 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
|
Contents
Contact us!
152 Carlton Street PO Box 92545 Toronto, Ontario M5A 2K1 Canada
Canadian Association For Free Expression
|
|
Marc
Lemire's Lawyer demands an APOLOGY from CHRC Lawyers for shamelessly
misleading evidence and false security threat allegations
TO: Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal, These
proceedings were adjourned on May 11, 2007 at the request of Mr. Ian Fine
for the Commission on the grounds that neither Commission counsel could
act as they were ill. However, Mr. Fine and Mr. Vigna repeatedly mentioned
some sort of security breach that had occurred involving two Commission
employees. Mr.
Fine
stated: “… it is a serious issue in our view, and it does involve
people who are now employed by the Commission and involving this case.” The
Chairperson
asked: “Did it take place in my hearing room?” Mr.
Fine replied:
“Yes.” The
Chairperson:
“The security issue?” Mr.
Fine:
“I’m sorry, it involves people that come to this hearing room, yes.” As
a result of these statements and those later of Mr. Vigna, the Chairperson
commenced an interrogation of myself regarding whether Mr. Lemire and
myself had come up with other people to Ottawa, or met with people in
Ottawa. The Chairperson also referred to material that had previously been
filed by the Commission on its motion for closed proceedings. All
of this is extremely troubling to me, as counsel for Mr. Lemire. The
Commission
has steadfastly attempted to smear Mr. Lemire as a violent hatemonger.
Its lawyers come to Tribunal hearings bristling with security personnel
who even accompany them to restaurants and washrooms. Constant reference
has been made to a judgment of the Federal Court in the Ernst Zundel
national security case in which Mr. Lemire was named, although he had no
opportunity to appear at these hearings and although the law under which
this decision was made has been struck down as a violation of the most
basic rights of Canadians. The Commission has made submissions in its
latest motions that hate messages “carry with them an element of
violence” (para. 30, Motion for Special Measures), strongly suggesting
that the witnesses in Finally,
on May 11th, Mr. Fine appeared before the Tribunal making
constant reference, together with Mr. Vigna, to some unspecified security
crisis involving the Lemire case which had Mr. Vigna so discombobulated
that he could not function. Yet
the evidence it attempts to use against Mr. Lemire on security issues
either has nothing to do with Mr. Lemire or it produces evidence which is
utterly false: the alleged Martinez
DVD and Fromm
CD, which the Commission put forward to the Tribunal are not
the disks advertised by Mr. Fromm and Mr. Lemire. When I requested an
affidavit from the Commission to prove these disks, the Commission
refused. It has never provided a true copy of these disks to the Tribunal.
This type of behaviour by counsel for the Commission is unacceptable and
makes it difficult to accept anything they say at face value. This
case raises the interesting question of whether Commission counsel have
privacy rights regarding their medical conditions which respondents do
not. I
believe a respondent would have been required to provide a medical
certificate to obtain an adjournment. If so, Commission counsel should
also be required to do so and it should be public. I
would submit that the Commission also apologize for alleging a security
breach involving this case when there was no evidence to support it and it
was not the reason an adjournment was requested. The affect was
simply to prejudice Mr. Lemire about something he had nothing to do with,
whatever it was.
Yours
truly,
Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge
Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law and protect Freedom of Speech in
|
|
| |||||
 |
|
Latest
Updates
