Time Immortal

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.

Cops are hunting for a pair of potential police impersonators after a woman was pulled over by a couple of strangers who were using a flashing blue light on their car.

A women in her 20s was driving home along 101 St. S.W. near Old Banff Coach Rd. S.W. at 8:20 p.m. Feb. 16 when a small, white car with a flashing blue light pulled up behind her, said Sgt. Mike Worden.

“She looked up and realized the car was behind her with a blue light flashing so she pulled over thinking it was police,” he said. “She sat there for eight to 10 minutes.”

When no one got out of the car behind her, she started driving away but stopped again when she saw one man get out of the vehicle and walk towards her.

“She opened up the car door … her intention was to apologize — she thought they were the police,” Worden said.

But when she realized the man wasn’t wearing a uniform and noticed another man at the side of her car banging on her passenger window, she sped off and reported the incident to police when she got home.

Might be worth keeping an eye out for, O Reader.

an investigator may do any or all of the following:

• (a) subject to subsection (2), enter any place at any reasonable time and examine it;
• (b) make inquiries orally or in writing of any person who has or may have information relevant to the subject‑matter of the investigation;
• (c) demand the production for examination of records and documents, including electronic records and documents, that are or may be relevant to the subject‑matter of the investigation;
• (d) on giving a receipt for them, remove any of the things referred to in clause (c) for the purpose of making copies of or extracts from them.

(2) An investigator may enter and examine a room or place actually used as a dwelling only if

• (a) the owner or person in possession of it consents to the entry and examination, or
• (b) the entry and examination is authorized by a judge under section 24.

Judge’s order

24(1) Where a provincial court judge is satisfied on an investigator’s evidence under oath that there are reasonable grounds for an investigator to exercise a power under section 23(1) and that

• (a) in the case of a room or place actually used as a dwelling, the investigator cannot obtain the consent under section 23(2) or, having obtained the consent, has been obstructed or interfered with,
• (b) the investigator has been refused entry to a place other than a dwelling,
• (c) a person refuses or fails to answer inquiries under section 23(1)(b), or
• (d) a person on whom a demand is made under section 23(1)(c) refuses or fails to comply with the demand or to permit the removal of a thing under section 23(1)(d), the judge may make any order the judge considers necessary to enable the investigator to exercise the powers under section 23(1).

(2) An application under subsection (1) may be made with or without notice.

Ezra Levant outlines the implications of the above:

Shirlene McGovern, or any other human rights officer, can come into my office whenever she thinks it’s reasonable, to “examine” it. No search warrant necessary. She can even come into my home, if she gets a court order — but such a court order can be applied for and granted without notice to me. That’s the kind of ambush usually reserved for getting warrants to break in on crack houses.

Again, without a warrant, she can take any documents I have, including on my computer.

Oh, and section 24(1)(c) allows for such search and seize orders to be granted not just against me but anyone else who refuses to answer questions put by investigators like Shirlene McGovern.

That’s the power of these commissions — before I’m even found “guilty”.

Mackintosh says I was “invited to respond in person or in writing to the allegations.” Indeed I was — with search warrants to enter my property and take my computer if I refused Mackintosh’s hospitality. I called these people fascist — I think they meet the definition of that stern term.

So there’s everything in a nutshell; the Alberta HRC — which by rights should have about as much enforcement power as the lady who gives out parking tickets — actually has less restrictions placed on it (when it comes to obtaining authority to enter homes and sieze property and information) than police do. One can only imagine that the CHRC is similarly unrestricted.

police have to get a warrant to search your house for illicit materials — HRC investigators do not.

Police have to demonstrate probable cause before a judge in order to obtain a warrant to search your house — HRC investigators only have to demonstrate that you didn’t want to let them in.

This is not the conduct one would expect from a government body that exists to uphold the rights of Canadians. This is the conduct one would expect from a government body that exists to undermine the rights of Canadians.

And that is, in fact, what happens.

Tried to goad an unmarked Chevrolet Impala police car into an impromptu highway drag race.

Sgt. Cam Woolley of the OPP highway safety division said the teen was driving his parents’ 2008 Chrysler 300 toward Windsor on Friday when he pulled up alongside the unmarked OPP vehicle, a Chevrolet Impala with tinted windows.

Police say he repeatedly tried to get the Impala, driven by the Chatham-Kent OPP detachment commander, to race. The Chrysler’s speed reached over 160 km/h.

The teen was pulled over and arrested. His licence was suspended and the car impounded for a week. He also faces a minimum $2,000 fine if convicted.

Woolley said the teen’s parents had to pick him up after the car was taken away.

Nobody likes getting a ticket, obviously, but I for one rather enjoy the fact that more and more police departments are using ‘ghost cars’. People will do very stupid things on the road when they think a cop isn’t watching, not so much when they think a cop might be…and I for one think that stupidity in a vehicle almost always deserves to be rewarded with harsh fines. Hence my love of ghost cars.

I’ve never seen Edmonton drivers, in everyday circumstances, obey the rules of the road as well or as rigidly as they do as when an interceptor has been in plain view nearby. I feel a swell of guilty enjoyment when I see the car that went whipping past me twenty blocks earlier pulled over on the side of the road with an unmarked cop car sitting behind it.