testimony by CHRC Investigator Dean Steacy on Richard Warman is missing
25, 2008, Marc Lemire called 2 CHRC employees to testify before the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, as part of his massive
challenge of Section 13 (internet thought control legislation) of the Canadian
Human rights Act.
25, 2008, explosive testimony was heard. The first witness a
representative from Bell Canada's law enforcement team who provided
evidence on an IP address CHRC employees used to attempt to entrap Marc
Lemire on the Stormfront.Org website. This issue has now lead to both an RCMP
investigation, and a Privacy
Jonathan Kay, editor of the National
an article and called the hearing a "landmark
disaster for the Canadian Human Rights Commission".
"After years of
investigating Lemire, CHRC investigators had too little proof that he
was a hatemonger to proceed to a hearing. So they began logging onto
his website under an assumed name, "Jadewarr,"
and posting provocative comments in hopes of obtaining racist replies
they could then use in their case again Lemire.
To cover their activities, it appears commission
employees logged onto the Internet
through a wireless connection they detected in a woman's apartment
near their offices, rather than using the commission's own server. They
neither sought the woman's permission nor acquired a judicial warrant to
tap into her computer."
The Canadian Human Rights Commission
was in full damage recovery mode after the spying network of the CHRC was
exposed and reported on heavily in the national media.
Imagine my surprise when, today, I received a copy
of a beautifully-transcribed court report of the March 25th hearing. I
received it -- but Marc Lemire and his lawyer have not.
I got it from a reporter who had received it
from the CHRC itself. How did he get it? Did he make an Access to
Information request? Did he pull a Jadewarr, and hack into the CHRC's
computer and steal it?
No. He got it because a CHRC spin doctor called
him up, and tried to spin his newspaper that the CHRC wasn't all that
bad. He tried to show how the CHRC really hadn't gone online under a
pseudonym to post bigoted comments -- even though the CHRC has admitted
to doing so a half dozen times, under oath. The CHRC spin doctor used
the transcript as "proof".
I have no problem with the CHRC engaging in
desperate spin attempts. I love it, in fact -- the more they open their
mouths, the more discredited they are, and in ways that their critics,
like me, could never achieve.
But isn't there something corrupt about the CHRC
having a transcript of the hearing, not disclosing it to the respondent,
but using it against the respondent with reporters who have no formal
standing in the case?
While the respondent has to hand-transcribe the
audio recording of that hearing -- or pay out of his own pocket for
someone to do so -- the CHRC has a transcribed version. But they don't
turn it over. They try to use it as a PR weapon. (Good luck with
CHRC Transcript missing explosive
In a copy of the Transcript the CHRC spread around to
the media, a very explosive line was missing.