timeimmortal

…and the reality of the internet, it seems, is beginning to sink in to the skull of Athansios Hadjis, the big cheese over at the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

The Human Rights Act provision permits anyone who objects to even a borderline case of alleged hate speech to expose the author to a costly, cumbersome human rights adjudication process, said Athansios Hadjis - who is presiding over a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against Internet webmaster Marc Lemire.

Citing a recent case in which Maclean’s magazine columnist Mark Steyn defended himself against a complaint from a Muslim group, Mr. Hadjis said it may be all too easy for an individual to be “dragged through the process.”

Mr. Hadjis said that the controversial provision created to combat hate messages left on telephone machines operated by member of the far right — made sense in the past. However, he said that its usefulness may be in the past.

…

Hate messages on telephone message machines tended to be overt, he said, whereas the ocean of opinions on the Internet include many that are borderline cases of hate.

“Maybe the scale is tipping the other way,” Mr. Hadjis interjected during closing submissions at the Lemire hearing. “There is so much grey zone here that it may tip the scale back the other way.”

“Suddenly, the chilling effect catches not only individuals who set up telephone messages…but just about everyone who posts anything on the Internet,” Mr. Hadjis said. “What we have is the reality of the Internet — open to all; everyone participates…” he said.

Common sense at the CHRC? I’m not sure I’m ready for that.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Mark Frieman, writing in the National Post, seems to think so. Jay Currie has the details.

I’m short of time, so here’s the meaty bit out of Jay’s review of/response to the article:

It is a very intelligent and compelling argument and, I suspect, represents the political fallback position of the CHRC and its dwindling band of supporters. Freiman refers to “procedural lapses or errors” and suggest that these should not vitiate the powerful idea that the Canadian telecommunications system should not “be used as a vehicle for hate propaganda“.

Unfortunately, as the CHRC’s investigative methods and total lack of process, discretion and restraint are revealed in the Lemire case and in the Steyn matter, it becomes increasingly apparent the CHRC has long since abandoned any pretense of addressing the concerns the Supreme Court of Canada raised in Taylor. The highhanded conduct of the Member in Lemire, the fraudulent invocation of s. 37 of Canada Evidence Act by the Commission, the attempt on the part of Commission counsel to deny public access in that matter, the lying under oath of CHRC management employees, the arbitrary truncation of proceedings and cross examination based on no law whatsoever and a whole host of other gross violations of natural justice all suggest that the CHRC is not capable of properly and fairly administering s.13(1). In fact, the antics of the CHRC suggest is has become a greater ongoing evil than the de minimus evil it is seeking to suppress.

It’s that last bit that’s really relevant: the damage that the human rights commissions are causing to and in Canada is exponentially greater than the amount of hypothetical damage they might prevent. Hate crimes are a terrible thing, but stripping away — or imposing limits on — a fundamental freedom like the right to expression is actually even worse. Because while hate crimes lash out against groups or individuals, destroying or impairing freedom of speech attacks the nation as a whole.

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!

Mark Steyn links to an article that explains, in brief, the full implications of what a “guilty” ruling by either of the human rights commissions that Maclean’s magazine has yet to face:

Take a look at s. 37(2) of the BC Human Rights Code, where it says:

(2)If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,

That is a mandatory injunction. An obligatory ‘cease and desist’ order. If the complainants win, the Tribunal has to order Maclean’s to stop running ‘Islamophobic’ articles. Not just articles by Mark Steyn, mind you; they have to stop running those articles period. Goodbye Barbara Amiel. Now, you might respond that Steyn wouldn’t be silenced, he would just have to pick his words more carefully. But think about it; the CIC is not just complaining about the excerpt from America Alone, but about a whole sheaf of Steyn’s articles. It’s pretty safe to assume that whatever Steyn has written about Islam in the last seven or so years would be considered offensive by the CIC. In the face of an injunction, then, he would either have to stop writing about Islam or stop obeying the dictates of his conscience as a writer.

The students may say they don’t want to silence Mark Steyn or anyone else. Their complaint, if successful, will do just that. It can do no other.

Just so. I’ve tried to make that point in interviews. The BC tribunal’s ruling will mean that I can no longer write for Maclean’s, and that Maclean’s itself will be highly circumscribed in what it can publish about the relationship between Islam and the west. In other words, on one of the central questions facing the world today, the editorial decisions of Canada’s largest news weekly will be determined by a British Columbia “court”.

My career in Canada will be formally ended next month.

These human rights complaints — in fact, virtually every human rights complaint filed under Section 13 of human rights law in Canada (and its provincial equivalents) — are about censorship, and nothing more. They can have no other outcome (and given the nearly 100% conviction rate of the HRCs, one could almost surely say that they will have no other outcome).

And in this great debate, that’s the line in the sand, on one (and only one) side of which each of us must fall. Either we oppose censorship in any and every circumstance, or we acknowledge that it is sometimes/often/commonly necessary. If we place ourselves with the former camp, we are on the side of freedom (which, unfortunately but necessarily, we must share with some less-than-savoury characters; but who said freedom was free from being, occasionally, ugly?). If we place ourselves with the latter camp, we abdicate any and all moral authority with which to complain, in the future, should someone else end up facing the prospect of being legally silenced by the CHRC or one of its provincial parallels.

Perhaps it will be a rock star whose music is much loved. Perhaps it will be, as someone else I read this morning suggested, a public figure such as David Suzuki. Whomever it is, let it be understood that the power of the HRCs, and their continued corruption and abuse of power, will not end when the Mark Steyns, Marc Lemires, and Ezra Levants of the world have been duly dispatched — the field of targets will not have been narrowed then; it will only find need to shift leftward.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

This just arrived in my inbox:

The result of Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge could literally make or break our fight against Section 13. It is IMPERATIVE that you email these people, and get EVERYONE YOU KNOW to do it, too!

We can put an end to Section 13 without having to wait for Parliament to wake up…but we have to act today!

I’m going to make this simple for everyone. Here is the list of emails:

THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
A. ALAN BOROVOY, GENERAL COUNSEL
e-mail: mail@ccla.org

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Jim Braunagel
e-mail: jim@bccla.org

PEN Canada
email: info@pencanada.ca

The Canadian Association of Journalists
Algonquin College
John Dickens, Executive Director

email: canadianjour@magma.ca

Your letter just has to ask them to “intervene as an interested party” in the Warman vs Lemire Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Have at it, O Reader! Freedom of expression is a cornerstone right of free societies everywhere, and this right is being eroded in Canada in part because we are letting it be eroded. Speak out about this issue, and the in no uncertain terms, or you will lose the right to do so (under the guise of it being for your own good, no less!).

I think it goes without saying that all emails sent should be polite, concise, and spell-checked thoroughly. Be nice, and be articulate, and your message will go a lot further.

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?