law
You are currently browsing the articles from Jay Currie matching the category law.
Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street, 8th Floor,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1,
Canada
April 21, 2008
By Fax
Dear Sirs,
Re: s. 13 Complaint: Rehmatpedia - Posted to the Internet
On April 20, 2008 http://www.islamunity.com/blogs/?p=100, location unknown but apparently in Canada, published an article which I believe is in direct violation of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, specifically it is “matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” Specifically,
Some of these countries has no tolerance toward Muslims’ religious feelings - but are first to put anyone who question Jewish lies about the so-called ‘Jewish Holocaust’ - which has been proven as the greatest hoax of the 20th century. There is no denying to the fact that Jews themselves took part in Nazi genocide of millions of Gypsies, Christians and Jews.
This offensive article was, as well, published on the internet and can be seen at: http://www.islamunity.com/blogs/?p=100 (A screen shot is available.)
I wish to initiate a complaint pursuant to s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to this publication on the basis that it is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, in this case, religion.
I am available by phone or email at the addresses above.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours truly,
Jay Currie
——
Yo, Mark, and Blazing: you find’em, I’ll file them and send the money to the Canuck 5/6 whatever. It will be fun to see what cunning tricks the CHRC employs to find the identity of Rehmat. I tried to send the “What is your addy for service comment but, apparently, Rehmat’s blog service provider does not know the answer to his spam id question.
And, Lying Jackal and Bernie Farber: let’s get cracking. This is a real live Holocaust Denier. Where is the CJC when you need them??
Update: Pettifog in the comments notes “I note now from the islamunity site that you are now described as a “Zionist fool”. Well done!!”
It’s an honour just to be nominated…with luck I can parlay this into “Rightous Goy” and spend the rest of my life smiling.
Written by jay on April 22nd, 2008 with 28 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Islam and free speech and idiot lefties and law and media.
Mislead….it is such a wonderfully ambiguous word.
John Pasheco at Socon or Bust has been digging through transcripts and matching up statements from various Warman actions. Ezra Levant summarizes the often hard to follow twists and turns of Jadewarr and Richard Warman’s use of that account.
At a minimum Warman was economical with the truth when he testified in the Lemire matter. And, as Ezra points out, he does not seem to be the only Commission employee, counsel or serial complainant with guilty knowledge of Jadewarr who was less than frank with th Tribunal.
Yet more evidence that the investigation unit on s. 13 was operating without proper management or, for that matter, any ethical bearings whatsoever.
The entire shop needs to be investigated. And, if it turns out that Warman did indeed “mislead” the Tribunal while under Oath those investigations might involve a question of perjury. A question going to intent.
Meanwhile, it is difficult to imagine how Athanasios Hadjis, the Tribunal Member hearing the Lemire matter can continue to limit the cross examination of the Commissions’ staffers and Warman himself given what appears to be fresh evidence. (And imagine just how annoyed Hadjis must be at these schoolboy shenaigans.)
* So that BCL does not sound any more crazy than usual…I had misspelled “misled” “mislead”.
Written by jay on April 22nd, 2008 with 12 comments.
Read more articles on free speech and law.
In my newly adopted role as Internet scold and human rights “activist” I can’t help but notice how just reporting the news can tend to incite hatred or contempt for a particular group. Here is Terry Milewski of the CBC on the Surrey Sikh Vaisakhi parade:
For some Sikhs, that cause involves reverence for the shaheeds, or martyrs, who died in the bloody battle for Sikh independence during the 1980s and early ’90s. That was when separatist groups like the Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation took up arms against India, hijacking buses and planes and, in 1985, blowing up Air India’s Flight 182 with the loss of 329 lives.
But those were a small minority of the victims. By various estimates, between 12,000 and 20,000 people died in the Sikh rebellion, and the Sikh police chief who crushed it, K.P.S. Gill, estimates that 60 per cent of the those victims were Sikhs — including hundreds of Sikh police officers in Punjab.
Both the BK and the ISYF are now banned in India, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. as terrorist organizations. Former members of both sit on the committee of the Dasmesh Darbar temple. For them, the mastermind of the Air India bombing and the founder of the Babbar Khalsa, Talwinder Singh Parmar, is a martyred hero.
Parmar is considered by the RCMP to be the worst mass-murderer in Canadian history — a fugitive who fled Canada after the bombing and was killed by Indian police in 1992. But last year, posters of Parmar and other martyrs adorned the parade floats in Surrey, with the approval of the Dasmesh Darbar leadership. Speaking to CBC News about Parmar, temple president Sudager Singh Sandhu, formerly of the ISYF, said, “I love him. He’s a great man.” cbc.ca
Simply by reporting the story and quoting the temple president the CBC creates the impression that Sikhs support terrorism and mass murder. Simple minded people could easily accept that view of Sikhs and treat anyone in a turban with hatred or contempt.
This same story line was echoed in the Globe and Mail and the Vancouver Sun. It was posted on the internet.
(Now, some of you might be tempted to point out that what Milewski reported was, er, true. Doesn’t matter. Under s. 13 the truth of a report is not a consideration. The only question is whether the matter would tend to promote hatred or contempt. It is a very low bar.)
Update: Filed. Just against the CBC as I’ve not the time to chase dow the exact stories at the Globe and Mail and Vancouver Sun. It is, I fear, a bit boring, but here it is with a big finger wag from your very own online scold. My pointy finger is waving.
Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street, 8th Floor,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1,
Canada
April 17, 2008
By Fax
Dear Sirs,
Re: s. 13 Complaint: CBC story published April 15, 2008 and Posted to the Internet
On April 15, 2008 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, located at P.O. Box 3220, Station C, Ottawa, ON K1Y 1E4 published an article which I believe is in direct violation of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, specifically it is “matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
This offensive article was, as well, published on the internet and can be seen at: http://www.cbc.ca/bc/features/news/080415-vaisakhi-milewski.html (A screen shot is available.)
I wish to initiate a complaint pursuant to s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to this publication on the basis that it is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, in this case, religion.
I am available by phone or email at the addresses above.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours truly,
Written by jay on April 18th, 2008 with 30 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and culture and free speech and law and media.
I was chatting about the Warman case with KMG which prompted me to take a look at the provisions of Rule 76 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.
Entertainingly, Warman holds his reputation so cheap that he’s using what amounts to Small Claims Court to guard it. Of course the seeming advantage is no Discovery and no cross-examination - which, if you have something to hide, makes the embarrassment of holding yourself cheap rather more bearable.
Of course, when you have looked the Lying Jackal Warren Kinsella “in the eye and said he didn’t write it” why would you possibly be afraid of normal course discovery or cross examination. (Ed’s note: I was less than clear on the cross-examination question - the rule prohibits cross examination on affidavits filed in support of motions, not cross-examination at trial. At least I think that’s what it does. Perhaps one of my commentors practicing law in Ontario might be kind enough to clear this up for me.)
Which leaves only one conclusion: Lucy values his reputation as a human rights investigator, CHRC serial complainant and Director of Super Extra Special Complaints at the Department of Defence at 50K/6….call it $8,000.00. About $7999.99 more than it’s likely worth but, as I recall, Oscar Wilde’s action against the Marquis of Queensberry involved no money at all…
Written by jay on April 13th, 2008 with 10 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and law.
Mr. Warman called the McGill Tribune today, incredulous that this had been leaked to the blogosphere and posted in my personal blog (despite the fact that he CCed me on the original e-mail). b. tau
The thing about shining a light in dark corners is that the cockroachs don’t like it.
Written by jay on April 8th, 2008 with 7 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and law.
The lawyer for the CHRC briefly asks the witness about Tab 17 document evidence and is sloughed off. The witness also happens to be the person who laid the claim against you. The tribunal “judge” goes along with the witness’ answer to the effect of “I’ll discusss that later”. The day goes by and this isssue fades into the background through the proceedings. The lawyer for the CHRC and the witness never return to this subject matter. Nor does the “judge”.
On the second day, the evidence is changed. A new document is inserted in place of an existing one. Tab 17. You have no knowledge that a document was produced just a couple days prior, at the Commission’s office, nor that it was produced by the complainant himself, with full cooperation from the Commission. blazing catfur
Well just imagine….
Written by jay on April 8th, 2008 with 1 comment.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and law.
A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday ordered liens on the Westboro Baptist Church building and the Phelps-Chartered Law office.
If the case presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett is upheld by an appeals court, the church, at 3701 S.W. 12th, and the office building, at 1414 S.W. Topeka Blvd., could be obtained by the court and sold, with the proceeds being applied toward $5 million in damages Bennett imposed on church members for picketing a military funeral. topeka capital journal
Speed the Day!
Written by jay on April 6th, 2008 with 10 comments.
Read more articles on US Politics and law and religion.
It was the most bizarre moment in an unusual conference call with three senior CHRC staff, who had mustered for the beleaguered agency’s first public relations offensive, a calculated effort to rebut the “misinformation” that is turning some public opinion against them, and inspiring high-level demands that their powers be severely curtailed.
“The reality is we read the papers. We know about the current debate, we know the parameters, if you will,” Mr. Fine said. “If you think that we’re concerned, upset, from time to time discouraged with some of what we’ve been hearing and reading in the press, you’re right, we are. national post
Good.
The objective is the elimination of s.13 and the imposition of reasonable standards of Tribunal and investigative procedure on an out of control agency. It is to substitute a view which takes the primacy of free expression as the guiding principle and views any attempt to censor speech with the utmost suspicion.
The CHRC is scared enough to mount a “public relations offensive.” Good. Drawing them out into the open is vital.
And now the CHRC is, itself under investigation by the Privacy Commissioner for alledgedly wardriving a member of the public’s internet connection during a Jadeware “investigation”.
Update: Ezra dissects the CHRC public relations push at length. Here’s one pithy bit among many:
But I immediately thought — as I’m sure Brean did, and as I’m sure you do, dear reader — that when it comes to anonymous, typo-ridden bigotry sent over the Internet, there’s a pretty fair chance it was written by the CHRC’s own staff to suit their purposes. Again, three months ago even I wouldn’t have believed that — it just sounds too much like a black helicopter/tin foil hat conspiracy theory. But that was before I learned about the corruption of the CHRC, and how their operatives like Dean Steacy, Richard Warman and others go online and spew the filthiest venom under pseudonyms.
Written by jay on April 6th, 2008 with 4 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and culture and law.
Ezra has tracked Lucy Warman to JTF2 his sinecure at the Department of Defence where he rejoices in the title of Director of Special Grievances – Enquiries and Investigations. Ezra wants to know how “special” and invites members at the pointier end of the military to mail in their stories of the exploits of the “bravest man” the liar Kinsella has ever known.
Watch out Ezra…he’ll sue you.
Written by jay on April 1st, 2008 with 21 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and culture and law and media.
Dr. Dawg and the Liar Kinsella posted a pic they stated was Marc Lemire standing behind Ernst Zundel. Lemire is calling bullshit.
That picture is not me at all. In August 1992, I had never met Ernst Zundel.
In August 1992 I was only 17 years old.
I searched around, and haven’t yet found a picture of me in 1992, but did find one a year later in the summer of 1993. Sadly the red-eye reduction wasn’t working that day 
freedomsite
Comments gents? Did you properly source the photo?
I have noticed that Marc Lemire tends to be right about stuff like this.
Update: While I think the pictures speak for themselves I have sent an email to Nizkor asking for more information on the Zundel photograph. I’ll report any response.
Update IIKen McVay from nizkor has replied to my query as follows:
Lemire may be right, and I no longer identify the image as his because
of his insistance that it isn’t him.
I haven’t seen Marc for 11 years, so cannot contest his assertion that
it isn’t him.
Not proof either way but nizkor is certainly not standing behind the attribution.
Update III: Dawg graciously withdraws his assertion that Lemire is in the frame with Zundel:
**UPDATE: (March 31) As noted here, Nizkor cannot vouch for the authenticity of the photograph. Obviously, in that case, neither can I. I withdraw, therefore, the assertion that Marc Lemire is pictured in the photograph above. dr. dawg
A gentleman. Now we can, of course, anticipate the liar Kinsella’s retraction….Yeah, right.
Written by jay on March 31st, 2008 with 14 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Liberals and blogging and canadian gossip and law and media.
Ed Driscoll pages me to weigh in on Kathryn’s post below, about Islam overtaking Catholicism in worldwide adherents. But I’m not sure I’ve got anything to say I haven’t already been taken to court over. (my emphasis)I had the bizarre experience earlier today of watching the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview a young Muslim about my “flagrant Islamophobia”, as evidence of which he cited my appalling habit of accurately quoting prominent Muslims. mark steyn, the corner
That bastard Steyn….imagine quoting the Islamists. Thank God we have the CHRC to prevent this profanity.
Written by jay on March 31st, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Islam and blogging and law and media.
This is the new normal, not so new any more. It is a shocking work not so much in itself as for the fact we increasingly are no longer allowed to talk about so much of what is being done to us. We cannot speak ill of the enemy even as they parade in our streets saying “Freedom go to hell” and “God bless Hitler” and the like. We cannot properly honour the dead; the sound of bodies hitting the pavement and the sight of candies thrown in celebration to “Palestinian” children censored by our media gatekeepers. We cannot even string together the news into a short film without “provoking” insane rage, blood curdling threats and the promise of censorship and criminal charges from our home grown fifth columnists.
Remember: If you tell the truth you are spreading hate. If you make snuff films - real snuff films - for the delectation of your co-religionists you are advancing a “religion of peace” and will be described as an activist by CNN, the BBC and all the rest. This is not 1984. Orwell did not have a word for what we have made of ourselves. ghost of a flea
Written by jay on March 29th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Islam and blogging and culture and law and media.
Alas, the problem’s far worse for a neo-Nazi hoping to find a friendly website and meet a few kindred spirits. There must be a few genuine white supremacists whooping it up over at “Stormfront,” but they seem to be thin on the ground. Mr. Steacy, the CHRC’s lead investigator, is a member of Stormfront; Richard Warman, celebrated Canadian “human rights” crusader and plaintiff on every CHRC case since 2002, is a member of Stormfront; and Sgt. Stephen Camp is a member of Stormfront. What proportion of Canada’s “white supremacists” are, in fact, government employees? On a quiet day, chances must be pretty good that you’ll log on and find the joint deserted except for “jadewarr” (Mr. Steacy) trying to entrap “estate” (Sgt. Camp) while “estate” (Sgt. Camp) is simultaneously trying to entrap “axetogrind” (Mr. Warman). “There really should be a register of pseudonyms,” urged lawyer Doug Christie, “so that investigators don’t wind up investigating each other.” mark steyn, macleans
…you’re in trouble. At least that was what the liar Kinsella said.
Enjoy your coffee this morning by reading the whole Mark Steyn take on the CHRC light opera.
But remember to put a dish cloth over your screen. Er, but then you couldn’t read it. Perhaps a veil. Yes, that’s it, a veil. Your coffee will be redirected to your shirt.
Written by jay on March 28th, 2008 with 2 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and law and media.
“Today, it has become purely voluntary to pay for music,” Griffin told Portfolio.com in an exclusive sit-down this week. “If I tell you to go listen to this band, you could pay, or you might not. It’s pretty much up to you. So the music business has become a big tip jar.” portfolio.com
Jim Griffin is a smart guy and Warners is smart to hire him. Of course they would have been brilliant had they adopted the “music as service model” a week after Napster was founded which would be, well nearly a decade ago.
Written by jay on March 28th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on culture and economics and law and media and music.
If you read no other commentary on the March 25 Warman v. Lemire hearing, read Ezra’s.
He hits many of the real questions which underlie this farce of a proceeding:
Why only one day? Why was Stacey allowed to defy the Tribunal? Why was senior management excused? Why was Warman allowed special access to the Commission’s computers? Why was Warman, after he no longer worked at the Commission, training the employee who was investigating his file.
Ezra’s piece is, essentially, the road map for an application for the judicial review of this legal embarrassment.
It is also a call to arms. The real solution here is political. Emails, letters and phone calls to the CPC members of Parliament and Cabinet. In particular the Minister of Justice. Support for Keith Martin’s motion to kill s. 13.
The Commission’s legal strategy was to run out the clock, I suspect that is the political strategy of the Commission’s political supporters. Which means we need to keep the pressure mounting.
Written by jay on March 27th, 2008 with 3 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and law.
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.
Written by jay on March 27th, 2008 with 10 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and law.
The hearing got off to a rocky start for the CHRC lawyer, Ms. Blight. The Chairman, Mr. Hadjis, had received a list of questions from Ms. Blight that the CHRC had refused to answer in the previous hearing, citing Section 37 of the Evidence Act. It was her intention to try to limit the questions that were asked in this hearing to only the questions that had been asked before and refused. The problem with the document she sent to Mr. Hadjis is that she had helpfully included the answers she expected the witnesses to give! connie fournier, no apologies
Written by jay on March 27th, 2008 with 3 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and law.
We are going to see what the CHRC has to hide and how well it hides it. But, realistically, no one should be expecting a slam dunk on any of this.
This is a very narrow hearing. It is the result of Marc Lemires victory in the Federal Court of Canada which allows him to ask questions which, previously, the CHRC attempted to refuse to answer based on a claim of public interest exemption under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act which was struck down in Federal Court..
Now these questions go to the methods used by the CHRCs so called “investigators” in trying to track down the alleged neo-Nazis posting to Lemires websites. (At least those who were not CHRC employees.)
There is unlikely to be a smoking gun nor is it likely that the Chekist with a white cane Dean Stacey will repeat that freedom of speech is an “American idea”. Ideally the hearing will be very, very, very boring and will, layer by layer, expose the means by which the CHRC has “investigated” alleged “hate speech” in Canada. The witnesses will have been throughly woodshedded and will tend to say things like “I do not recall.”
Watch for Ms. Rizk trying to be honest and being blocked by CHRC counsel. And, with luck, watch for Dean Stacey to lose his temper. If Rizk speaks or Stacey is goaded into getting mad we might have some fun. But, realistically, tomorrows hearing will be about a few more nails in the CHRCs s. 13 coffin.
(And, yes, I do know what an apostrophe is…unfortunately my computer is having a seniors moment.)
Written by jay on March 25th, 2008 with 3 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and culture and law.
The man who interviewed Mullah Krekar was a journalist called Carsten Thomassen. On January 14th, he was in Kabul covering the Norwegian Foreign Minister’s tour of Afghanistan. That day, he was in the lobby of the Serena Hotel waiting to meet with the minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, when two members of the Taliban killed the exterior guards, forced their way inside and opened fire. Carsten Thomassen died of his injuries at a Nato field hospital. The Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg called the terrorist murders an attack not only on Norway but on freedom of speech.
I didn’t know Carsten Thomassen, except as a skilled reporter who extracted devastating quotes from Mullah Krekar and others. But we owe it to his memory to insist on the truth about that mosquito line, not just because his murder reminds us of the difference between real “hate” and the pseudo-victims of the Canadian “human rights” circus, but because to allow Elmo and the Sock Puppet Three to bully the media into going along with their misrepresentations is to collude in a lie. And no society that does that is truly free. mark steyn
Truth out.
Written by jay on March 21st, 2008 with 1 comment.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Islam and law and media.
If only a small battle.
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. ruling of Athanasios D. Hadjis
Mr. Hadjis, who strikes me in my reading of transcript as a decent and fair adjudicator, has ruled that the public, and Macleans Magazine meaning Mark Steyn will be allowed to attend the cross examination of Dean Stacey and the poor woman stuck investigating Warman’s case against Lemire. And he has expressed considerable skepticism as to the invocation by the Commission of s. 37 of the Evidence Act (pace Mike Brock).
This is a tiny, but critical, engagement in the overall battle against the HRC’s censorship campaigns. Now they will have to testify in public as to the means used to attempt to create hate speech which they can then prosecute.
Score a huge one for the blogosphere and the liar Warren Kinsella’s favorite libel lawyer. And hats off to Rogers Communications for putting Mr. Porter in play.
Having read the transcripts it is pretty clear that the Commission has used every trick in the book, including suggesting that one of its own lawyers is mentally unwell, to try and stop the cross examination of Dean Stacey and Hannya Rizk. What are they scared of??
It would be churlish to think that the liar Kinsella’s Easter observances would be spoilt by nightmares…But, hey, I’m a churl.
Update: Ezra is not entirely certain that the liars at the CHRC are going to permit Stacey and Rizk (would that be pronounced “risk”?) to testify. He has his reasons which you should read in full:
I’d say there’s a 50/50 chance the CHRC’s lawyers or staff will pull a Vigna vignette (ed’s note: stating that one is not of serene mind and seeking adjournment) and claim they’ve lost their “serenity” and scupper the hearing — or pull the fire alarm, or do some other childish stunt of the same calibre as their childish Internet costume parties where they dress up as bigots, but then later say they didn’t mean it.
Written by jay on March 21st, 2008 with 4 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and culture and idiot lefties and law.