Let’s Make A Deal

I was originally going to let the Warman vs. Lemire case slide, since it was pretty time intensive to pick out the juicy audio clips. But since the Tribunal transcript has come out, it’s made my life a lot easier to suck out what I need.

I got to work tonight, looking for something which ended up being not that significant, but I ran across this little exchange between Douglas Christie, the lawyer for the Canada Free Speech League, and Dean Steacy.

It’s a little long but it’s worth the read. Christie really took Steacy to School about the CHRC’s involvement with the police and CSIS in his examination. He had him twisted and bent more than a German pretzel.

I’ll deal with those exchanges in a future segment, but for now, take a gander at this segment which deals with trying to feret out some identities that the CHRC doesn’t want to release.  Anyhow, read it through and pay close attention to the end of this excerpt.

People have compared the CHRT to a Gong Show. That may indeed be true. But in this segment, with all the redactions and guessing and hints and clues….it’s more like Let’s Make A Deal.

 

MR. CHRISTIE: All right. Page 22, 2

Harvey Goldberg writes to somebody on May 3rd, 2006: 3

“I would suggest (blank) 4

Canadian Jewish Congress (blank) 5

who is now a private consultant 6

MR. STEACY: Yes, I was. 1

MR. CHRISTIE: It says: 2

“Hi, Harvey. Could you add the 3

following to the list of people 4

to invite to the investigators 5

conference. The Winnipeg Police 6

Hate Crimes Unit (blank) (blank) 7

(blank) (blank) We have spoken 8

with (blank) He is most 9

interested in attending the 10

conferences.” (As read) 11

MR. CHRISTIE: Was it your 12

understanding that representatives from various police 13

forces are invited to your investigator conferences? 14

MR. STEACY: Yes. 15

MR. CHRISTIE: Wouldn’t that be 16

somewhat of a formal relationship? 17

MR. STEACY: There was no formal 18

relationship. We were trying to have a conference on 19

common practices. And at the end of it, if a formal 20

relationship or an informal relationship came out of 21

that meeting, that’s where it worked, but that’s not 22

what happened. 23

No formal or informal relationship 24

came out of it because it was determined that the 25

but previously was (blank) both 7

of them have given expert 8

testimony in the past. This was 9

a reply to a request from 10

(blank) who appears to be 11

looking for a witness in the 12

prosecution of a criminal case 13

who had previously asked 14

(blank)” (As read) 15

MR. CHRISTIE: And I quote: 16

“Hi, Harvey. We have laid a charge 17

of wilful promotion of hatred against an individual 18

from (blank) for running a hate site called (blank) 19

Crown counsel is looking for an expert to testify the 20

hate propaganda aspect of the website and some of the 21

comments he made on message boards including 22

stormfront.org and ypenterprises. This expert should 23

also be able to testify to the interpretation of 24

symbols, terms, et cetera. Can you suggest someone 25

 

(blank)” (As read) 1

MR. CHRISTIE: Is it the practice, to 2

your knowledge, of the Canadian Human Rights Commission 3

to orchestrate criminal prosecutions under the Criminal 4

Code? 5

MR. STEACY: To the best of my 6

knowledge, we don’t orchestrate criminal prosecutions. 7

MR. CHRISTIE: It would seem that 8

this exchange was for the purpose of assisting the 9

Crown in the criminal prosecution of someone with a 10

Canadian Jewish Congress representative. 11

Are you familiar with such practices? 12

MR. STEACY: You’d have to ask Mr. 13

Goldberg what that’s about. I have no — this is the 14

first time I’ve ever heard of this e-mail. 15

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, we didn’t get a 16

chance to ask Mr. Goldberg because we didn’t have this 17

until after he was gone. 18

On May the 11th, 2006 we have an 19

e-mail to Mr. Goldberg Investigators Congress Invitee. 20

Were you an investigator at that 21

time? 22

MR. STEACY: Yes, I was. 23

MR. CHRISTIE: Were you invited to a 24

conference at that time? 25

police are in certain circumstances are unable to 1

supply us with some forms of information. 2

MR. CHRISTIE: Some forms of 3

information. 4

Well, when was that conference and 5

where was it? 6

MR. STEACY: It was here in Ottawa 7

and I don’t remember the exact date. 8

MR. CHRISTIE: June 15th, 2006? 9

MR. STEACY: That sounds about right. 10

MR. CHRISTIE: There’s an e-mail on 11

page 24 from somebody we’re not allowed to know to 12

somebody we’re not allowed to know, dated June 15th, 13

2006 9:35 p.m. 14

“Meeting today. Hi, (blank). 15

Thanks for the meeting today. I 16

thought it was important to meet 17

in person and perhaps build a 18

relationship we can work towards 19

in the future on related or 20

cross-related cases. By the 21

sounds of your past contacts 22

with our department (blank) it 23

appears my timing was good as 24

(long blank). As such it’s time

some new contacts were forged.” 1

(As read) 2

MR. CHRISTIE: And then a whole 3

paragraph is blank. 4

“Secondly per 8(2)(f) of the 5

Federal Privacy Act, any 6

information under the control of 7

a government agency may be 8

disclosed to an institution of a 9

government or of a province for 10

the purpose for the purpose of 11

administering or enforcing any 12

law or carrying out a lawful 13

investigation under an agreement 14

between the Government of Canada 15

and the said province. On July 16

6, 1983, pursuant to section 17

8(2)(f), the Minister of Justice 18

for Canada signed an agreement 19

with the Attorney General of 20

Manitoba designating any police 21

force established pursuant to a 22

Municipal Act in Manitoba as a 23

provincial institution which may 24

receive access to and the use 25

and disclosure of personal 1

information. As the Winnipeg 2

Police Force is created pursuant 3

to the City of Winnipeg Act, a 4

provincial statute, would, may 5

receive access and the use of 6

disclosure of personal 7

information held by the Human 8

Rights Commission for the 9

purpose of administering or 10

enforcing any act or carrying 11

out a lawful investigation. I 12

have attached an electronic copy 13

of the agreement for your files, 14

should the need ever arise.” 15

(As read) 16

MR. CHRISTIE: Were you aware of such 17

contacts arising out of that investigators meeting with 18

the Winnipeg Police Force? 19

MR. STEACY: No, I wasn’t. 20

MR. CHRISTIE: Are you surprised that 21

they were actually occurring? 22

MR. STEACY: Very surprised by that 23

e-mail. 24

MR. CHRISTIE: I see. We don’t know

who it’s from or who it’s to, but I’m hopeful the 1

Commission will admit it’s to and from the Police 2

Service of Winnipeg — from the Police Service of 3

Winnipeg to a Commission officer, but I guess I can’t 4

assist on that. 5

MS BLIGHT: It was from the Winnipeg 6

Police Service. 7

THE CHAIRPERSON: You know what, I’m 8

going to say something. I made my earlier ruling on 9

the request because it was really out of time, but I 10

must question the basis on which some of these things 11

have been redacted. 12

I mean, some of this information 13

doesn’t seem to me at all subject to privilege. 14

So, this is from Winnipeg Police? 15

MS BLIGHT: Winnipeg Police Service. 16

It’s identified at the bottom. 17

MR. CHRISTIE: Yeah, but who is it 18

to? Is it to the Commission? 19

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it someone at 20

the Commission, don’t give me a name, but is it someone 21

at the Commission? 22

MS BLIGHT: You know, I would have to 23

check and I haven’t brought the unredacted with me. I 24

do not think so because where e-mails originate or end 25

with the Commission, we should be leaving the 1

identifier at the end of the e-mail.

(Source, p.279-286)

As we read Hadjis’s first remarks above about the CHRC brazenly redacting texts and names it had no business censoring, it kind of places us in a time warp to the recent release of 400 pages by this same Commission and this same lawyer.

But the cherry on this cake has to be the second section that I highlighted above about a dysfunctional Judge who asks Blight to give him some hints about what’s behind Door #1.  And if that picture doesn’t do it for you, think of an obedient little boy asking his father or mother to give him a hint about what’s in the big box under the Christmas tree.  And as for hints and clues, here’s some déjà vu for you too!….

It is anticipated that… more clues will remain which will indicate to the reader the nature of contact information which has been redacted. (Source)

  

5 thoughts on “Let’s Make A Deal

  1. That was the whole point, Socon. Audio not transcripts, would make it just far too time consuming to pick out and cross reference what was said.

    Like the batter being jammed with inside pitches to keep him off the plate.
    Good work !

    There’s enough in the transcrip to fertilize my lawn.

  2. Does the CHRC have access to CPIC? They are not listed as either a category l ,ll or lll user in the CPIC manual. Why were they asking for more direct access to CPIC? See Goldbergs e-mails. I thought the CHRC was involved with civil as opposed to criminal investigations.

  3. 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. ”

    ————————-

    The CHRC and its operatives have embarked upon their own agenda and their own mandate. It is only those who might investigate would ask those kinds of questions asked by some burning cat …

  4. Yup – BCF and FH – the CHRC should NOT have DIRECT access to CPIC however, they may have a contact that allows and processes their requests.

    It is a question though given theBUDDY contact with Sgt. Chase (aka “Estate”) in Edmonton and that in S. Ontario – Lemire’s lawyer might want to ask.

    Early on, I thought that Steacy et al., were malicious but as more and more comes out – I really believe they are simply totally incompetent.

    Those in a “sheltered workshop” eventually get to believe in their own magnificence and omnipotence.

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

Leave a Reply

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

Solve : *
4 + 21 =