But Seriously
The March 25 Warman v Lemire Human Rights Tribunal hearing has come and gone with more questions raised than answered. The left and right sides of the Canadian blogosphere have posted assorted analysis. Warman didn’t bother to turn up.
What we learned was that CHRC investigators:
- routinely use alias on the internet
- obtain information from police forces which was originally obtained by warrant
- may have used an open wi-fi location to post material to the net
- investigate sites where there is no complaint but might be
- investigate sites if there is the possibility of a “threat” to CHRC investigators
- do not keep records of what alias is used for a particular posting
- share alias
- give certain complainants access to CHRC computers
- allow complainants to train the investigators assigned to their case
- refer to MOUs with police forces in documents while denying the existence of said MOUs
There is more, but that is to gilt the lily.
I am not a fan of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. But that is a purely political and constitutional position. What the cross-examination of Dean Stacey (and the very ill-prepared and forgetful Ms. Riszk) revealed is an agency of the Federal Government which, apparently, has no management systems, no chain of evidence and no serious controls with respect to its investigations.
Even if you think s.13 is the only bulwark between Canada and the Third Reich you should be concerned with the utter lack of supervision and proper control over the investigative activities of the CHRC.
The Lemire case, if nothing else, strongly suggests the CHRC needs to examine its internal policies. Leave aside the unfairness and the bias which Stacey’s testimony revealed; the fact is that the human rights cowboy strategy to which he testified is ultimately self defeating.
Imagine for a moment a police force which, for example, took evidence of criminal activity improperly obtained by a third party and then charged people with crimes based on that evidence. Or a police force which, knowing there was a grow-op somewhere in your neighbourhood, posed as the “Welcome Wagon” to gain access to every house in that neighbourhood. (And, just for fun, add the happy thought of that police force dropping little baggies of pot behind your couch to see if you would pick them up.)
Do you think for a minute a police force which routinely did this sort of thing, apparently with the approval of the chain of command, would secure many convictions?
And imagine if that police force didn’t bother keeping records of the “Welcome Wagon’s” visits.
The CHRC is not the police. As my leftie friends are fond of pointing out the CHRC is a remedial rather than prosecutorial organization. However, if one is before the Tribunal that is a distinction which makes precious little difference.
Nor should it. At a minimum basic management and procedural systems need to be in place. These need to include some basic rules.
- no investigation without a complaint
- no “preferred” complainant status
- no undisclosed “evidence sharing” arrangements with police or security services
- express, written, permission from management for all entrapment or sting operations
- proper contact reports
- verifiable chain of evidence procedures
If we assume for a moment that s.13 is a good thing then it is critical that the CHRC conduct its investigations into s.13 complaints in a professional and legal manner.
So far the CHRC has been lucky in its respondents: most have limited resources and are deeply unsympathetic. Very few have been able to devote the time and the money to mounting a defence at the level of Lemire’s defence. And, frankly, Lemire’s defence has really only scratched the surface of the profound mismanagement, procedural arrogance and legal ignorance which the CHRC has demonstrated. That the Commission has a 100% conviction rate in the face of its investigators’ apparent incapacity and its management tolerance of that incapacity underscores the overbreadth of the provisions of s. 13.
No matter what the final outcome of Warman v Lemire the case has, or should have, alerted the Commission to the fact it needs to get its own investigative house in order.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
well…we knew they were exceeding their brief but it’s an eye opener to see how confident and cavalier they were in going about it…and really, why would they worry about the petty details when the outcome is a given.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
It’s a mess but no less a mess than may other government agencies I suspect. The CPC seems not to have this on their list of priorities.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Bah! You are getting soft in your old age. Putting “basic management and procedural systems” in place is a civil servant’s wet dream. You are throwing the Commission a lifeline. Can’t you imagine the Commission smoothing the ruffled feathers of concerned MPs by talking about all their brand new, super-failsafe procedural systems?
If we assume both the Commission and S 13 have some life in them yet and we want stop gap measures in the interim, surely there should be no damages awared directly to the complainant (they can go to court if they have suffered personally), no S. 13 complaints initiated without the consent of the Commissioners themselves and potential cost sanctions against the Commission for unsuccessful complaints. Also, the complainant should be there throughout and offically part of the prosecution. I’m not sure there is a heck of a lot that could be done about investigative practices without a statutory amendment. You can’t put a video camera in their offices.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Pretty thin gruel. And you don’t really believe the whole “CHRC hacked a private citizen’s wifi” thing, do you?
Frankly, I suspect everyone that got behind Lemire and this case are starting to feel pretty stupid right about now.
As is Macleans.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
There’s enough there for a judicial review of the process an a legitimate plea of commission malfeasance.
As stated it’s unfortunate that the victim has such fringe or distasteful political opinion but this is something that has beeded doing since Doug Collin’s was accosted by the thought crimes zealots over his review of a movie which “offended” a morbidly sensitive HRC NGO connected “complainant”
This is just the case that opens up proof of sloppy,unprofessional, politically biased/motivated witch hunting in the CHRC.
It will be the Steyn/Maclean’s case that nails the coffin shut on this abuse.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I am an employee of a crown corporation and a former public sector union member representing the workers. I have participated in human rights training courses and have seen the collective agreement between the management and bargaining unit become a monster protecting offenders. Growing numbers of employees with the help of the union’s shop stewards(on paid time) are using human rights to sustain disability, make false human rights accusations against managers,and justify absenteeism,tardiness & insubordination.Some of these persons have committed criminal acts such as assault & theft while remaining employees.Canadians must know what employees are doing!
March 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Morning, nazi lovers!
March 28th, 2008 at 5:06 am
BCL:..pretty thin gruel… One wonders what it would take to make you call it a nice thick stew.. or maybe a swamp! Just reflexively jumping on the I-have to defend-the-HRC-against-these-wierdo-nazis bandwagon, apparently without paying attention to the facts, does your credibilty no good
Yes, for those of us who do real work for a living, a lot of that tribunal hearing was as tasteless and boring as dust.. I read most of Kady’s blog, and she was obviously finding it hard to stay awake.
But when you start to look at the actual procedure, it was a comedy of ineptness, error and just plain deceit.. or it would be a comedy if it weren’t so serious! If that hearing was typical of HRC operations, it’s obvious they’re a closed-shop little cabal of axe-grinders, with little or no oversight (financial or otherwise), monumental arrogance, and no accountability to anyone but themselves. The mess that was revealed Tuesday is not fixable within the present organization.. obviously the rot has taken over the structure and the people in it.
It’s time to disband the HRCs as we know them, and re-assess what to replace them with.. an organization with morality and ethics, not to mention oversight, would be a good start.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Your baggies analogy is a good start but doesn’t go far enough. The better analogy would be having someone drop the baggies and then sneak in and “find” them!
March 28th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Peter Entz – “….and re-assess what to replace them with”. Why replace them at all? There are no similar bodies here in Australia nor, to my knowledge, anywhere else. As a result we are overrun by neo-Nazis, as you well know. Can we borrow this Warman fellow on a couple of years’ secondment to save us?
There may be sites such as Stormfront here, but I wouldn’t know. Because they are ignored, their participants can do no more than scream in their tiny echo chamber. I imagine they drool with envy at the traffic attracted to their Canadian counterparts, courtesy of the publicity directed to them by the HRC’s.