on May 30, 1965, with supporters wearing swastika armbands.

Levant claims that the CJC, seeking to push its agenda for bringing in legislation limiting hate speech, wanted to unleash a major counterdemonstration to Beattie's planned event. Historian Frank Bialystok, in his book Delayed Impact, which examines Canadian Jewry's collective memory regarding the Holocaust, wrote that by February 1964, the CJC had made a tactical decision to publicly lobby for anti-hate legislation "partially in response to the pressure exerted by the survivor organizations."

According to Bialystok, about two weeks prior to Beattie's planned rally, Ben Kayfetz, CJC's executive director, had written, "…We knowingly dropped the quarantine method [backroom lobbying and ignoring agitators publicly] in relation to the neo-Nazi agitation of the past year and a half for a number of reasons: 1. Their kind of agitation (e.g. sprinkling leaflets from the air) commanded [the] public and could not be suppressed. 2. If we were going out on an intensive campaign for laws, we had to tell the public-at-large about this hate material and could not do so under the quarantine treatment...."

Levant claims that since the CJC was going on "an intensive campaign for laws," it responded to Beattie's proposed rally in a manner that would help turn the demonstration into a media sensation.

He says that the statement CJC issued on May 28, two days before the rally, is consistent with this theory. That statement read: "Toronto apparently faces the gross provocation of a public Nazi demonstration... The Canadian Jewish Congress feels that the very threat of attempting such a demonstration... is insulting and provocative to the great majority of citizens of this city. It indeed poses a threat to the peace and good order of the community... For the citizens of Toronto, there can be only one response: to condemn completely and unreservedly the acts of the self-styled Nazis, and to bring to bear the weight of an outraged public opinion against the provocations they plan."

N3 and other Jewish groups also issued letters and leaflets urging a mass opposition attendance at the rally.

To give speeches and demonstrate, Beattie needed a permit from the city. According to Bialystok, Beattie had asked Garrity to go to City Hall to get the permit, but Garrity had "conveniently forgotten." Both CJC and N3 knew two days prior to the rally that Beattie didn't have a permit, but neither informed the public. "If Beattie had tried to speak, he would have been charged with public mischief," Bialystok wrote.

Instead, there was a crowd of 4,000 people, many of whom were Jewish demonstrators, and a riot ensued, with eight Jews being arrested for attacking members of a motorcycle club who happened to be passing by, but whom they mistook for Beattie's Nazis. Their bail was put up by N3.

The Toronto Star reported that several thousand people, many of them Holocaust survivors, were in the park looking "for Beattie or his men." Beattie himself appeared alone and was charged with creating a public disturbance.

AS LEVANT is quick to point out, Beattie was acquitted on the charge of unlawful assembly because there were no other persons assembled to act in concert with him. Bialystok wrote that Beattie's Nazi's were "a tiny group of misfits who posed little threat to law and order."

He also wrote that "the anti-Nazi groups may not have planned the violence, but neither did they call off the demonstration when their leaders knew that Beattie did not have a permit."

Further, Bialystok wrote that "the demonstration could have been averted had community leaders, from both Congress and the anti-Nazi organizations, informed the community in advance that Beattie did not have a permit."

Levant claims that CJC didn't inform the Jewish public of Beattie's not having a permit because it wanted an enraged citizenry to help it in its push for anti-hate laws. "They managed to parlay a second-rate carnival act into the raison d'etre for censorship laws that would otherwise have likely failed to become law," he says.

"Seriously: the Canadian Nazi Party was often a party of one... It wasn't even an organization in any legal sense. It didn't have a bank account. It didn't have a newsletter. It didn't have any formal organization - no bylaws, no constitution," he adds.

Levant gleaned this information from a report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in December 1969. It also referred to Beattie as "a poor leader and organizer," as having "50 followers," no "membership" and suggested "that the majority of the monies donated is spent by Beattie on personal use."

The RCMP wrote, "It is not believed" that Beattie "could exert adverse influence on any person other than some supporters of the party and this would only be to a degree."

Beattie told the Post that in the photo in the MacLean's article, Garrity is shown with a box he referred to as "correspondence," but "that box was filled with all of the newspaper clippings about me." He added that a lot of times "it was just me and Garrity and a couple of other guys... It wasn't much of a Nazi Party... I craved all of the media attention... I loved it... There were a few characters who were anti-Jewish maybe four or five who were anti-Semitic. They liked to blame the Jews for everything."

 

… See rest of article at: 

http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184864673&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

Monday, June 22, 2009

Roy Green Show - June 20, 2009: Levant vs. Lynch

Roy Green Show - June 20th, 2009: Ezra Levant and Jennifer Lynch










[Watch all three clips here]






http://ezralevant.com/2009/06/me-vs-jennifer-lynch-sort-of-t.html

Roy Green is one of Canada's great radio hosts, and he has a massive audience across the country on the Corus radio network. He called up the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and invited Jennifer Lynch to debate me on his show.

On the one hand, Lynch has publicly called for a debate about censorship in her rage-filled speech to her fellow HRC profiteers at their trade convention last week. On the other hand, she didn't mean "debate" when she said debate. She meant "she gives a speech, and we listen obediently".

If she turned Green down, and refused to be on the show with me -- like she did with CTV's Newsnet -- she'd look like a coward and a fool. Again.

But if she debated me, she'd have to answer questions she'd rather not answer -- questions about everything from her outrageous six-figure expense accounts for luxury junkets, to the neo-Nazi memberships that at least four of her staff use at t....

Harry Abrams - Spying on Free Dominion since 2007

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=119871

 

 

Harry Abrams - Spying on Free Dominion since 2007

I was reading about the CHRC case against Arthur Topham and the Radical Press that was initiated by one Harry Abrams from the B'nai Brith. As part of the evidence submitted, Harry Abrams admitted to using a fake internet identity (SURPRISE!) named "Brian Esker" when he was corresponding with Arthur Topham and trying to build the case against him. Here is a link to those revelations: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=786

Well, some time ago, I had a conversation with Harry Abrams on the Western Standard blog. I had never met Harry Abrams or had any contact with him, but it was obvious that he knew me.

Here is a link to that conversation, and here are a couple of his posts to me:

Quote:

From my chair it looks like Connie's misapprehensions and re-parroting of other peoples' misapprehensions/expressed distortions have already cost her plenty.

And I see no reason for that not to continue based upon her above posted remarks and the stuff she continues to allow/encourage to be posted on her own blog.

Posted by: Harry | 2008-10-23 10:23:50 AM

 

Quote:

You can publish, post, host, whatever you want. But let those who have been damaged by hurtful expressions and wilfull (especially multiple and ongoing ones) have the means to respond, clear their names and/or seek justice.

But Connie, you've heard this many times before. And disregarded it many times. That's why you're where you are.

If I was you, I would attempt to make amends with Mr. Warman. But I'm not. So this now has to play out, and the piper still must be paid at the end of the party.

Posted by: Harry | 2008-10-23 12:28:00 PM



Anyway, I commented before that I thought those posts sounded like they were written by some kind of evil James Bond villain, but I didn't think too much of it at the time, other than that it creeped me out.

But, after I read Arthur Topham's report, I decided to check the FD member list to see if there was any sign of Harry's alter-ego, Brian Esker.

Guess what???

Not only did the creepy little man sign up at Free Dominion here, but his sign-up date shows that he did so just THREE DAYS after the story of the Gentes CHRC complaint against Free Dominion was posted on this site.

Now, at that time, I had never even heard the names "Harry Abrams" or "Richard Warman", the CHRC complaint was not of an anti-Semitic nature, and Free Dominion was (as it is today) the most pro-Israel forum in Canadian cyberspace.

So, why would B'nai Brith agent, Harry Abrams/Brian Esker have been lurking around Free Dominion like a hideous vulture the moment the CHRC attacked us?

And, since he didn't post anything under that username, has he been using other usernames to post here since then? (Something like "Lil's Husband", maybe??)

So many questions, aren't there?

But, all of this points to something very organized and very sinister, and we WILL get to the bottom of it. I promise.

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, June 19, 2009

[VIDEO] CHRC Grilled in Parliament on Criminality, Hate Posts, Richard Warman and Abuse



Canadian Human Rights Commission called before the Parliament of Canada to explain their abusive tactics, posting of hate messages, paying serial complainant Richard Warman, theft of a womans Internet connection, and many other abuses.


This is video of the: Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (Parliament of Canada - House of Commons)
Thursday, June 18, 2009 - 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.


Watch the full parliamentary video on the Parliament of Canada Website
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=4885

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Douglas Christie challenges Richard Warman to a debate about freedom of speech and the Human Rights Commission.