timeimmortal

As if one needed more evidence of the corruption that has infested the Canadian Human Rights Commission! Still, if one were looking for said evidence, one wouldn’t have to look very far, as new evidence has come to light detailing how the CHRC apparently knowingly falsified a transcript of a proceeding that was released to media.

The removed bit?

An explicit confirmation by Dean Steacy that a certain “someone” knew who had logged in to a website under the pseudonym Jadewarr and printed off excerpts of content from that site — something which said “someone” had denied while testifying under oath.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Since it has been testified under oath, by a Bell Canada employee, that members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission may very well have hacked into a private citizen’s secured wireless network, the RCMP is now investigating the CHRC.

On April 2, 2008, Marc Lemire filed a criminal complaint against the Canadian Human Rights Commission for theft of an innocent woman’s internet connection. In that complaint, Marc Lemire is alleging that:

Dean Steacy and/or other Commission employees willfully connected to the wireless access point owned by Nelly Hechme, in order to hide their online identity. Then impersonating Mrs. Hechme, via her internet connection, browsed to Stormfront.Org website and printed documents that were submitted as evidence of material fact before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

1. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed Mischief in relation to data in contravention of Section 430 (1.1) (c)(d) of the Criminal Code.

2. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed Unauthorized use of a computer in contravention of Section 342.1 (1) (a)(b) of the Criminal Code.

3. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed Theft of telecommunication service in contravention of Section 326 (1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

4. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed Interception of Communications in contravention of Section 184 (1) of the Criminal Code.

5. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed other Criminal Code violations which this Police Service may deem applicable.

On May 2, 2008 the Ottawa Police Service came to a decision on the criminal complaint. And the decision was to put it onto the RCMP. The RCMP will not directly accept criminal complaints in Ontario. You have to go through a local police service, and according to the rules, the local police service will then forward to the RCMP.

This is good news indeed, although one suspects that the minions of the CHRC have been very good at covering their tracks. Still, there are ways to tell if a computer has been connected to a particular network, and I’m sure that the forensic analysts at the RCMP are quite well-equipped to detect evidence of any such incursion.

The actions of the CHRC are outrageous and shouldn’t fall under the scope of what is permissible, even in the cause of upholding Canadian law. Indeed, had this been a police investigation that had abused a private citizen’s wireless internet access, the evidence procured from it would have been tossed out of court with startling rapidity.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

BCF writes in with what I presume is a comment on this article.

They can’t possibly hope to win this case, can they? They aren an affront to society.

I shall answer in reverse order, O Reader: they are, yes, and yes, they can and do.

That the CHRC is an affront to Canadian society is beyond doubt. When an HRC staffer like Dean Steacy can openly opine, in all seriousness, that he doesn’t put much stock in “an American concept” like freedom of speech, it becomes very obvious that human rights commissions openly spit on the rights of the people of Canada in pursuit of a collection of activist agendas. When EGALE member Richard Warman can abuse the system to the point that a) he is the only plaintiff of note in all Section 13 cases heard by the CHRC so far in this century, and that b) he has won all but one* such case, it becomes very obvious that the HRCs aren’t even about human rights at all.

So yes, they are an affront to society. Or, at least, to a free society. They’d be right at home in Soviet Russia, China, or North Korea.

But can they expect to win their case against Marc Lemire? Of course they can…why shouldn’t they? When both the plaintiff against Marc Lemire and one of the lead investigators of the government agency which is supposed to hear the complaint and, in an ideal world, render a non-biased judgement thereupon, are both engaging in acts of online entrapment to make the charge of racism against Marc Lemire seem more solid, what other outcome can there possibly be?

* and in the case he lost, the Canadian Nazi Party, his target, only “won” its case because it did not, in fact, exist

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

One of the more amusing — and yet tragic — revelations of Marc Lemire’s cross-examination of Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) staffer Dean Steacy (among other people) in regard to the exact identities of the authors of certain racially-charged statements at the white supremacist forum that Mr. Lemire oversees has to be the tactics employed by Dean Steacy. Essentially, Mr. Steacy (and former HRC employee and current serial plaintiff thereof Richard Warman) engaged in tactics that would be called “entrapment” had bona-fide police officers committed them — dissatisfied with the quantity (or lack thereof) or specifically racist material to be found on Mr. Lemire’s forums, they created aliases for themselves, logged in to the forums, and posted their own racist statements. Those statements then were used to form the basis of Mr. Warman’s human rights complaint against Mr. Lemire.

This is all old news by now; I reiterate it here for the benefit of those readers who may have forgotten some of the finer points since last it came up for discussion on this blog.

What is new — and both comic and tragic — is exactly how Mr. Steacy went about “covering his tracks” when posting the aforementioned racist content.

When Mr. Steacy began posting messages on hate sites as “jadewarr,” he was sufficiently internet savvy not to leave any ISP information that could be traced back to the CHRC. He didn’t want Marc Lemire looking at his server logs and noticing any unusual interest from anything ending in “gc.ca.” So Mr. Steacy disconnected himself from the office Internet, and looked around for alternative wireless connections. He found one belonging to a young lady whose apartment is a block away from CHRC headquarters in Ottawa. Without obtaining a warrant, he connected to her server, and in effect used her as his cover for his “jadewarr” postings. Last week, a representative from Bell Canada named the lady in open court, since when her name has been reported in the newspapers. Let’s say in 10 years’ time, this woman applies for a job in, oh, Sarnia or Moose Jaw or Des Moines, and her prospective employer decides to Google her name, and what comes up is all very complicated and hard to follow but she seems to have something to do with some white supremacist investigation back in 2008.

Dean Steacy is on record as dismissing the right to freedom of speech as “an American concept” that he doesn’t put much stock in. Evidently, his attitude toward the right to private property is similar. And yes, I know that the lady whose wireless internet access he made use of should have done more to protect herself against his invasion of her privacy and usurpation of her identity. Wireless routers should be secured, preferably using the WPA security scheme, and any person intenting to use a wireless router in his or her home should both be made aware of this fact and, if necessary, taught how to do it.

But even though her wireless was unsecured, Mr. Steacy’s use of it to pursue — by way of entrapment-like tactics — the CHRC’s case against Mr. Lemire is unconscionable, and may have tarnished this lady’s reputation for years to come. Not that one expects the human rights kommisars to demonstrate the least bit of care toward the well-being of Canadian citizens, not while more pressing concerns — like the pursuit of the fictional Canadian Nazi Party, or the defence of a Newfoundlander’s right to act in a manner that lines up with ‘Newfie’ stereotypes, thus resulting in the termination of his employment for being a lazy slacker — are out there to be found.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Binks writes in with a complaint about my suggestions concerning where to go for news on March 25th, the date of the CHRC hearing in which Marc Lemire would get to cross-examine certain HRC staffers, including Dean Steacy, about their online actions (akin to entrapment).

The Reader may recall that I suggested four sites as sources of news: Ezra Levant’s site, Five Feet of Fury, Mark Steyn’s site, and Blazing Cat Fur.

In my haste, I neglected to mention one key website.

Kenneth:

The only Steyn-Levant news aggregator on the planet is FreemarkSteyn.com! Plus, we have contests!

Tsk, tsk

Binks

Binks has my utmost apologies; I did indeed neglect to provide a link to the only Ezra Levant/Mark Steyn/HRC news aggregator currently in operation, and then on what was a pivotal and important day in the continuing fight over freedom of expression in Canada.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I’m sorry, Binks — can you forgive me?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Ezra Levant explains.

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street
11th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4
Tel: (613) 995-1707
Email: gcyr@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is accepting public opinions on the closed hearings of Richard Warman and Dean Steacy as regards Marc Lemire’s allegations of entrapment committed by HRC officers. The reader is encouraged to (politely) express his or her discomfort with the idea of public employees not being subjected to public scrutiny over this issue.

These hearings, frankly, should be open to the public. Plain and simple.

Submissions must be in by March 17th.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

So they draw their paycheque from the public trough — that is, we taxpayers foot the bill for their employment — but human rights investigators suspected of posting racist materials on various websites in an attempt to entrap the site operators will be questioned about their actions free from our prying eyes.

Great. Just great.

Anyone who has been following the abuses of the Canadian Human Rights Commission knows that using fake names, infiltrating “enemy” websites and even planting bigoted messages is their modus operandi. We know this not because it is alleged by any of the CHRC’s critics, but because it is confessed under oath by CHRC staff themselves, including CHRC investigator Dean Steacy and former CHRC staffer and serial CHRC complainer, Richard Warman, who personally admitted under oath that he would regularly end his online comments with Nazi shorthand for “Heil Hitler”.

But most Canadians don’t know that — partly because the CHRC is doing everything it can to keep its questionable tactics hidden from public view, including insisting that the upcoming March 25th cross-examination of its staff on this very subject be done in secret.

Of course I stand by my statement. And whenever a bigoted comment is left on a website in Canada, the first reflex of any skeptical person ought to be: “is this another dirty trick by the CHRC or Richard Warman to entrap their next victim?” rather than to take the comment at face value, as an indicator of any real bigotry in Canada.

If I didn’t know anything about human rights commissions and I read that Globe article, I’d probably think that whoever thought there was a conspiracy by the government to plant racist comments on websites to entrap them was a nutbar on par with 9/11 “truthers”. I’d think whoever said that was slightly mad, because that’s just not how things work in the real world, at least not in a country like Canada.

“With glowing hearts, we see thee rise, the True North strong and free…”

Welcome, Steynians!

Ezra Levant has the details:

If I’m reading this order correctly, March 25th may become known as Black Tuesday at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

That’s when Marc Lemire — one of the few Canadians who has had the energy and legal resources to fight back against the CHRC’s Section 13 thought crimes steamroller — will be allowed to cross examine commission staff about their “undercover” activities on the internet. Judging by what Lemire has uncovered so far — such as an Edmonton Police “hate crimes” officer posting anti-Semitic and anti-Aboriginal bigotry on the Internet — it’s sure to be a blockbuster.

(It’s deeply disturbing that “hate crimes” police — I’m not talking about human rights keystone cops now, but real police officers — publish such bigotry on the taxpayers’ dime, and all in the name of keeping the peace. One must ask: at what point is the “fake” hatred generated by the police a larger problem than the “real” hatred that exists already on society’s fringes? And, really, is there any moral difference between the two, other than the police claim they don’t really mean it? At what point does the cure become worse than the disease?)

Remember that these are the same “anti-hate” activists — police, human rights activists, and even CSIS agents — who paid a government agent to set up the Heritage Front, arguably Canada’s leading neo-Nazi movement twenty years ago. The fact that these same government agents then “infiltrated” the nascent Reform Party, to the great embarrassment of Preston Manning, shows that these “anti-hate” campaigns have long been torqued into a partisan political weapon.

I’m not any particular fan of Mr. Lemire, or of any other white supremacist the reader might care to name. But the evidence he has collected of government collusion and entrapment, both by members of various Canadian authorities and by members of various Canadian human rights commissions (especially the CHRC, notably staffer Dean Steacy), is both convincing and alarming.

One can only hope that it makes for the undoing of the HRCs in Canada. While on one hand it is a shame that there are white supremacists and racists in the world, I would not for one instant prefer that such people be forced to remain silent; better they speak their filth that its evil might wither in the light of day.

Perhaps it is bitter irony, then, that an avowed white supremacist be the one to deal a major blow to the Canadian government’s agency of censorship.

OMMAG writes:

I wonder what it would take to get a class action suit going
against warmen

To be honest, I’m not sure what it would take — I’m not a lawyer, and have never been involved in any previous class action suit, so I am not familiar with the exact process one would have to follow to initiate any such thing against Richard Warman.

Now, as to the issue of whether a class action suit should be launched? I think some manner of investigation for fraud is certainly justified. Perhaps the various victims of Richard Warman could file a joint suit against the man in light of the evidence that is emerging that he is making claims to the CHRC that are, in essence, fraudulent and based on evidence that he himself has planted.

But Richard Warman should not be the only target of any such suit — indeed, if he is making fraudulent claims, there also exists the possibility that members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission are in collusion with him, rubber-stamping the assertions of their former co-worker and filling his pockets with the ill-gotten gains of his own trickery.

That’s the real scandal here (or one of several, as the case may be). As Mark Steyn notes:

Quite the prose stylist, eh? As I said previously, this isn’t entrapment; it’s manufacturing the crime. Mr Warman posted these words on a website and then used them as part of his complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is Scandal #1.

Furthermore, when the defendant then made plain that he wished to subpoena the records of the ISP to uncover the author of the above post, the Canadian Human Rights Commission mysteriously dropped it from the case. This suggests an explicit collusion between the CHRC investigators and their former colleague, Mr Warman. That is Scandal #2.

For posting these words on the website and then taking said website to the Human Rights Commission, Mr Warman has been substantially enriched by the Canadian state. That is Scandal #3.

At this point, the Minister of Justice needs to step in. The administration of Section XIII is a public disgrace. I agree with Pundita that it is, in fact, a criminal act in itself. The Minister should order a judicial inquiry into the systemic corruption of Section XIII. Furthermore, in the interim, Agent Dean Steacy should be removed from all “hate” cases, all current cases suspended, and the judgments in those cases brought by Richard The Anglo-German Warman vacated. The mountain of phony-baloney “jurisprudence” based on the Warman racket should be tossed in the trash.

In the end, and I might prevail over this thug racket. But why should we have to spend significant six-figure sums doing so given the prima facie evidence above? Section XIII is misbegotten in theory and a shakedown racket in practice. It’s time to end it.

So regarding the class action suit, I have to confess a measure of uncertainty as to whether one would be justified or even useful, because in the end it wouldn’t address the real problem, which is the existence of HRCs in Canada in the first place. Canada would be better served by either an appeal going through the Supreme Court to strike down the human rights commissions for being the Charter violations that they are, or by the government stepping in do bring about the same result.

In other words:

Myself, I’d prefer it be done through the government rather than the courts. Which suggests, in turn, that the best thing to do is for everyone to get on their MP’s case about the HRCs.