13 THE CHAIRPERSON: I said, people
14 should not publish this on the Internet. On the other 15 hand, we were not using court reporting services, we16 just have the audio recording of this, so I’m not
17 publishing it in any other way.
6 MR. FROMM: I’m just wondering,
7 considering that through this entire hearing
8 transcripts are being provided.
9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.
10 MR. FROMM: I was wondering, do you
11 the power, sir, I believe to order a written transcript
12 and provide it to the parties at this hearing.
13 THE CHAIRPERSON: My understanding
14 based on complicated arrangements in Public Works and
15 so on that we cannot do that, not from the Tribunal
16 side of it.
17 Have you had the opportunity to use
18 the audio system; Mr. Fromm, that we have in place now,
19 because it’s quite user friendly? I’m relying on it
20 quite extensively. There’s a software that attaches to
21 your computer and you’re able to scroll through it.
22 We will not have transcripts. It
23 will not prevent you from referring me — I think I saw
24 it some of the material that was filed, but I think Mr.
25 Lemire had written something with Ms Kulaszka where he
1 said that on such date at such time this is what the
2 witness said, and that’s a perfectly legitimate way to
3 put the information in front of us.
4 It’s only been for this evidence of
5 today in this case. I believe all the other evidence
6 in this case was transcribed, but for a couple of
7 conference calls.
8 So, it’s not within my power. My
9 understanding is, no, we cannot order that, not for the
10 purpose of being shared with the parties.
11 Nothing prevents any of you from
12 getting this audio transcribed yourselves in any formal
13 or informal way. This is how it’s done in the courts
14 and this is how it’s done here.
15 MR. CHRISTIE: Not even money?
16 THE CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry, not even
18 MR. CHRISTIE: Not even money I said.
19 Nothing prevents you from having it transcribed, not
20 even money.
12 I hereby certify the foregoing
13 to be the Canadian Human Rights
14 Tribunal hearing, T1073/5405,
15 held on March 25, 2008, at
16 Ottawa, Ontario, transcribed to
17 the best of my skill and ability
18 from digital audio recorded by
19 the Canadian Human Rights
24 Beverley Dillabough
25 tified Shorthand Reporter
Imagine my surprise when, today, I received a copy of a beautifully-transcribed court report of the March 25th hearing. I received it — but Marc Lemire and his lawyer have not.
I got it from a reporter who had received it from the CHRC itself. How did he get it? Did he make an Access to Information request? Did he pull a Jadewarr, and hack into the CHRC’s computer and steal it?
No. He got it because a CHRC spin doctor called him up, and tried to spin his newspaper that the CHRC wasn’t all that bad. He tried to show how the CHRC really hadn’t gone online under a pseudonym to post bigoted comments — even though the CHRC has admitted to doing so a half dozen times, under oath. The CHRC spin doctor used the transcript as “proof”.
Today I have more evidence of their corruption.
As I noted in March, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing into the abusive and corrupt investigatory practices of the CHRC was not transcribed by a court reporter — unlike every single other day in the Warman v. Lemire case. The one day when the CHRC was on the defensive was the one day that the respondent — and any interested members of the public or reporters — had to make do with their own notes. The Tribunal made an audio recording of the hearing, which is next to useless in terms of searching for key words, skimming pages, etc.
If you’re having trouble grasping the corruption and abuse of process here, imagine a criminal matter. An accused criminal — let’s make it murder — is on trial. He alleges that he’s been framed by the police. On that one day, the court reporter is given the day off — the one day where police tactics are scrutinized and shown to be corrupt.
The police make a transcript, but don’t give it to the accused — who is thereby impaired in his ability to mount a defence. His ability to file an appeal if he’s convicted — by pointing out police corruption — is undermined. The police don’t given him a copy — but they give it to reporters, on the sly, while they trash talk the accused.
Any criminal prosecutor would be disciplined for such unethical practices; the case itself would be jeopardized because the fairness of the trial would be in question. It’s not about whether the accused is guilty or not; it’s bigger than that; it’s about whether or not we, as a society, believe that justice should be done and should be seen to be done. It’s about whether or not the prosecution has the necessary standards of morality that should come with their awesome powers. It’s not even for the accused murderer that we have these rules. It’s for ourselves. (Ezra Levant.com)
I remember when the Tribunal judge said that there would be no transcript. I think I also remember him saying it was because the Tribunal was trying to save a few bucks by having it available on audio only.
This is pretty outrageous stuff.
Why was this transcript never provided to the respondent, Marc Lemire, as is the proper procedure in real courts? Isn’t that basic legal protocol to ensure justice is served?
Why were the proceedings transcribed on TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD (see page 1) if the transcript was commissioned by the CHRC?
More commentary here.