There are a few more observations I would like to flush out regarding Hadjis’ ruling yesterday…
1) Typical Star Chamber Justice – Roll the Dice. Hope for the Best Kangaroo.
As I pointed out in my earlier post about the Warman v. Lemire CHRT ruling, I had some concerns about Chairman Hadjis striking down S.13(1). In particular, I wondered whether the other Star Chamber Kangaroos would consider Hadjis’ ruling a binding precedent on future CHRT decisions concerning S. 13(1).
Mr. Hadjis has called into question the constitutionality of all S. 13(1) cases. Does this mean that such cases will now be ignored by the CHRT or is this ruling simply going to apply to Mr. Hadjis’ fiefdom only within the Kangaroo Kourt? In other words, are other “judges” at the CHRT bound by this decision? Because if they are bound by his decision, S.13(1) becomes a toothless law which Canadians can now safely ignore. If the CHRT will not rule for the complainants in such cases, then this section of the Act becomes pointlesssince only the CHRT can apply its force, and has expressed its willingness not to do so.
Sure enough, Professor Moon has confirmed my suspicions in an interview with the Globe & Mail:
The tribunal’s decision, which will likely be appealed, is not binding beyond Mr. Lemire’s case. However, it moves the debate forward, said University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon. (Source)
So in other words, if you are brought before Hadjis on S.13(1), you’ll get a pass. If some other Kangaroo is assigned to your file, you roll the dice. Par for the course in the nation’s Star Chambers, I suppose. Is anyone really that surprised?
2) About Face:
I am still rather perplexed at how Hadjis can suddenly change his mind about the punitive provisions of the CHRA (S.54). He was busy doling out thousands of dollars in penalties in his past decisions, as Ezra Levant has pointed out:
Two years ago, Athanasios Hadjis was a human rights hack, sitting on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal full of other hacks. He mindlessly rubber-stamped the censorship litigation oozing from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its complainant of fortune, Stormfront member Richard Warman.
Here’s a section 13 censorship case, less than two years ago, where Hadjis happily condemned a young woman to a lifetime publication ban, ordered her to pay Warman $3,000 for his hurt feelings (tax free to him), and then fined her another $1,500. That’s a heavy punishment for a woman earning just above minimum wage, and too poor to hire a lawyer.
So what caused him to flip? There is only one real explanation: the withering criticism of the bloggers and the media coverage of the case caused Athanasios Hadjis to radically reformulate his approach to “human rights” and free speech. For instance, in the Warman vs. Beaumont case (which was connected to the Warman vs. Lemire case through Dean Steacy’s infamous “Jadewarr” account), Hadjis unknowingly agreed to switch a document which exposed “Jadewar” AFTER it had been submitted as evidence in the hearing.
PART A: Switching Evidence – Poem – Tab 17
In the Warman vs. Beaumont Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Hearing which took place in Vancouver between December 11-13, 2006, the CHRC had submitted into evidence a document about Ms. Jessica Beaumont, Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome”. Richard Warman proposed to replace Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” with his generic version of the same document, Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent”, which did not list the “jadewarr” identity. Readers will notice that the substantive text of both documents is the same. As the upper and lower right hand corner of the original document submitted by the Commission attests, Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” was printed by using the Commission’s “jadewarr” account on April 13, 2005 while Richard Warman’s version, Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent”, was printed on December 8, 2006, which was the Friday before the Hearing commenced on Monday December 11. According to Steacy’s March 25, 2008 testimony, Vigna and Warman visited him for the express purpose of printing off “certain postings” on Stormfront.org. After not being able to locate the document by searching the discussion board, Steacy confesses to logging on to his “jadewarr” account where he was then successful at locating the desired document and printing it off in the presence of Warman and Vigna (0:00-1:05)
Below is the partial transcript of the relevant discussion dealing with switching the Commission’s submission, Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome”, with Warman’s version, Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent”. (The coloured and bolded emphasis is mine as well as the links to the exhibits). While it is true that both Vigna and Warman (who both knew that “jadewarr” was a Commission pseudonym used by Dean Steacy) stated that they had no objection to Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” remaining as part of the official record (page 241, lines 11-12), it was Warman who first suggested to remove the document (page 241, lines 5-7) and the Commission’s lawyer, Giacomo Vigna, who ultimately went along with its removal (page 276, lines 22-25) at the behest of the Tribunal judge and a helpless Paul Fromm (page 276, lines 22-23).
Needless to say that in a real court with proper rules of evidence and procedure, none of this switching and replacing would have been permitted. Can anyone imagine a judge permitting the removal of evidence – any evidence – during a real trial? (Source)
We’ll never know for sure why Hadjis has thrown “hate speech” under the bus. I’m glad he did. But if it weren’t for Marc Lemire’s persistence and the bloggers pounding on the abuses of the nation’s Kangaroo Kourts, it is almost certain that the speech police would have kept on extorting money from Canadian citizens. The blogosphere was absolutely critical in restoring some semblance of justice and coherency to our “justice system”. Still, Socon or Bust sends a hearty thanks to Member Hadjis for his courage to do the right thing in an industry which can only be seen as hostile territory for him in the future.
3) Stephen Boisson still on the hook
But all is not finished. I saw this note in one of my comment boxes…
But, this month there is a real case before a real judge in Calgary when Boissoin v. Lund goes before the Alberta Court of Queens Bench on September 16-17, over S.13’s Alberta ugly sister Alberta HRCM Act S(3)1. This case matters to us all. When a Pastor can’t write a letter to the editor denouncing a homosexual agenda in teaching sex education in the school system, free speech is in great jeopardy.
So let us not be lulled into a false sense of security. The battle is still on.