Will Lynch underbus Warman before the Committee
If even a few Members of the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights have read the material Ezra sent them pursuant to one of their member’s request, the coward Lynch will have a rough go before the Committee on Monday.
Now I expect we’ll see a degree of bluster and a repetition of the promise not to use s. 54.1.c of the Canadian Human Rights Act. But that is just the opening statement. What happens when the questions about the Commission’s conduct start up. Remember, this is a Parliamentary committee so there are none of the usual ruses of “this is before the Court”, solicitor client privilege, or a right not to self incriminate. No doubt Lynch will maintain personal ignorance on many a matter but too much of that will tend to suggest she was asleep at the wheel.
One line she might take is to simply say that any abuse or corruption of Commission process or procedure was the result of the pernicious influence of Richard Warman. The beauty of this is that Warman is not at the Commission any longer. Another is that it defangs the argument that s.13 really was Warman’s law. For Lynch the downsides are minimal. She can suggest that Warman was a bit more zealous than was acceptable to the Commission and cite the fact he ceased to be an employee/contractor of the Commission years ago as a good reason to “move on.” (Questions going to Dean Stacey’s conduct would be a bit trickier as he is still employed by the Commission.)
The beauty of this line of defence is that many of the Committee Members will have only the most superficial understanding of the systematic corruption and abuse of the Commission and, if Lynch can paint Warman as the “bad apple” to who all such things may be ascribed, she might just be able to bamboozle the Committee. (Alternatively she could cry.)
Of course this would completely screw Warman but I don’t get the impression Lynch is particularly interested in anything other than saving her own skin. And, realistically, the last thing the Commission wants is for Warman’s various defamation actions to reach the discovery stage, much less Court, because even document discovery will reveal a great deal about the workings of the Commission. The Chief Commissioner slagging Warman would diminish his reputation significantly and reduce his prospects for any meaningful success in Court. Which might be an added bonus for an embattled Lynch.
Back that bus up Jenny, never mind the screams.
(And, of course, for dessert, we’ll have newly minted media expert Richard Moon saying a) s. 13 should be repealed, b) Ezra and Mark (and the entire Canadian mainstream media) are meanies, c) that public debate is best conducted with a single side in the room. Fun as it would be to take Moon’s silly lecture apart before the Committee, I hope the Members stick to asking him to elaborate on the utter futility and legal bankruptcy of s. 13. Moon as legal eagle is interesting, as media analyst he is at the back of the class.)
October 25th, 2009 at 5:16 am
The Commish can’t hide on the bus as mere passengers. There are outstanding issues such as counsel withholding evidence in direct contravention of a Tribunal order; manufacturing and swappping out evidence; allowing ex-employee to access CHRC internals;
. – all since the Warman departure.
.
I can see a bus hostage situation occurring.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:37 am
....Or…
Members of the committee might agree that Levant has no credibility in this matter, and as was pointed out by Professor Moon and many others…has been defaming people & distorting expression issues, and then uphold or modify the enforcement of S.13.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Ok, call me naive, but wouldn’t all Warman’s complaints still reflect very badly on Lynch’s regime as the investigation and handling of same were solidly under her thumb? Warman’s not being an employee doesn’t excuse the other CHRC employees transgressions and flagrant biases. Without their assistance his complaints can’t succeed.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I have read much of Levant’s allegations and while they resst uncomfortably with me they do so within the law. In other words nothing that Richard Warman has done has attracted the attention of any authorities either civil or legal. Levant froths, much is made up with a very consevative sprinkling of true facts to devise a rather sour tasting cocktail that most people recognize as close to poison.
As for Lynch I expect very little in terms of substance.
Now the ace in the hole many have forgotten is that the CJC also will be testifying. Farber is well respected here in the halls of Parliament despite Levant’s attempts at concocting a poison cocktail for him as well. As importantly CJC’s new president is Mark J Freiman. Google him. You will see that he is probably one of Canada’s most erudite legalists when it comes to human rights and constitutional law. He was special counsel on the Air India disaster and is widely respected in the legal arena. Very few (even people like Moon) hold a candle to him. This could be quite a day.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Pete, Freiman is very impressive indeed and is really the only person who will be coming before the panel in what I assume will be support of s. 13 whose remarks I will be listening to with interest. However, his more or less instant reaction to Lemire, namely that everything would be OK if only s. 54.1.c had been read out, suggests a very superficial knowledge of the behaviour of the CHRC for the last several years.
I agree with you that nothing Warman has done has attracted the attention of any authorities civil or legal: however, his activities and the adoption of his tactics of “maximum disruption” have taken the Commission from a passive, complaints driven entity of remediation and conciliation to a prosecutorial entity out to “get the haters”. More than the use of the penal 54.1.c, the Commission’s transfomation into a hate speech prosecutor takes it away from the role Taylor found was saved from unconstitutionality because the Commission’s activities were minimally infringing. Freiman is an acute enough legal scholar to recognize that the pattern of the Commission’s behavior, both when Warman was employed there and when he became their chief (and effectively only) complainant has made a mockery of the exception Dickson granted in Taylor.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Harry, whether the Commission finds Ez credible or not is really not in issue; he has delivered the evidence – transcripts and FOI retrievals – to provide the Commission with all the substantiation they need for the points he made.
October 25th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Jay and Pete – was I missing in space and time or was Warman not referred to the CHRT for Section 13 violations? The testimony there might reveal other issues?
What is that considered”
October 25th, 2009 at 11:30 am
In my reading of Freiman’s statement on Lemire I understood him to say that the adjudicator could have quite properly read out s54. That as a lawyer you yourself will know is SOP. Nowhere have i read Freiman claiming that this will make s13 all well. In fact I have read both Freiman and Farber articulate that there were some considerable problems with the administration of s13. Now you may agreee with them or not but you were being a bit unfair in your first response.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
How can she throw Warman under the bus he knows where the bodies are buried-figuratively speaking? MSM cowers and rarely mentions his name lest they feel his legal wrath I can’t see Lynch throwing him under the bus.
Ezra has evidence, it’s called transcripts no matter how the pro-Section 13 crowd tart it up he’s not lying and he has the evidence to back up his claims. As for no laws or rules broken, of course not they have no code of ethics or mission statement to hold them acountable they are literally above the law and punitive punishment. The only avenue open to Lynch is plausable denyability and if she uses that political tactic she’ll lock extremely incompetant as the department head. Somehow I doubt the MPs will ask the hard questios, in my opinion the hearing is for show ergo the Government isn’t the least bit interested in the persecution of people via Section 13. Harper wants to shut us up, good luck with that Liberal Light Leader.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Rose, clearly you know little about law. The CHRC operates under a civil code of procedure similar to any other commission. It has no special status despite what Mr. Levant may tell you. Secondly transcripts are just that. Made up of words that are easily misinterpreted; sometimes accidently and at times as Mr. Levant can better explain accidentally on purpose.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
No one talks about the nice little chunk of cash Warman collected from the defendants as ordered by the HRC. These cases should be overturned and the money returned.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Pete Charney, you know nothing about the way the law works. Civil action could be taken against Warman, at great expense and with little likelihood of a judgement to offset the costs. Even then, does he have the money to pay a large judgement. I doubt it.
As for the criminal charges, the first problem is trying to find a prosecutor to spend the time to charge him, plus the onerous criminal law requirement of “intent”, among other difficulties. The political implications of senior HRC staff under criminal charge is also an issue. A related event was the RCMP abandoning the misuse of the private cell phone number by the HRC. Bell Canada tied the IP address to the Commission but the implications were politically untenable. Hence the excuse of “too hard”, not that the HRC was innocent.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Charney, HRC transcripts have legal standing. Don’t you know anything?
October 25th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Charney, you can sue civil commissions or agencies, but unless their is malfeasance the possible claims are limited to nominal amounts by statute. Again the huge costs of legal proceedings (and the time it takes is years not months) eliminate most people from taking action.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Pete Charney
October 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Rose, clearly you know little about law. The CHRC operates under a civil code of procedure similar to any other commission. It has no special status despite what Mr. Levant may tell you. Secondly transcripts are just that. Made up of words that are easily misinterpreted; sometimes accidently and at times as Mr. Levant can better explain accidentally on purpose
Where’d you get your Law Degree Last Chance U? A civil code of procedure is not a written code of conduct. If the CHRC had a code of condust to adhere to the staff that entrapped people could of been investigated and fired for conduct unbecoming. As for the transcripts, well son they are legal documents via a recording or written copy of what transpired via the tribunal and are considered legal documents. What do you think goes before the supremes the staff’s expense accounts? Regarding the Civil Courts the slapp suits defendants will be able to access unlimited amounts of private secret documents via a subphena for evidence against the CHRC i.e. The Cools post.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Removed at commentor’s request.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Stop it Jay! I’m dying from laughter.
Good synopsis Currie. I’ve read the disingenuous assertions by “Moon”-bat in the National Post. If he is seeking another job to suppliment his income, he should seek another field of study outside of law and mathematics (100% conviction =100%). However, lending yourself out as a fifty-two thousand paperboy to the CHRC does have its rewards.
C’mon Harry – time to take the dog out for a walk and get some fresh air.
Members of the committee might agree that Levant has no credibility in this matter, and as was pointed out by Professor Moon and many others…has been defaming people & distorting expression issues, and then uphold or modify the enforcement of S.13.
Who are the many “others” Harry? Would that be people who are employed by the “Commission” or “groups” that utilize the “human rights” industry in Canada to fornicate their own agenda using tax-payer’s dollars?
October 25th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Every day I get in the queue
To get on the bus that takes me to you
I’m so nervous, I just sit and smile
Your house is only another mile
October 25th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Jan,
It’s quite possible that some or none of what you’ve posted above is true and what has been posted could expose you and Jay Currie to potential legal problems if this remains posted.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
“Who are the many “others” Harry? Would that be people who are employed by the “Commission” or “groups” that utilize the “human rights” industry in Canada to fornicate their own agenda using tax-payer’s dollars?”
Brilliant,just brilliant. How about let’s start with minorities and groups affected by violent hate propaganda?
Or just plain anybody who doesn’t care to lie down with Canada’s far-right, white supremacist and neo-Nazi scenes? Because that’s who seems to be making the most noise against controlling the worst of hateful expression online.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Harry, I read Jan’s comment. It contains a number of suppositions which the evidence to date can be used to support. The relationship between the CHRC and various police forces is a topic which deserves close investigation. Particularly in light of Goldberg’s initial claim under oath that such relationships were not in contemplation and then his forced retraction of that claim when emails were introduced suggesting that his original statement was simply not true.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
And Harry, Jan’s questions are only the tip of a very deep and very dangerous iceberg. It would be fascinating to know how the contents of one respondent’s hardrive – seized by police in the course of a criminal investigation – ended up in the hands of the Commission.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I respectfully disagree. Most of the above assertions are based upon passed-around rumors and conjectures AND many are the subject of several ongoing legal proceedings involving charges of libel and defamation of character.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
“Because that’s who [Canada’s far-right, white supremacist and neo-Nazi scenes] seems to be making the most noise against controlling the worst of hateful expression online.”
Who knew Ezra had sunk so low ?
Have another bagel Harry.
Every one you eat keeps your hands away from the keyboard, where they play havoc with your reputation…
October 25th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
with a knick-knack paddiwhack…
October 25th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I will repeat this one last time no police either local, provincial or federal has even contemplated any investigation much less charges against anyone at the CHRC or the CHRT.
Allowing people on any blog to name certsin civil servants then suggesting these individuals may have acted in contravention of the law is possibly libelous.
Secondly, the CHRT (Rose that would be the Tribunal that is seperate and apart from the CHRC) acts under rules of civil procedure not unlike any other Canadian tribunal from mental health to labour. Your suggestions basically claim that such procedures are somehow inappropriate. Frankly you just don’t get how these things work and seem more interested in a blinkered agenda. Hard to discuss with people like you.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Since the federal human rights commission was created by the liberals,and maintained by the tories, look for major ass covering by the parliamentary commision- they will go through the motions, but not ask the crucial questions and follow up questions, not ask for the crucial documents or act on the information within them- because the answers are politically inconvenient.
Just as Rob H says -what happened “when the RCMP abandoning the misuse of the private cell phone number by the HRC. Bell Canada tied the IP address to the Commission but the implications were politically untenable. Hence the excuse of “too hard”, not that the HRC was innocent”
October 25th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Or just plain anybody who doesn’t care to lie down with Canada’s far-right…
Harry – if you can’t come up with anything better than name-calling, why not just call it a day, hmmm?
Because that’s who seems to be making the most noise against controlling the worst of hateful expression…
Yes, my dear – because they are the ones who have been targeted to date. How delightfully naive of you to think that you and the people you (claim to) represent won’t be on the next proscribed list, or the one after that. I am all in favour of your right to be vocal and obstreperous, Harry – the downside is that I have to allow people who disagree with you an equal voice. I can deal with that – unfortunately, it seems that you can’t.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Brilliant,just brilliant. How about let’s start with minorities and groups affected by violent hate propaganda?
Save your “brilliant” accolades for someone else Harry. I am not worthy for such a bestowment. I am a simple farm boy raised on milk and honey – who’s father served with the Canadian Army in WWII.
Harry, let’s start with employees of the state who promote and provoke such attitudes – “Agent provocateurs” who post slimy, derogatory material in an attempt to trap a few individuals and extract a handsome sum from all tax-payers for doing so. Is this justified?
Or just plain anybody who doesn’t care to lie down with Canada’s far-right, white supremacist and neo-Nazi scenes? Because that’s who seems to be making the most noise against controlling the worst of hateful expression online.
I guess I’m the plain anybody who doesn’t care to lie down with anyone, Harry. The most “controlling” and “worst of hateful expressions online” seem to be generated by tax-funded dollars by state employees.
October 25th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Ok, Harry. I retract all of my suppositions and questions. I have no wish to expose either Jay or myself to legal risk, through any curiosity I have about the internal workings of our government agencies. I read through Ms. Rizk’s testimony and what was presented in that testimony is was what prompted my post. I was not relying on rumour. That being said, please delete the post, Jay.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Only if you are worried about your own “legal liability” Jan. Frankly there is a lot which has not come out which should. People reading transcripts closely are part of that process. Harry’s bluster does not worry me a bit. But if it worries you I am happy, in the morning, to delete your post. Notwithstanding the fact I think you are dead right.
Just so you know, I am very careful about what I let through moderation. If someone wants to take legal action they are welcome to.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:55 am
They all worry me, Jay so just delete it. I’ve no wish to get into a legal tangle with anybody.
For the record, I don’t think Ms. Rizk behaved unethically as she appeared to seek appropriate advice as needed. I do find some of what I read about the behaviour of others to be disappointing and disturbing. I think, I’m allowed to say that.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:28 am
I have yet to read any mention of Jennifer Lynch’s bizarre references to the “matrix of human rights” within which the CHRC allegedly situates each case. That this “matrix” can ONLY result in a “hierarchy of communities”, effectively rendering particular communities “more equal” than others, must be explored and exposed for what it is. Then, Jennifer Lynch and other civil servants on record as espousing this bizarre, anti-democratic and UNWRITTEN/UNDOCUMENTED/UNLEGISLATED policy should be removed. Meanwhile, “likely to incite” must be recognized for what it is – absolutely subjective twaddle that has no place in government legislation.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:02 am
For the record I do tend to agree with Jay on the legal liability question. In the end it probably does not reach the libel test.
However I support Richard Moon’s thesis that this very important debate has been poisoned by some audacious attempts at misleading the Canadian public, presenting made up stories as truth and putting forward outright lies. It is the dark domain of those, like Holocaust deniers for example, that would take a fact and build on it a mountain of lies in an attempt to fool and obfuscate. It is for that very reason that I support these Hearings and fully expect the truth to emerge.
In the same way I anticipate the ongoing libel actions taken against people like Mr. Levant by Richard Warman will also get to the facts. At that time I fully suspect there will be a complete reckoning with the truth.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Jay: And Harry, Jan’s questions are only the tip of a very deep and very dangerous iceberg. It would be fascinating to know how the contents of one respondent’s hardrive – seized by police in the course of a criminal investigation – ended up in the hands of the Commission.
.
and did that hard drive get handed off from the Commish to an individual?
October 26th, 2009 at 4:08 am
A high-priced mediator opines:
No one talks about the nice little chunk of cash Warman collected from the defendants as ordered by the HRC. These cases should be overturned and the money returned.
Do try to keep up.
I would give my eye teeth to blog the Committee meeting today, but, alas, will be in Iqaluit. No matter: I’ll get the low-down from Ezra or Jay. :)
October 26th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Well Jay you can start by deleting the offensive comment above directed at my ethnicity. The one that rhymes with Black people eating watermelon.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:05 am
>I will repeat this one last time no police either local, provincial or federal has even contemplated any investigation much less charges against anyone at the CHRC or the CHRT.
Oh. No problem then.
Must amend my rules of what constituted ‘order and good government’.
Good government = not criminal.
Derek
October 26th, 2009 at 8:08 am
>How about let’s start with minorities and groups affected by violent hate propaganda?
>It’s quite possible that some or none of what you’ve posted above is true and what has been posted could expose you and Jay Currie to potential legal problems if this remains posted.
Another rule change:
Minority = employee of CHRC
Derek
ps. maybe that could be added to the drinking game
October 26th, 2009 at 8:19 am
>Well Jay you can start by deleting the offensive comment above directed at my ethnicity. The one that rhymes with Black people eating watermelon.
Better jump Jay. Speech must be controlled. By force of law.
A dilemma however. Which comments above are ‘likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt’?
I’d suggest deleting Harry’s comments. When someone goes on about wanting to deny a Charter right without due process it makes me hate them and find them contemptible. Especially the comment about how actionable some comments here may be.
Derek
October 26th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Folks, you have just experienced a hate crime. Subtle, dangerous, happening under your nose without even noticing. This internet, how dangerous.
I’m having second thoughts. Maybe we need a CHRC to protect us against hate crimes such as we’ve seen perpetrated by Harry Abrams. I still feel hatred and contempt. This must be stopped.
We must in the name of order and good government put forth every effort to deny this criminal (not criminal really, just an administrative, civil hearing) the right to express himself freely like this.
Stop the incitement of hatred towards the identifiable minority of CHRC employees, supporters or petitioners! Stop them from talking!
Derek
October 26th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Naw, change that request.
Leave the demented twit’s ignorant comment per above.
I want casual visitors who stumble into this toilet to judge for themselves that racist bullshit is the order of the day here and that you have no integrity.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Whatever, Harry.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Wake me up when the counter-revolution stumbles across due process.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Dieting again, eh Harry ?
October 26th, 2009 at 10:59 am
>Leave the demented twit’s ignorant comment per above.
I agree with you that hate mongers, nazis, and the like are despicable characters. And I’ll posit that murderers are also.
I’ll grant that the police, courts and judges can do what they do to both groups. Pursue them, investigate them.
But only on the condition that due process be followed. Presumption of innocence, rules of evidence, all the rest.
Charter Rights, I think they call them.
It is quite simple. Abuse of the power of government in the pursuit of good is evil.
That is what peace order and good government means.
The whole of the structure of legal safeguards in common law are to protect citizens from the abuse of power by government.
If you want to dismantle those safeguards so you have no limits when you want to pursue your enemies, you are a threat to canadian society in a profound way.
I don’t think you get that. Fine. Then you and your ilk must be stopped.
Derek
October 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Gee. Lots of lawyers and lots of opinions full of certainty. OK, is there a lawyer on board who can answer a question I’ve asked on several venues without responses:
Are Canadians who read, or listen to, or subscribe to materials found to be seriously offensive by CHRCs subject to punitive actions by those committees? After all, while they do not originate the speech, they do potentate it – as possibly found in the Warman examples.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Alice saw three cardsmen painting white roses red…
October 31st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
NMR re:
Are Canadians who read, or listen to, or subscribe to materials found to be seriously offensive by CHRCs subject to punitive actions by those committees?
Opinions found to be in breach of official policy are not actionable if mentioned only once (unless one is David Akahenew or Mel Gibson).
However, if a repetitious manner – otherwise found in common forms of advertising – is employed to express opinions not deemed actionable in the singular incident, and in a manner consistent with ongoing exposure, then, yes.
hth
November 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am
Thank you, maikeru, for the informed response. Can I take it then that if one reads or hears a comment deemed to be nefarious by a CHRC only once it is acceptable, but read twice and one is in trouble?
I’m quite interested in the assumptions here. I view the listener/reader as part of the offense. It’s a corollary to the sound a felled tree makes out of earshot. If no one hears or reads, where’s the injury?