Canadian Human Rights Circus

As I reported on my blog a few days ago, I indicated how I would be spending March 25 at the Lemire-Warman hearing at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal a.k.a. the “Heresy Trial Court” of Canada.

(Inset picture: courtesy of Deborah Gyapong. Middle: Mark Steyn; to his immediate left, Connie Wilkins and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion then Dr. John Baglow from Dawg’s Blog on the far left; to his immediate right, CFRB/CJAD Radio Reporter Brian Lilley; and yours truly on the far right.  Notice my attire? It wasn’t a real court so I didn’t dress like it was.)

I arrived at 160 Elgin Street just before 8:30am and proceeded to the 11th floor. As I exited the elevator, I turned right and noticed the glass doors with the “Canadian Human Rights Tribunal” text glued to them, along with their official looking emblem.  (The kangaroo was missing and so was the red star.)  I thought I might get a picture of the entrance so I pulled out my cell phone-equipped camera, and was about to quickly snap a picture when the CHRT hall monitor came out of no where and asked me to cease and desist.  She looked at me rather sternly and with a cold and hard masculin voice said:

“There are no cameras permitted on this floor.”

“But I have not yet entered the CHRT office yet. I’m just taking one quick picture of your lovely window dressing”, I objected.

“You are not allowed to take pictures anywhere on this floor”, she responded brusquely.

“Holy crap”, I thought to myself, “this is not exactly breaking the stereotype of what these guys are about.”  Normally, government is not very efficient in anything it does. It was even a couple of minutes before 8:30am, I think. You’d figure that no star chamber functionary would be out that early, but that was obviously not the case here. Apparently, where protecting Canadians from thought crimes is concerned, government vigilance and work ethic apparently surpass even those of the business world.

After putting away my camera, the CHRT functionary informed me that I was permitted to wait outside the hearing room in the lobby. So I walked down the corridor and entered the lobby outside the hearing room.  On the door was a reminder for the public “NO CAMERAS ALLOWED”. Yeah, I know, I thought to myself. I certainly got that message.  I had no sooner put my bag down then what did my wondering my eyes should appear but Mark Steyn himself!

I cordially introduced myself as the blogger for Socon or Bust and he was kind enough to show that he remembered the name. If he did or did not remember it, I don’t know, but Mark is too much of a gentleman and scholar to say he didn’t know my blog from a hill of beans.

We then proceeded to have a wonderful conversation about the whole Human Rights Racket for the next half hour. If you’ve never heard Mark Steyn in person, and you get an opportunity, I highly recommend you go and hear the man speak. He is just as entertaining in real life as he is in print. His humour and keen observations are so natural for him that it is easy to understand why he is such a successful columnist and author.  The man just oozes dry wit and soft sarcasm.  The fact that he will be the subject of one of these farcical human rights complaints makes Canada look worse than the banana republics that we like to castigate for their “human rights abuses”.  The only significant human rights abuse going on right now in this country is the existence of the Human Rights Commissions and their lackeys pimping for and encouraging the attack on the most basic human right which is the right to free speech. It’s a national disgrace that Mark Steyn was covering a CHRT hearing today for Maclean’s. In June, he is going to be the one covered

Oh yes, one more point. Mark said that his foray into Kangaroo Land might cost Maclean’s up to a million buckaroos.  For him, it will be a bargain at a cool $250K. Blimey at least it’s not in pounds!

Anyhow, lets get down to some of the background…

This particular hearing was about the operating tactics of two CHRC investigators, Dean Stacey, the lead investigator at the CHRC and Hannya Rizk, an underling. The Commission lawyers had previously invoked S. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act in order to avoid answering some embarrassing questions.  The CHRC said that if the tribunal judge in this case, Athanasios Hadjis, refused to ban the public from the hearing, the Commission’s lawyers would invoke the section 37 and refuse to testify — as always showing their complete transparency and fairness in these cases.  Although Mr. Hadjis complied with the CHRC’s request originally (big surprise there), Lemire went to a real court and effectively forced the Commission drop their bogus complaints under S. 37.  The questions they had been dodging were covered today at the tribunal hearing.

To get a taste of the kind of obstructionist tactics of the Commission’s lawyers, listen here to the frustration expressed by Paul Fromm’s lawyer, Douglas Christie, in trying to get at (what would later be revealed to be) a rather significant examination. His complaint here that follows is directed at Margo Blight, the Commission’s lawyer at the hearing. Let’s listen here.

I took the day off from work and it was indeed a worthwhile investment.  I was rather shocked to find my own research that I blogged about (see the red highlighted section of the blog post) a few days ago being one of the subjects raised by Barbara Kulaszka, Lemire’s lawyer!  If that were not enough, Mr. Steacy’s response to Ms. Kulaszka’s questioning on the subject turned out to be one of the more sensational parts of the hearing.   I also know that my research was sent to Ms. Kulaszka for her consideration.  It therefore was not merely a coincidence that she too brought up the question regarding why Dean Stacey had registered on Free Dominion BEFORE Ms. Gentes’ complaint was filed.  (Sometimes I wonder if the time and effort we bloggers sacrifice is really worth it to ourselves and to our families.  The answer for me  – at least today – was a resounding yes. It only goes to show us bloggers how important and indispensable a role we play in defending the freedoms of Canadians.  So I want to personally encourage you all to keep at it, keep digging and keeping fighting the jackboots. Sooner or later our side will win and the hobbit bloggers from near and far across this great country will be rightly credited with playing a huge role in it.)

The hearing opened up a whole series of further questions about the machinations of the commission. Everything from “double-sided faxes“; the identity of the mysterious “Nelly H.” of whom we have a full name, address, phone number, and IP address and who is the owner of the Bell User account the last time the infamous Commission “Jadewarr” Stormfront account was ever used; the supposed “non-agreement” between the CHRC and the country’s police forces, RCMP and – get this – Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (yes, that’s right folks, the official spy agency of the Canadian government – CSIS), and the infamous “I refuse to answer” answer from the Jade Warrior himself, Dean Steacy.

For all of the progressive bloggers who think the freespeecher blogosphere has blown this HRC fiasco out of proportion, well, you are dead wrong. Aside from the multiple “I don’t recall” or “I don’t remember” responses by both Rizk and Steacy which, of course, only solidifies the poor impression we have of Commission technicians, there were more than a few of notable exchanges and revelations from today’s hearings that will provide plenty of fodder for discussion. Over the course of the next week or so, I’ll be posting various audio clippings of the more memorable moments of today’s festivities. I’m sure you will be entertained and enraged at the same time. I know I was. Stay tuned.


9 thoughts on “Canadian Human Rights Circus

  1. Do you think the HRC has been reigned in even a little bit?
    Why can we not demand, if a complaint is submitted to the HRC, then the complainant must hire his/her own lawyer at their expense and fight the case in that way?

  2. Certainly forcing human rights complainants to pay for their own case would be a deterrent.

    Furthermore, we need to e-mail all MPs to urge them to support Keith Martin’s motion “That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.” Furthermore, we should urge them to carry on to actually delete that subsection. (I understand Martin’s bill is just that the House express its opinion, and is not a motion to actually delete the offending subsection.)

  3. I believe it is time for these appointed Human Rights Commissars oops I mean Commissions to be ABOLISHED. Governments created these appointed monsters therfore governments can disband them. We already have laws in place and REAL courts if people feel they are libelled or defamed. Our TAX DOLLARS are paying for these non-elected, appointed kangaroo courts. But never mind, the “conservative” government has given $100 million dollars of our tax dollars for a “human rights museum” meanwhile people have no HUMAN RIGHTS to free speech, go figure that one out. The politicians need to be held accountable. Lifesite news had this article recently: SJG.
    Internal Memo Tells Canada’s Conservative MPs to be Noncommittal on Human Rights Commissions
    Specifies that Conservative MPs are not to stand up publicly for freedom of speech for Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.

    By John-Henry Westen

    OTTAWA, February 12, 2008 ( – An internal memo to Conservative MPs sent last week will be sure to disappoint freedom-loving Canadians. The memo, confirmed by as legitimate, originated from the office of the Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson. The “talking points” memo directs Conservative MPs to remain noncommittal on support for Liberal MP Keith Martin’s motion M-446, which would put an end to the growing and dangerous abuse of human rights commissions.

    Many Canadians, facing the prospect of fines and financially crippling defenses before the human rights commissions, have in recent years been silenced on issues very important to them. Most notably, defending the natural family is problematic under current legislation, since “sexual orientation” is now officially prohibited grounds of discrimination thanks to activist judicial decisions reading it into the Charter of Rights.

    As reported previously, Martin proposed motion M-446 to delete section 13(1) from the Canadian Human Rights Act. That section forbids communication, even on the internet, of “any 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.”

    The recent memo directs Conservative MPs, when asked about Martin’s motion, to reply: “Motion M-446 was just recently tabled and will not be up for debate in the near future” and “I can assure you that when this Bill comes before the house for debate, I will follow it closely and will arrive at a position at that time.”

    While several Christians have been the subject of harassment by the human rights commissions for their stances against homosexual activism, in recent months prominent Canadians Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have also been the subject of human rights complaints for their published opinions against radical Islam.

    The memo specifies that Conservative MPs are not to stand up publicly for freedom of speech for Steyn and Levant.

    The memo directs MPs, “If asked about the Steyn / Levant cases,” to respond, saying, “It is not appropriate for me to comment on particular matters that might be before the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.”

    There is a growing movement of calls for elected officials to reign in the commissions which were created by them and which are acting under mandates passed in the various Canadian legislatures. So far, the leaders of the federal and provincial governments are said to be refusing to acknowledge their role in the controversy and their ability to defuse it with simple legislative changes.

    To express concerns to the Prime Minister:
    Prime Minister Stephen Harper

  4. The Instigators of Human Rights Commissions (HRCs)?
    By Stephen J. Gray

    “What a strange place Canada is in 2008,…where fundamentalist Muslims use hate-speech laws drafted by secular Jews,…”
    (Ezra Levant, Globe and Mail, January 21, 2008.)

    Who were the instigators of HRCs that are the cause of the attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of expression in Canada? According to Ezra Levant who has been dragged before the HRCs it was “illiberal elements.” And he went on to say this: ‘…I blame the Jews. A generation ago, illiberal elements in the “official” Jewish community pressed Canadian governments to introduce laws limiting free speech.’ (Globe and Mail, January 21, 2008.)

    Mr Levant went on to say in the Globe and Mail article that the people taking him to the HRCs were, “…using the very precedents set by the Canadian Jewish Congress.”

    Which makes one wonder, why would a powerful organization like “the Canadian Jewish Congress” not realize that the very “laws” that they “pressed Canadian governments to introduce” could also be used against Jewish people. After all, what’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.

    But, not only Jewish people are being dragged before the HRCs. Before they came for the Jews, the HRCs came for Chris Kempling, Scott Brockie, Knights of Columbus, Stephen Boissoin, Bishop Henry and others. Now Catholic Insight magazine, the Christian Heritage Party and MacLean’s magazine are now under the guns of the HRCs. Nobody is safe from these appointed interrogators of totalitarian bent. So what can be done to return freedom of speech and freedom of expression to Canadians?

    I believe the HRCs must be abolished. Governments appointed them, therefore, governments can disband them. I would also make the suggestion that perhaps “the Canadian Jewish Congress,” who “pressed Canadian governments to introduce laws limiting free speech” now press Canadian governments to disband the HRCs.

    Stephen J. Gray
    Feb. 6, 2008. website:

  5. The CHRT is a joke. Listening to the short audio clip, with the weak and ineffective ‘judge’, it’s clear they’re a rudderless ship filled with explosives. Once somebody tosses a real ‘legal match’ onboard, KABOOM!

  6. Pingback: SoCon Or Bust » Blog Archive » The Spy Who Shagged My Internet Connection

  7. The Canadian Human Rights Act is a joke..period. Just more ultra left wing social engineering that the ACLU provide in the US. Look no further than B.C. with its new K-12 brainwashing programs with no opt out clause for parents..even on religious where was the MSM coverage then? Burying it as well as if the New York Times were running the show like the Red Star aka Pravda in T.O. Truly, Canuckistan is not the home of the free and the land of the brave..just the little mosk on the taxpayers expense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
21 ⁄ 7 =