Thursday, January 31, 2008

*** MP Keith Martin introduces bill to REPEAL SECTION 13 !!!!!

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=3227597&File=11

Private Members' Notices of Motions

M-446 — January 30, 2008 — Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/huge-news-private-members-bill.html

Huge news -- Private Members Bill M-446

Keith Martin, a Liberal MP from Victoria, has introduced a private member's bill that is as groundbreaking as it is concise:

That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.

This is important for several reasons:

1. It's evidence that the "undernews" of the abusive, unaccountable conduct of the human rights commissions has caught the attention of at least one MP (we can assume Sen. Anne Cools is watching things, too).

2. That MP is a socially progressive Liberal (formerly a red Reformer), whose human rights credentials with the Left are impeccable. Not only has he made international human rights one of his causes in Parliament, but he has personally walked the talk, serving on various Doctors Without Borders missions.

3. If a progressive, young, hip Liberal MP from an urban seat feels comfortable proposing this bill, it is a sign that reforming these commissions is politically safe, even for a Conservative government still worried about being tagged as "anti-human rights". Martin is a political entrepreneur who goes for winning opportunities. He once ran for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance; he crossed the floor to the Liberals and was rewarded by them; he has a very friendly relationship with the press. The man picks political winners. That alone is a signal to other MPs that it's safe to stand and be counted on this fight.

4. By taking the initiative -- and beating other MPs, especially Conseratives, to the punch -- Martin will get some well-deserved credit for leadership. But he'll also make it easy for Conservative MPs, even the Conservative government itself, to "follow" his example, rather than to lead. In a way, Martin takes the political risk; by supporting him, the Tories are merely sensible and bi-partisan followers. He's the point-man.

5. The fact that Martin is a "visible minority" is irrelevant to most normal Canadians, but to the identity politics Left, it's a sign of his moral virtue, and thus makes him even more politically safe.

Congratulations to Martin for doing the right thing. But more than that: he has given the government itself a political opening to amend this awful law. The Conservatives should ensure that Bill M-446 goes to a vote, and every one of them -- as well as other MPs of good faith from every party that cares about freedom -- should join with Martin to make his amendment law.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

NoApologies: How We Lost Our Freedoms (Mark Fournier)

http://www.noapologies.ca/2008/01/how-we-lost-our-freedoms.html

 

 

How We Lost Our Freedoms

 

Many have wondered how it is that Canada has become a nation whose citizens must live in fear of what they say or write. How did human rights commissions come to wield so many powers that are incompatible with a free society? The answer is that they did it incrementally and right under our noses while we were failing to do our due diligence as citizens. The quotes below are taken directly from Paragraphs 8-9 of the CHRT transcripts of the Lemire constitutional challenge to the Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Until 1998 the CHRC had few "remedies" to apply when they had determined they had found an act of discrimination.

8. Section 53(2)(a) provided at that time: "53(2) If, at the conclusion of its inquiry, a Tribunal finds that the complaint to which the inquiry relates is substantiated, it may, subject to subsection (4) and section 54, make an order against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice and include in that order any of the following terms that it considers appropriate: (a) that the person cease the discriminatory practice and, in order to prevent the same or a similar practice from occurring in the future, take measures, including (i) adoption of a special program, plan or arrangement referred to in subsection 16(1), or (ii) the making of an application for approval and the implementing of a plan pursuant to section 17, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of those measures."

A reasonable application of these powers would be, as in a hypothetical case where an employer was asking the religion of job applicants in order to exclude all Catholics or Mormons, to assure that religion questions were no longer asked of applicants. This changed in 1998 when Section 54(1) of the Act was repealed and replaced.

9. In 1998 (S.C., 1998, c. 9, s. 28 ), section 54(1) of the Act was repealed and the following new provision enacted: "Orders relating to hate messages 54(1) If a member or panel finds that a complaint related to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make only one or more of the following orders: (a) an order containing terms referred to in paragraph 53(2)(a); (b) an order under subsection 53(3) to compensate a victim specifically identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, and (c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars.

This changed the Canadian Human Rights Commission in very fundamental ways. There is a world of difference between a government agency having the power to tell a citizen he must stop doing something and a government agency being in the business of seizing the property of one citizen to give to another citizen. And on top of this, the Act also gave the CHRC the power to seize the property of citizens on behalf of the state. This simple change in the Act has had very far reaching effects, but by far the worst of those effects has been the raw political power it has delivered into the hands of the CHRC. Now they not only can punish the accused, they can reward the accuser, and keep a cut for the state. To this day the CHRC is using this power to bankrupt people, to instill fear in private citizens and publishers, and to curtail many of the fundamental rights Canadians hold most dear. But this was not all that the CHRC gained from the revision of 1998. The revision continues:

(1.1) In deciding whether to order the person to pay the penalty, the member or panel shall take into account the following factors: (a) the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice; and (b) the willfulness or intent of the person who engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person's ability to pay the penalty."

This is where the Canadian Human Rights Commission gets into the thought crime business. This part of the Act gives the government agency the power to base their punishments on the offenders "intent', which is in fact his thoughts. We are where we are today because nobody was paying attention in 1998.  And now we all have to pay attention because our negligence is bearing its bitter fruit.

 -30-

Mark Fournier is the co-founder, with his wife Connie, of Canada's largest political discussion forum, FreeDominion.ca, which boasts a membership of over 8,500, and gets nearly 2 million page views per month.  Out of concern for their own legal protection, in early 2007 she and Connie sold the site to Liberty News Service of Panama; a company which describes its corporate mission as "buying websites from individuals and corporations living in countries where free speech is under attack, and protecting those websites from being shut down or seized by oppressive governments".  Mark has been politically active federally for ten years and is now a full time computer programmer analyst student at St. Lawrence College in Kingston, Ont.

 

 

 

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

MARK STEYN: "Human rights" for me but not for thee

 

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/912/128/

 

 

"Human rights" for me but not for thee

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, 22 January 2008

Just to clarify, I have no interest in Richard Warman except insofar as he illustrates, at best, the superfluousness of Section 13 (if this provision is so necessary to Canadians, how come this one lone Canadian has been a plaintiff on every single Section 13 case since 2002?) and, at worst, the corruption of its administration by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. However, I was struck by a couple of things in this decision by the CHRC. This is the case of Kulbashian vs Warman from 2006. In essence, Warman had taken Kulbashian to the CHRC and Kulbashian retaliated by taking Warman to the CHRC. After all, Warman posts message at the same "hate" website Kulbashian does - as the "investigator", Sandy Kozak, conceded, technically:

Bearing the above in mind, this complaint is not clearly lacking in merit as the respondent [Warman]'s actions do amount to communicating hate messages albeit in a very limited context.

Hmm. However, Investigator Kozak declined to proceed with the complaint on the following grounds. Since filing it, Mr Kulbashian had been found guilty by the Tribunal in the Warman vs Kulbashian Section 13 case. Therefore, Investigator Kozak concluded:

Given these findings by the Tribunal, it can be deduced that the complainant [Kulbashian] is not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act or of s.13.

Do I understand that right? Because Kulbashian had been found "guilty" of Section 13 "hate", he had no right to accuse anybody else of Section 13 "hate"? Because his conviction demonstrated that he was "not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act", he had no right to avail himself of its provisions?

Whatever happened to equality before the law? Suppose I decide to countersue, say, the Canadian Islamic Congresss and the Osgoode Four - Elmo's kids - because they've exposed me to "hatred and contempt". And suppose, while that complaint was being considered, the CIC/Maclean's suit was decided (as it almost certainly will be) in the plaintiffs' favour. Would the CHRC then deny me the right, as the author of the offending Section 13 "hate" speech, the right to make a complaint under Section 13? Would the fact that I have said repeatedly that the CHRC should not be in the thought-police business be taken to demonstrate that I was "not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act" and therefore should have no recourse to it?

By the same token, if you call for the introduction of private health care to Canada, should you be denied treatment in the Royal Victoria?

This is joke jurisprudence made up as they go along. More on the extremely active "activist" here

 

 

 

 

WARREN KINSELLA: The Internet's Attack Poodle.. targets Marc Lemire

Wacky

WARREN KINSELLA

 

The Internet's Attack Poodle...

 

 

http://www.freedomsite.org/kinsella

 

 

Warren Kinsella has taken it upon himself to attack me on his website over the past few days. Poor Warren is mad I have called him out numerous times for not telling the truth. 

 

Instead of wasting my time replying to more of Kinsella's lies, half-truths and libel, I have decided to open the Kinsella files instead.  See what a sleeze he is yourself.

 

There is already plenty on my website about who Warren SPINsella is. (See: Kinsella’s Kookpot, Kinsella Lies again) 

 

 

Internet resources: 

  • Kinsella pays Rocan for libel,  
  • According to Wikipedia, Warren was front and centre with his band "Shit From Hell"  After reading Wornouts blog, perhaps Shit from Mouth would be a more appropriate title?

 

Here is the real dirty side of Kinsella, from an E-Mail exchange with me in 1999, which ends up with the great debater SPINsella calling me a "Hitler-loving pillow biter".  He also wants to "meet me" for a beer.  I agree ... Kinsella buggers off. This may have been interesting since Kinsella had ties to the ultra-violent Anti-Racist Action (according to his buddy Agent 007 Matthew Lauder)

 

Notice most of the E-Mails were sent from the Law Firm he worked at. McMillian Binch.   Such professionalism.  Maybe it's that since I am not a trained lawyer, and didn't pass the bar, I wouldn't get such great retorts as "why don't you shove them up your arse"

 

 

 

 

 

The Kinsella Files

(To see a larger version of any emails click on them)

 

 

 

According to the former research director for the Guelph and District Multicult centre - Matthew Lauder, Kinsella provides "a lot of info" to the violent street thugs at Anti-Racist Action.

 

 

 

 

 

See the rest of the webpage at:  http://www.freedomsite.org/kinsella

 

 

 

 

Sunday, January 20, 2008

YouTube Video on Jessica Beaumont

 

For Our People:

The Jessica Beaumont Case

 

 

    

 

 

 

[Watch Video Now]

 

 

 

 

 

See the Paul Fromm YouTube video site at:

http://www.youtube.com/CanadaFirst2007

 

 

MACLEANS MAGAZINE: Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition? (CHRC)

 

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080117_24131_24131&page=1

 

 

It's all very odd, 'that's for sure'

Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition?

MARK STEYN | Macleans Magazine | January 17, 2008

 

 

Our lesson for today comes from Shirlene McGovern:

"You're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure."

Clichés are the reflex mechanisms of speech — "Yeah, sure, it's a free country. Everyone's entitled to his opinion, right?" And we get so careless with them that we don't even notice when they become obsolescent.

But Shirlene McGovern should. Because it's her job to determine whether you — yes, you, Gordy Schmoe of 37b Hoser Crescent — are entitled to your opinions. Miss McGovern is a "human rights agent" with Alberta's "human rights" commission, and she was officially interrogating Ezra Levant as to why, in his capacity as publisher of the Western Standard, he had reproduced in his magazine the so-called "Danish cartoons." As you'll recall from a year or so back, these were representations of the Prophet Muhammad published in the widely unread newspaper Jyllands-Posten, but which nevertheless prompted the usual surprisingly coordinated campaign of vandalism, death threats, mayhem and murder by the more excitable Muslims in various parts of the world. I doubt, had I been the editor of Jyllands-Posten, I would have published the original cartoons, because most of them weren't terribly good. But once the drawings became an international news story it seems absurd to publish reports on the controversy without also showing what all the fuss is about. CNN did show the cartoons, but with the Prophet's face all blurry and pixilated — the first time, I believe, that this familiar technique of investigative TV journalism has been applied not to a human being but to a, er, drawing, as if the cartoon Muhammad had entered the witness protection program.

In reality, it was the CNN guys who were hoping they were in the witness protection program. Back in Jutland, the cartoonists had originally accepted the Muhammad assignment in order to test the boundaries of freedom of speech in Denmark. And they failed only insofar as the episode tested freedom's boundaries not in Denmark, where nobody has been prosecuted; nor in the U.S., where CNN's craven straddle artfully finessed the issue; nor in France, where the sole editor to publish the cartoons was subsequently fired by his boss, as is a private employer's right; nor even at the European Union, whose commissioner for justice and security proposed a "media code" that would encourage, ah, "prudence" in the way the press covers, ahem, certain touchy subjects, but who was at least at pains to emphasize that these restraints would be "self-regulated" by the press themselves.

No, the Western jurisdiction in which the Danish cartoons have most comprehensively demonstrated the constraints on free expression is our own decayed dominion: only in Canada have the commissars of the state launched an official investigation for the alleged "crime" of publishing the cartoons. Last week, sitting across the table from Shirlene McGovern, Ezra Levant launched into an impassioned denunciation of his interrogation. He took the quaint view that his "freedom of expression" was not the generous if qualified gift of Trudeaupian bureaucrats but his inalienable right and one bolstered in this country by 800 years of English Common Law as well as more modish innovations such as the 1946 UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Canada likes that last one so much it sticks it on the back of the $50 bill, even though we are in sustained and systemic breach of its provisions on free expression. Yes, yes, I know: so are Sudan and North Korea, but come on, is that really the league you want to play in?

In the course of his interrogation, Mr. Levant also pointed out that the time and money Canada's "human rights" pseudo-courts cost publishers has a broader "chilling effect" — on all the stories that will never see the light of day because at the back of some editor's mind is the calculation of the cost of fending off Shirlene McGovern. And, at the end of this exchange, Agent McGovern, licensed to chill, looked blandly across the table and shrugged: "You're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure."

No, sorry. That cliché is no longer operative in Canada. Today you're only entitled to your opinions if Agent McGovern says you are — "for sure." Ezra Levant was of the opinion that he should publish the Danish cartoons. That opinion is now on trial. Ken Whyte, the executive honcho at Maclean's, was of the opinion he should publish an excerpt from my book. That opinion comes up for trial at the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal in June, and at the Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal shortly thereafter, and most likely at the Ontario "Human Rights" Tribunal a little way down the road.

Because I've always been opposed to "human rights" commissions in theory (I like proper courts with things like "due process"), I failed to appreciate until Maclean's present predicament how much worse they are in practice. These commissions were supposedly intended to investigate discrimination in housing and the like, but then came the very poorly drafted Section XIII, which makes it a crime to communicate anything electronically "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." "Likely," eh? What does that mean? Well, according to the key determination, subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court, in Canadian legalese "likely" now means "highly unlikely." That's to say, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence by the plaintiffs of anyone at all ever having been exposed to actual hatred or contempt, nor even any coherent argument as to why there is a hypothetical possibility of someone unspecified being exposed to theoretical hatred or contempt in the decades ahead, a commission can still deem such hatred or contempt "likely."

In the three decades of the Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal's existence, not a single "defendant" has been "acquitted." Would you bet on Maclean's bucking this spectacular 100 per cent conviction rate? "Sentence first, verdict afterwards," declares the queen in Alice In Wonderland. Canada's not quite there yet, but at the Human Rights Commission, it's "Verdict first, trial afterwards." So I'm guilty and Ken Whyte's guilty and Maclean's is guilty because that's the only verdict there is.

Who has availed themselves of the "human rights" protected by Section XIII? In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole "complainant," one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal "human rights" star chamber since 2002 — and he's won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights. Well, no. Mr. Warman doesn't have to demonstrate that he's been deprived of his human rights, only that it's "likely" (i.e. "highly un-") that someone somewhere will be deprived of some right sometime. Who is Richard Warman? What's his story? Well, he's a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission: an investigator. Same as Shirlene McGovern.

Isn't there something a little odd in a supposedly necessary Canadian federal "human rights" system used all but exclusively by one lone Canadian who served as a long-time employee of that system? Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition? You can hardly blame the Canadian Islamic Congress and the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and no doubt the Supreme All-Powerful Islamic Executive Council of Swift Current, Sask., for now figuring they'd like a piece of the human rights action.

In a free society, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. And when you see what's being done at the CHRC it's hard not to conclude that the genius of the English legal system — the balance between prosecutor, judge, and jury — has been all but destroyed. The American website Pundita has a sharp analysis of Section XIII, comparing it to Philip K. Dick's sci-fi novel The Minority Report, set in a world in which citizens can be sentenced for "pre-crime" — for criminal acts which have not occurred but are "likely" to. Who needs futuristic novels when we're living it here and now in one of the oldest constitutional democracies on the planet? What kind of countries have tribunals with 100 per cent conviction rates that replace the presumption of innocence with the presumption of guilt and in which truth is not only no defence but compelling evidence of that guilt? Consider this statement, part of the criteria by which the star chamber determines when a Section XIII crime has occurred. What does it look for as evidence?

"Messages that make use of allegedly true stories, news reports, pictures and references to apparently reputable sources in an attempt to lend an air of objectivity and truthfulness to the extremely negative characterization of the targeted group have been found to be likely to expose members of the targeted group to hatred and contempt."

Read that again slowly. Citing news reports, reputable sources, facts, statistics, documentation, quotations, references, scholarly studies, etc., has been "found" to be clear evidence of your "likely" "pre-crime."

Canadians are uncomfortable even confronting what's going on in their name. On last week's letters page, Lauren Demaree of Windsor seemed closest to "mainstream" "moderate" Canadian opinion:

"Placing limits on free speech is a slippery slope, but that is not the only issue in play here. There is often a fine line that is crossed between opinion and hate propaganda and our laws need to reflect this more effectively. Where do we draw the line? When a group of people is harassed or when someone is beaten? How about killed? When your writer Andrew Coyne sits on a high horse spouting the ideals of free speech, he doesn't stop and think about the consequences of his words."

Who has been "killed" or "beaten" or "harassed" by Coyne-Steyn "hate propaganda"? The killings and bombings, as Ezra Levant pointed out, occur in countries without freedom of expression — because when you criminalize words the only expression left is action. How sad to see Canada pursuing, as the federal "human rights" commission puts it, "A Watch On Hate." Not "hate crimes" or even "hate speech," but just "hate" — thoughts, feelings. Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress is a world-class hater who thinks all Israeli civilians over 18 are legitimate targets for murder. Bully for him. Yet, in his pursuit of Maclean's, Lauren Demaree sees the hater as the pin-up crusader who'll abolish hate. No free society can do that. But it can certainly abolish, incrementally, freedom of expression and the presumption of innocence in relentless pursuit of such a banal happy-face chimera. The arbitrary absurdity of Alice-in-Wonderland's queen yoked to the Cheshire Cat smile. This is your fight, too, Lauren, even if you don't yet know it.

 

 

 

 

Friday, January 18, 2008

ChronicleHerald: Protect us from human rights commissions

 

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1024759.html

 

 

 

Published: 2008-01-15

Protect us from human rights commissions

By PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT

WATCH OUT for the thought police, better known as Canada’s human rights commissions.

Saying or publishing material that "offends" somebody – even if it does not remotely meet the legal standard of libel/slander or hate speech – can still land you in front of one of these government-created tribunals, forced to defend yourself, at your expense, in a legal twilight zone where normal judicial rules of evidence don’t apply.

Think I’m being alarmist? Two cases before Canadian human rights commissions right now should be triggering flashing red lights and alarm bells from Signal Hill to Vancouver Island.

Two years ago, media outlets around the world agonized over whether to publish the controversial Danish cartoons, a dozen images depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Danish daily that first published the cartoons, you recall, did so as an explicit test of freedom of expression. After their publication sparked riots, primarily by Muslims, in European and Islamic countries, including a number of deaths and property damage, North American media outlets weighed the images’ value as an essential part of a news story, with worries that re-publication might set off more violent protests.

Many outlets chose not to republish the cartoons. But others did. One of the few media outlets in Canada to do so was The Western Standard, then published by Ezra Levant.

Freedom to criticize even religion has a long tradition in the West (just think of the urine-covered crucifix held up as "art" some years back), as does editorial cartooning, which regularly, and at times viciously, lampoons public figures and causes. Though controversial, the cartoons broke no laws (in fact, by editorial cartooning standards, most were benign). Levant was criticized by some, lauded by others. His decision sparked debate – which, after all, is the point, isn’t it?

No matter. Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Chillingly, it agreed to hear the case, meaning that, though Levant broke no law, his Charter-guaranteed right to freedom of speech was, according to the Alberta body, apparently conditional. Levant, appearing in protest last week before what he called a "kangaroo court," videotaped his meeting with the AHRC bureaucrat questioning him. The session is on YouTube. Check out the first segment at www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8 .

The other case where Big Brother, in the form of our human "rights" commissions, has now decided to sit in judgment on the boundaries of freedom of speech, concerns columnist Mark Steyn, Maclean’s magazine and the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Last October, Maclean’s published an excerpt from Steyn’s new book, America Alone. In that work, Steyn argues demographics foretells the collapse of the West and rise of Islam. Below-replacement birth rates in many Western countries, including Canada, says Steyn, and high fertility rates among Muslims, increases the danger Islamic fundamentalism will overpower Western countries in future.

Now, you’re free to agree or disagree with Steyn, but no one is saying – and certainly no law enforcement agency has indicated it thinks – that there is anything illegal about Steyn’s book. There’s nothing libellous about it, it isn’t hate speech and it breaks no other Criminal Code restrictions. Yes, it’s controversial and much debated, but again, isn’t that the point?

Not according to four law students at Osgoode Hall, who filed complaints, backed by the Canadian Islamic Congress, with the federal, B.C. and Ontario human rights commissions, alleging Steyn and Maclean’s were promoting ill will towards Muslims. Again, in a measure of just how far these commissions believe their jurisdiction over what we say goes, the federal and B.C. bodies have indicated they’ll hear the case.

The implications are enormous. Based on the actions of human rights commissions in this country, anyone who feels slighted by what they read or hear is free to go to one of these august bodies and complain. The threshold is not whether any law was broken – such complaints would never make it inside a real courtroom – but whether the complainant’s "right" not to be offended – by, to be sure, sometimes edgy material – was transgressed.

There is no cost to the complainant, for if a commission takes a case, its lawyers act on its behalf at state expense. No such luck for those who’ve had the temerity to say something controversial. If they want a lawyer, it’s on their dime.

Human rights bodies need to be reined in, hard and soon, and told to stop trampling on one of the most basic rights of all – free speech.

(pauls@herald.ca)

 

** CHRC senior investigator conducts spying operation against the Conservative Website FreeDominion.ca

Canadian “Human Rights” Commission senior investigator conducts spying operation against the Conservative Website FreeDominion.ca

  The dark plot of the CHRC’s Agent Provocateur agenda Exposed!

 

 

>>> http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan18-08_FreeDominion_and_CHRC.html <<<

 

 

 

Startling news on the Canadian “Human Rights” Commissions plot to entrap Internet message board operators enters a new realm of deviousness.  This “outing” comes on the heels of a hard fought victory by M arc Lemire over the CHRC at the Federal Court of Canada on Tuesday January 15, 2008.

It can now be made public that Dean Steacy, the most senior internet investigator with the fanatical Canadian “Human Rights” Commission has infiltrated the conservative message board website – FreeDominion.ca.

CHRC investigator Dean Streacy testified under oath in the Warman v. Lemire case that they only view websites as a result of investigating a complaint, but the latest revelations about Dean Steacy and FreeDominion reveal a much darker and sinister plot that could amount to entrapment of webmasters.

 

Testimony of Dean Steacy – May 10, 2007

 

M S KULASZKA: To your knowledge, does the Commission monitor "Stormfront.org"?

M R. STEACY: It would depend on whether there is a complaint about something that is on "Stormfront.org", or whether or not an individual has posted information on "Stormfront.org".

M S KULASZKA: Would the viewing alone of "Stormfront.org" be driven by complaints?

M R. STEACY: Yes.

M S KULASZKA: So somebody would have to complain about something on "Stormfront.org".

M R. STEACY: Yes.

Warman v. Lemire – Volume 21, Page 4715-4716

 

M R. VIGNA: You were asked several questions about whether there is monitoring of the internet and so forth. Can you tell us whether complaints at the Commission, whether they are discrimination complaints that are not section 13 or section 13 complaints, are complaint-driven or if they are initiated by the Commission?

M R. STEACY: They are all complaint-driven.

M R. VIGNA: What does that mean in concrete terms, particularly when it comes to section 13?

M R. STEACY: It means that somebody from outside the Commission has initiated the complaint.

Warman v. Lemire – Volume 21, Page 4853

   

It is quite clear according to Senior investigator Agent 007, Dean Steacy that the CHRC only investigates websites once a complaint has been received.

In testimony by Dean Steacy at the Tribunal on May 10, 2007, the CHRC invoked Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act to block all questions on who used the alias “Jadewarr” on the Stormfront message board.  The “Jadewarr” account was used to engage Marc Lemire in conversation with the intent of possible entrapment.

Marc Lemire challenged all invocations of Section 37 to the Federal Court of Canada.  After seven months of litigation, the Canadian Human Rights Commission gave up and admitted partial answers to the questions ask by Marc Lemire’s expert counsel Barbara Kulaszka .

The answers given by Dean Steacy on “Jadewarr” were: [See PDF of actual letter]

1. Do any investigators post on Stormfront.org?


I am not aware of any investigator other than me, who has posted on Stormfront.


2. Getting back to Jadewarr, do Commission employees sign up accounts on Stormfront, under pseudonyms such as "Jadewarr"?


I used the Jadewarr email address to create an account on Stormfront. I am not aware whether or not other investigators have created other accounts on Stormfront.


3. Do you know who Jadewarr is?

Jadewarr is not a person, it is an email address and a user account on Stormfront.org. I created the Jadewarr email address on yahoo.ca and the Jadewarr account on Stormfront. I have used the Jadewarr email address and the Jadewarr account on Stormfront on occasion, in the course of investigating complaints. I am not aware of anyone else having used the Jadewarr email address or account.


4. To your knowledge, is Jadewarr a Commission employee?


See above.


5. As part of your duties, have you ever signed up with a message board and made postings?


Yes, I have done so using the Jadewarr account in investigating section 13 complaints.

 

Admissions by CHRC – December 20, 2007

   

Jadewarr and Dean Steacy.

  So, it’s clear now that Dean Steacy was using the infiltration account “Jadewarr” on Stormfront.org, where he attempted to engage Marc Lemire and others on Stormfront.

There was no investigation of Marc Lemire by the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the time, yet Dean Steacy was intent on trying to get users of Stormfront to post material and answer his questions.  Why?  What was his intent? Was this authorized?

Now comes the revelation of FreeDominion. And take a close look at the chronology of what happened back in 2006.

 

Chronology of CHRC’s Dean Steacy on FreeDominion

 April 5, 2006

Dean Steacy signs up the account “Jadewarr” on FreeDominion.ca and logs in. Uses the official E- M ail address “jadewarr@yahoo.ca”

 

April 19, 2006

A message posted to FreeDominion which forms the basis of a complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission filed by Marie-Line Gentes

 

September 29, 2006

The actual complaint by Gentes is received by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  Complaint investigated by Sandy Kozak

 

Why did Dean Steacy sign up an account only a few weeks before a post appears on a public message board that would lead to a CHRC complaint against FreeDominion?

Steacy testified under oath that the CHRC would only visit websites as a result of a complaint received. So what on earth was he doing on FreeDominion just a few weeks before a message was posted that Marie-Line Gentes would later claim was “hate”?

  • Could it be that Steacy indeed posted that message?  
  • Could it be that Steacy somehow advocated for that message to be posted?  
  • Could it be that Steacy was targeting FreeDominion and laid in wait for a message he hoped could shut down FreeDominion?
  • Did Dean Steacy entrap FreeDominion in hopes of having the website suffer huge fines and face lifetime Cease and Desist orders, which would probably result in FreeDominion being shut down?
  • Was Steacy in cahoots with Marie-Line Gentes?
  • Why would Dean Steacy out of the blue sign up an account on FreeDominion only a few days before a message was posted which would have dragged the website operators of FreeDominion before a tribunal where truth, intent and motivation are no defence?

The question might hover around why for a long time and considering the CHRC’s documented abuse of Canadian laws and absolute obsession to hide and cover-up their misdeeds,  the why might not be answered for a while.

 

Entrapment is the order of the day for the censors.  

  Like bullies in a school yard, they have attacked the weak and helpless to get caselaw and legal “presidents” on the books. Now their fury turns to websites like the Freedomsite and FreeDominion.  They had a big problem tho…  No one was posting anything that would violate law.  Hey not to worry.  The censors are resourceful if nothing else...

  Out of the woodwork came a flurry of “anonymous” posters who would post material they could use to shut down websites they don’t like. Be it material that might be defamatory so you could sue, or material that might violate Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, where the victim could be dragged before a prolonged costly quasi-legal sessions which would both financially ruin him and destroy his reputation.  ( Marc Lemire has so far been the victim on the CHRC since 2003!  FIVE years!!!!! With no end in sight)

 Could it be just a co-incidence that Steacy happened to show up just weeks before?  I sure doubt it.  As Republican president hopeful Ron Paul said a few weeks ago "In politics, nothing happens by accident. ...

  There is more information to reveal on what Dean Steacy has done, but the Marc Lemire defence team are holding the information in reserve until Mr. Steacy is under oath and on the witness stand.  Where the laws of perjury and Natural Justice apply.

 

  Infiltration of Message Boards part of a sinister plot

 Earlier in 2007, political dynamo Paul Fromm and the Freedomsite broke the story that Sgt. Stephen Camp of the Edmonton Police “Hate Crimes” was posting vile racist messages on the Stormfront.org website.  Officer Camp admitted under oath in the Warman v. Bahr human rights tribunal that he posed online using the alias “Estate” on the Stormfront.org message board.

 Some of the comments posted by the head of the “hate crimes” unit included:

 

  • “Anybody read the Edmonton Journal dated January 22? I know it's a kike publication but...”
  • “With any luck they will end up like the nogs in the states who predominantly kuill each other.”
  • In Reference to Native people he wrote: “retarded little ch-g” and "how can u hold the little redskin responsible he's only an animal..."
  • “Our corrupt government is nothing but a puppet to this so called multicultural agenda.”
  •  “This post again re emphasises the point that our tax dollars are waisted on keeping Zundel behind bars, while M uslim extremists are allowed re entry into Canada and free to come and go as they please.

Infiltration of websites such as Stormfront is part of an organized and darker tactic that is now employed by politicized Police agencies and censorship enforcers.  The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies is now offering a new course aimed at Canadian Law enforcement agencies and "investigators" entitled "Investigating Internet Extremism".  According to the Wiesenthal Centre’s website:

   "The workshop works from the premise that in order for law enforcement to be effective in the arena of hate, it must be proactive rather than reactive." The course description continues "Investigating Internet Hate consists of three components; namely infiltration, Internet tools and legalities. In the first section, police officers are introduced to the most frequented web forums, allowing them to become ‘part of the community’ and investigate varying groups and their activities." [Emphasis added] (Copied from Wiesenthal website: www.fswc.ca

Being “proactive” in terms of a speech related offense can only mean entrapment. As we have seen with Sgt. Stephen Camp of the Edmonton Police, being “proactive” on Stormfront by posting hateful messages, then executing a search warrant against activist Glenn Bahr, and arresting him under the “hate law” for allegedly posting messages onto Stormfront and other internet websites. At one point, Sgt. Camp even called Family Services to have Bahr’s kids taken away. Is Glenn Bahr a victim of entrapment? The charges against him were stayed in 2007.

 Among some of the Police forces that the Wiesenthal Centre list as recipients of their "training" includes:  Ontario Provincial Police, Owen Sound Police Service, Kingston Police Service, Ottawa Police Service, Barrie Police and the Vancouver Police Service.

Next time you see an offensive post online, don’t automatically assume it was some underground neo-nazi / fascist / white supremacist / anti-Semite / Jew-hater / homophobe / anti-immigrant / conservative /  hater.

 Ask yourself if perhaps it was:

  • Dean Steacy?  
  • the Edmonton Police?  
  • Some “hate crimes” unit?  
  • Anti-Racist wacko?
  • Canadian “Human Rights” Commission?
  • People who later file complaints at the CHRC against you?
  • M uslim extremists?
  • Anti-Conservative?

 

-----------------

Marc Lemire is a human rights consultant and Certified Computer Systems Engineer and Computer Forensics Technician based in Toronto , Ontario Canada .  He has advised numerous victims of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In 2005 Mr. Lemire filed a Constitutional Challenge of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  After 25 hearing days, his case is still before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which amazingly has the power to decide on the constitutionality of its own enabling legislation.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge

 

Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law 

and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

 

·         Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Marc Lemire

152 Carlton Street 

PO Box 92545 

Toronto, Ontario 

M5A 2K1 

Canada

 

 

 

 

 

         

 

The Freedom-Site has been constantly online since 1996

Your Donations = Our Survival

152 Carlton Street,

PO Box 92545,

Toronto, Ontario,

M5A 2K1

Please send what you can to help keep our website operational