Explosive testimony by CHRC Investigator Dean Steacy on Richard Warman is missing from Transcript!
On March 25, 2008,
Before the hearing, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, no longer provided a court reporter to transcribe the hearings, but instead now offers a digital voice recording, which the parties could pay and have transcribed themselves.
In order to try to stop the impending damage to the human rights industries credibility, the Canadian Human Rights Commission in a shocking move applied for a Secret Hearing and have the Media and members of the public banned from the hearings.
 The outcome of the s. 37 matter gives me pause to question the soundness of the Commission's invocation of public security concerns with respect to the testimony of these witnesses.
On March 25, 2008, explosive testimony was heard. The first witness a representative from
Jonathan Kay, editor of the National Post wrote an article and called the hearing a "landmark disaster for the Canadian Human Rights Commission".
Lorne Gunter writing in the Edmonton Journal on March 30, 2008 stated:
"After years of investigating Lemire, CHRC investigators had too little proof that he was a hatemonger to proceed to a hearing. So they began logging onto his website under an assumed name, "Jadewarr," and posting provocative comments in hopes of obtaining racist replies they could then use in their case again Lemire.
To cover their activities, it appears commission employees logged onto the Internet through a wireless connection they detected in a woman's apartment near their offices, rather than using the commission's own server. They neither sought the woman's permission nor acquired a judicial warrant to tap into her computer."
The Canadian Human Rights Commission was in full damage recovery mode after the spying network of the CHRC was exposed and reported on heavily in the national media.
· Levant here
· Edmonton Journal here
· Calgary Herald here
· Ottawa Citizen here and
· Ezra Levants Summary [here]
As part of the damage control the CHRC was doing, they contracted a company to transcribe the
On his popular blog, Ezra Levant wrote that:
Imagine my surprise when, today, I received a copy of a beautifully-transcribed court report of the
I got it from a reporter who had received it from the CHRC itself. How did he get it? Did he make an Access to Information request? Did he pull a Jadewarr, and hack into the CHRC's computer and steal it?
No. He got it because a CHRC spin doctor called him up, and tried to spin his newspaper that the CHRC wasn't all that bad. He tried to show how the CHRC really hadn't gone online under a pseudonym to post bigoted comments -- even though the CHRC has admitted to doing so a half dozen times, under oath. The CHRC spin doctor used the transcript as "proof".
I have no problem with the CHRC engaging in desperate spin attempts. I love it, in fact -- the more they open their mouths, the more discredited they are, and in ways that their critics, like me, could never achieve.
But isn't there something corrupt about the CHRC having a transcript of the hearing, not disclosing it to the respondent, but using it against the respondent with reporters who have no formal standing in the case?
While the respondent has to hand-transcribe the audio recording of that hearing -- or pay out of his own pocket for someone to do so -- the CHRC has a transcribed version. But they don't turn it over. They try to use it as a PR weapon. (Good luck with that.)
CHRC Transcript missing explosive testimony.
In a copy of the Transcript the CHRC spread around to the media, a very explosive line was missing.
Here is a copy of the CHRC transcript:
CHRC Transcript - Volume 26, Page 5764
Now the truth, as transcribed by
Lemire Transcript | Volume 26, Page 20
Download a copy of the audio recording as provided by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which makes it absolutely clear that the CHRC version of the transcript is missing this information
Senior CHRC investigator Dean Steacy seems to contradict sworn testimony by Richard Warman:
THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you should specify which of the two versions.