Maybe I did the Cools post?

(a) Warman is arguing “I’m only seeking $50,000 in damages, so we can bypass all that cumbersome bother about discovery and cross-examination”; whikle

(b) the Ontario HRC held “We lack jurisdiction to make a finding of Islamophobia against Steyn and Maclean’s, but we find them to be Islamophobic anyway.”

The theory behind the civil lawsuits vs criminal trials distinction, as behind the distinction between administrative tribunals vs proper judicial courts, and between small claims vs large amounts, is that society can legitimately provide quick ‘n’ dirty justice on the cheap if less is at stake. (You don’t get habeas for parking fines).

Three problems with this distinction, though:

(i) To a large govt agency, $49,999 is spare change. To a blogger or independent journalist, it may be a year’s gross income.

(ii) Even if the monetary value is small, the official “stigma” (as they say about criminal sentences proper) is great in the eyes of Joe or Jacques Layperson. “Hey, d’ya hear that some official court-type body found that X was a racist?” “Eee-ew!” Cue Burke and his denunciation of the ship-money. Would fifty shillings have made Mr Hampden a pauper? No, but being declared a racial/ religious bigot without any opportunity to respond in kind, would have made him a pariah.

(iii) It is objectionable that a private individual is enriching him/herself by bringing this plaints and lawsuits. If bullies are blockading the school toilet and demanding a dollar to pee, I’ll be damned if I’ll pay them and reward their extortion racket.

There are cases in other common-law jurisdictions that if a tribunal or commission editorialises and makes a critical finding against an identifiable individual, then – even apart from any fine, disqualification, licence cancellation, etc imposed – that individual has the right to demand procedural justice before such a finding is pronounced. Surely Canadian law hasn’t been Napoleonised so far (yet) that that common-law principle has been abandoned?

I don’t buy into the Tin Foilers theory that the IP addy was a floater, sorry I’m not buying that little red herring. I can check my IP address hourly and it’s never changed ever since I bought this house. Second what are the laws of probability that a complete stranger would post on a near dead forum would be assigned the very IP addy that an employee of the HRC apparently used previously to post white supremacist crap on said forum?

Third, the HRC’s employees admit to using monikers and posting hatefilled post on forums to entrapped people so why should the Cools post be negated as mere chance? Why was it pulled from the Lamire hearing, why won’t they answer the questions poised to them?

The truth will come out, it’s only a matter of time. Do I believe Warman made the post I’m not a hundred percent sure, I do know that the chances of this being a complete stranger who just happened to use an IP addy used previously by a HRC employee isn’t mere chance. The math doesn’t add up, also why wasn’t the person who wrote the Cools post charged under Section 13? It’s the worst piece of filth I’ve ever read on the internet, again why ignore that person and continue persecuting Lamire?

All the questions I have lead me straight back to the HRC and it’s employees and it’s number one complainant, reasonable doubt isn’t applicable under British Common Law. I’ve read enough transcripst to have rendered my verdict.