A Chekist with a White Cane

The CHRC’s lawyer - one of several who have appeared on the Warman v. Lemire file - who rejoices in the name Blight and is in private practice has filed a letter response to the various letters and applications we have all been sending to the CHRC with respect to the “in camera” nature of the March 25 hearing in which Dean Stacey and another will be cross examined.

The Commission has an ongoing serious concern to ensuring that the witnesses’ privacy is protected…..

The Commission proposes a variation of the Tribunal’s Ruling of May 7, 2007 in order to allow a “live” broadcast of the hearing to members of the public in a separate room. In addition, the Commission would not object to a video link from the hearing room into a separate room, insofar as the witness cannot be observed via that link. ezra levant

These are people who simply don’t get it.

Yes, indeed, people are very angry at the Commission and its sock puppet investigators. So what? The rest of us - police officers, childcare workers, criminal accused, lawyers, average guy witnesses - have to appear in open Court except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apparently Dean Stacey is blind. So blind that he needs the assistance of a reader (who would be a treat to cross examine). This is unfortunate. However, as a part of his job as an investigator, and I use the term loosely, for the CHRC it is certainly reasonable to expect that, from time to time, he would have to give evidence and, big surprise, be cross examined on that evidence.

But the part that the Blight does not quite get is that allowing a video of, what, the hearing room wall? does not in any way address the issue of being able to observe a witness’ demeanor as he testifies. While there is only one Tribunal member hearing the case, the role of the press and the public is to assess the witnesses and reach their own conclusions. This would be the free press our Charter so glibly guarantees.

Strategically Ezra would like the Tribunal to rule in favour of the Blight’s motion. He has a point; however, strategy should play no part in the exposure of the corrupt, anti-democratic, practices of the Commission. Simple truth telling, argument from first principles and a refusal to be cowed have got us this far and they will bring us home.

But I do agree with Ezra’s last point,

“We’re winning.”

(I must confess, if I lived in Ottawa I would pick an entrance to the building in which the hearing was being held and stand in the cold with a zoom lens and a camera looking for a Chekist with a white cane…how dare these people demand special treatment. How dare they!)

Update: I’ve just skimmed the Appendixes to the Blight’s submission…from Free Dominion. Hilarious! If this is the best the Blight can do she will simply be embarrassed before the Tribunal, not to mention the Federal Court. People are allowed to express political opinions. Sometimes vividly. So what. Of course there is the lingering question as to whether some of the mildly over the top material might have been published by a Lucy Warman sock puppet.

Written by jay on March 20th, 2008 with 8 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging.

• [+] Digg: Feature this article
• [+] Del.icio.us: Bookmark this article
• [+] Furl: Bookmark this article

Related articles

• I hadn’t noticed one was gone (July 22nd, 2008)
• Ending Drug Prohibition (July 21st, 2008)
• Jonathan Chait Disects Naomi Klein (July 20th, 2008)
• Global WArming May prevent Heart Attacks (July 17th, 2008)
• Lorne Gunter answers Alan’s comment (July 14th, 2008)