Was Harvey Goldberg of the CHRC under oath?

john begley
#1. May 16th, 2008, at 6:18 AM.

wow…i had no idea the rot was so pervasive and so deep….surely these revelations will spur our government to do somehting about the NKVD in our midst ….

john begley
#2. May 16th, 2008, at 6:27 AM.

well, obviously anyone giving testimony at a CHRC hearing affecting the freedom of another fellow citoyen would be telling the truth the whole truth and etc..unless of course they were paranoiac unscrupulous left wing ideologues of course…

Blazingcatfur
#3. May 16th, 2008, at 6:50 AM.

Harvey, how you gonna pull a rabbit outta yer hat on this one…

I thought Section 13(1) proceedings were civil not criminal,if they are Civil how does the CHRC merit any access to CPIC? Is this not a gross violation of citizens privacy? According to the CPIC Policy Manual they are not listed as having either a Category l or ll authorization. Was this behind Goldberg’s desire for closer ties to Heritage?

Jan
#4. May 16th, 2008, at 7:37 AM.

Holey rusted metal, Batman! The ground. It’s all metal. It’s full of holes. You know, holey.

PS - In my haste (or, simply stupidity), I have confused EMG and EBD. My apologies, but I do wish the one of you well in your pursuit of a liaison with Neve Campbell. I’m sure, if successful, it’ll get you an oped, somewhere.

Blazingcatfur
#5. May 16th, 2008, at 7:55 AM.

ah the 4 Horsies answered my query in another Blug:

Cat asks: “I thought the CHRC was involved with civil as opposed to criminal investigations.”

Taylor Decision, at p. 917:

” It is essential … to recognize that, as an instrument especially designed to prevent the spread of prejudice and to foster tolerance and equality in the community, the Canadian Human Rights Act is very different from the Criminal Code. The aim of human rights legislation, and of s.13(1) is not to bring the full force of the state’s power against a blameworthy individual for the purpose of imposing punishment. Instead, provisions found in human rights statutes generally operate in a less confrontational manner, allowing for a conciliatory settlement if possible and, where discrimination exists, gearing remedial responses more towards compensation of the victim. ”

So if they are Civil that should mean no access to CPIC, a fair assumption? Nay? Yay?

Mordechai
#6. May 16th, 2008, at 11:12 AM.

Maybe its me but what is the issue here? That a CHRC officer might cooperate with the RCMP? Ya so? Shouldnt we all cooperate with police especially those working on legal and quasi-legal matters? And when was this email written? Clearly after the Goldberg testimony. You guys are wierd…any needle in any haystack? Now that the Conservative government has taken a contrary position to yours it seems anything goes huh?

dcardno
#9. May 16th, 2008, at 1:53 PM.

Shouldnt we all cooperate with police especially those working on legal and quasi-legal matters?

Maybe - on the other hand, I am not sure that the CHRC is entitled to Obtain[ing] a more direct access to CPIC and/or improving efficiency and speed in sharing information or that any police force should be willing to share such information with them. In any event, even if that is acceptable, the subsequent denial of those activities is problematic. No doubt, this was just a mistaken recollection, not an attempt to mislead the Tribunal.

maikeru
#11. May 16th, 2008, at 5:30 PM.

Page 119
5021
1 MR. GOLDBERG: I’m under oath. Yes,
2 I’m sure of it.

WL Mackenzie Redux
#12. May 16th, 2008, at 7:29 PM.

Had this wiggler been testifying in a real court you could tack on 1 or 2 obstructing justice charges as well.

So far the CHRC have racked up perjury, entrapment, sending hate messages, tampering with evidence, refusing due process, fraud, theft of service, impersonation,…charter breaches, jurisdictional breaches and criminal code breaches. Where do CHRC recruit from, Kingston Pen?

Blazingcatfur
#13. May 16th, 2008, at 9:25 PM.

Jay perhaps I wasn’t clear in my statement. If the CHRC is only allowed to launch civil actions then I assume they should not have any right to violate a citizens privacy via access to CPIC.

So why is Harvey even mentioning better access? He also pushes for closer ties to Heritage to achieve this access in the e-mails.

The CPIC policy manual does not list the CHRC as having any of Category l, ll, or lll level access - the CHRC are not specifically authorized is what I take from this.

Now under the auspices of the Justices Dept. they may have an “in” even a legal one but I do not know.

Still my question is does the CHRC have the legal right to access CPIC under any circumstances? Something tells me no.

DCardno
#14. May 16th, 2008, at 10:48 PM.

dcardno, you are a very trusting man, sir.

No, I just forgtot to insert the tag. I was actually going to continue with an offer to sell Mordechai a bridge.

DCardno
#15. May 17th, 2008, at 1:57 AM.

So why is Harvey even mentioning better access?
bcf, I read that differently (unless there are other e-mails that I have not seen: I’m just a beer-and-popcorn oberserver, not an in the trenches grappler like some of you). It seems to me that the quoted e-mail was not from Harvey, but from [redacted] to a group of [redacted] people that included Harvey - he was not pushing for better access to CPIC (etc), but he damned well knew that someone else was. If the initiative never went anywhere it is possible (but in my mind, unlikely) that he had an honest error in recalling the proposal. If there were any kind of further discussions with external agencies (even if fruitless), or if he participated in the internal discussions, then that is a very thin reed. This sort of thing is both politically sensitive and legally questionable (and access to CPIC would give an CHRC staffer a massive woody) - there is no way any ploicy-maker would forget it.

Simon Fleischmann
#16. May 17th, 2008, at 2:54 AM.

Proposed new idiom to be used at every possible juncture:

“As Canadian as corruption…”

and the alternative…

“As Canadian as repression…”

Anyone care to finesse a few more “typically Canadian” idioms for the 21st Century?

Sad, isn’t it?

Blazingcatfur
#17. May 17th, 2008, at 7:00 AM.

Cheezus I even found Dawg unequivocably stating in the comments at Damian Penny’s that the CHRC is NOT granted access to CPIC.

If this is indeed true then a complaint must be filed with the Privacy Commission.

Jay in your capacity as Internet Scold it is incumbent upon you to act on the behalf of all freedom loving CHRC haters.

Rose
#18. May 17th, 2008, at 9:16 AM.

Under Canada’s Privacy Laws are the various police agencies allowed to legally hand evidence they’ve collected investigating a “Criminal Complaint” to the HRC?

I do not believe that legally they are, if no criminal prosecution takes place why are various Police Agencies handing over evidence to the HRCs to persecute individuals under Section 13? I know this has happened in the past, but will it continue in the future? If I’ve committed no crime why are various police agencies allowed to give the HRCs access to my personal PROPERTY and evidence they’ve collect based on a complaint filed by the nations most “Offended Complainant” who files a criminal complaint and then the police issue a warrent to gather evidence of “Hate Crimes” only to have the police not pursue the complaint yet they hand over evidence to the HRC. How is this legal? The police don’t file a criminal charge against me yet the evidence they collect appears as evidence at the HRC? It’s time for an inguiry against Harvey WallBanger, or what ever his name is. I refuse to learn how to spell his name it would give him legitimacy that I’m not willing to give this two bit piece of @###$$.

Okay I actually typed SHIT.

The LS from SK
#19. May 18th, 2008, at 5:12 AM.

Was Harvey (another recipient of a CJC award)under “Oath” or was he under “the influence”?

Revnant Dream
#20. May 18th, 2008, at 7:11 AM.

Good job of uncovering how much deeper this swamp of corruption is. To have the police involved just upped the ante to a darker dimension. To lie about it right up front , maybe under oath. Terrifying! Do we now have a Gestapo in this Nation?

Frankly it doesn’t surprise me in any way, the desecration of this Dominion is quite plain even to idiots. The neo-totalitarians or Trudopians have had 40 years of boring into our institutions like termites. Eating away at our liberties while we slept.

This creature has to sink faster than a dino in a tar pit, or where in for a new level of hell for this Country as this inquisition fuses with the police, with the power of the State.

No one will be safe from the meddlers or con artists.

john begley
#21. May 18th, 2008, at 11:27 AM.

i do love that ‘CHRC’s Prevention Initiatives and Liaison Branch” phrase….whatever can THAT be…?

and i do believe they think(as soldiers in the superduper-K man Panzergrenadiers) that their psyops was on the up and up….whomever gave them the thumbs up on that mistaken notion ?

john begley
#22. May 19th, 2008, at 4:17 AM.

and anyway…taking one’s oath is a mere formality….or should be for righteous people.

john begley
#23. May 19th, 2008, at 11:15 PM.

if the mounties are visiting the site it’s probably in aid of seeing how badly they themselves have been compromised(as witting or unwitting co-conspirators?) in this matter….’who will guard the guardians’ indeed.

mind you i’ve had a very jaundiced view of the horsemen for a very very long time….i’ve always felt the upper echelon were on the pad.