Ezra's Opening Remarks January 11, 2008

What Ezra Said to Start His Alberta Human Rights Commission Interrogation

Over 19 months ago now, Ezra Levant had his day in front of Alberta HRC Investigator Shirlene McGovern as he was summoned, in the case resulting from his publishing in the Western Standard some 2 years earlier of the so called Mohammed cartoons.

I watched some of the tapes today on You Tube, and saw the dazed look in the eyes of Ms. McGovern during the interrogation/interview. At one time, she looked down beside her chair, I think, to see if there were some place for her to crawl into, but alas, there wasn't and she had to sit there and take it, and with a smile as well. Ezra's opening statement probably came as a surprise to her, but makes for interesting reading below. If you want the on screen version of it for your delectation, it is available here.

I have no problem with anything that Ezra says here, though I am not even sure that Ms. McGovern really did either. But, her boss Lori Andreachuk obviously would not agree with it. Otherwise she could have never issued the Boission ruling that she did. It is also interesting to note that Ms. McGovern states in one of the tapes that her investigative report recommended that the case against Stephen Boissoin be dropped.

As you may know, Ezra was originally Stephen Boissoin's lawyer, and abruptly left him in the very capable hands of Mr. Gerald Chipeur, his boss, when he left to publish the Western Standard.

Anyway here is Ezra's opening salvo, I mean statement:

My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement.

When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com.

I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words.

I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state.

I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a “loser” by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke – it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’s panellists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.

It’s bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But it’s even worse now that the commissions are attacking free speech. That’s my first point: the commissions have leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is, quote, “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.” Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out of control, he said quote “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.” Unquote.

The commission has no legal authority to act as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They’re just making it up – even Alan Borovoy says so.

But even if the commissions had some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional.

We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of common law in Canada.

That common law has been restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second World War.

In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party, declared that, quote:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed, quote

1. “ human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Those were even called “fundamental freedoms” – to give them extra importance.

For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.

It is also deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant – in this case, a radical Muslim imam, who was trained at an officially anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, and who has called for sharia law to govern Canada – doesn’t have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers pay for the prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of the complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their own lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose – the process has become the punishment. (At this point, I’d like to thank the magazine’s many donors who have given their own money to help us fight against the Saudi imam and his enablers in the Alberta government.)

It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today – at which I appear under duress – saw the commission tell me who I could or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.

I have no faith in this farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that the better they understand this case, the more shocked they will be. I am here under your compulsion to answer the commission’s questions. But it is not I who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians.

You may start your interrogation.

Stephen Boissoin Appeal Document - Part 5

Moon and Chumir Say Ixnay to Hate Speech Laws at HRCs

In dealing with the constitutional aspect of the Boissoin Appeal, Mr. Chipeur felt it appropriate to look at what leading thinkers, including the one hired (but buried, though not nearly deep enough) by Jennifer Lynch have to say about the Hate Speech laws of Canada, Section 13 of the Charter specifically, since the Alberta law mimics it generally.

The Moon Report which is available on the Canadian HRC site here is surprising in that it exists at all. If Jennifer Lynch could have made it disappear, I suspect she would have. It does not read anything like what she has to say. Folks like Ezra Levant have had much to say about it previously, but let me wax philosophic of my own volition here. It seems that Professor Moon has been an ardent fan of censored speech, but has had an awakening, if what I have heard is correct. If so, there is no more ardent free speacher than one who has come to from the other side.

Mr. Chipeur quotes a few pieces from his report to Ms. Lynch, the whole of which is available here, and is good reading.

Mr. Chipeur starts with this section, of which I will only quote the zinger of a first sentence:

Faith in human reason underlies most accounts of freedom of expression and cannot simply be cut out and discarded from the analysis.

Mr. Chipeur seems to agree with Professor Moon that human beings are capable of rational thought on their own and do not need a government nanny to do their thinking for them and to protect their dainty and sensitive ears from something that might be sensitive. Both of these intelligent individuals know what the Censors in chief from CASHRA member states forget. We all have remotes, and we're not afraid to use them.

In order to attempt to make his Brief . . . well, brief, Mr. Chipeur chose not to include the immediately preceding section, though I personally think it well worth mentioning here as follows:

If some individuals are persuaded of certain views, which they then act on, we might
say that the expression has “caused” the action. However, under most accounts of freedom of expression, the state is not justified in restricting expression simply because it causes harm in this way, by persuading its audience. The listener and not the speaker is responsible for the judgments she/he makes and the actions she/he takes. The familiar freedom of expression position is that ideas cannot be censored simply because we fear that members of the community may find them persuasive or that an individual’s self-understanding or self esteem may be negatively affected. It is often said that we should respond to racist claims not with censorship, but by offering competing views that make the case for equal respect or by creating more avenues for marginalized groups to express themselves.

Frankly, Mr. Chipeur could have quoted the entire document as supportive of his cause and rife with meaningful material, particularly in light of the fact that Jennifer Lynch cannot practically bury it for all eternity, never to see the light of day.

On Page 28 of his report and quoted by Mr. Chipeur in Stephen Boissoin's Defence is this telling sentence that should all be in big bold CAPITAL letters:

The goal of ending prejudice in the community cannot be accomplished through censorship.

No kidding, Sherlock. This is a cornerstone statement, and I marvel at how hard it is for people to get it, and why they fight so hard against it. It reminds me of a slogan from the Vietnam war days: "Fighting for peace is like F?cking for virginity." Add to that censoring for prejudice.

But here on Page 30 of Professor Moon's report as presented by Mr. Chipeur also is the final nail to the censorship coffin, his recommendation. Read it carefully (my bold), please, as it is unequivocal:

The principal recommendation of this report is that section 13 be repealed so that the censorship of Internet hate speech is dealt with exclusively by the criminal law. A narrowly drawn ban on hate speech that focuses on expression that is tied to violence does not fit easily or simply into a human rights law that takes an expansive view of discrimination and seeks to advance the goal of social equality through education and conciliation.

After selecting some choice bits from this document, Mr. Chipeur moved on to the local document prepared by the Chumir Foundation, "Toward Equal Opportunity for all Albertans: Recommendations for Improvement of the Alberta Human Rights Commission". It is available for your edification here.

Frankly, the document which was about the whole working of the commission strikes me as a bit soft, but these people have to live there. As it relates to the case at hand, they recommended not repeal of the offending Section 3, but return to an earlier day, when they wrote the following on Page 37:

Many of the most virulent criticisms leveled at human rights commissions over the
last few years concern provisions that seek to make statements of opinion illegal. Some of the high profile cases have concerned opinions on the part of the Christian right about the evil (in their eyes) of homosexuality and cartoons and articles perceived by some Muslims to be offensive or even, according to their faith, blasphemous. We do not endorse the sometimes offensive views expressed by the people and organizations who have come under attack pursuant to legal provisions such as section 3 of HRCMA. But we do have grave misgivings about the threats to free expression inherent in such provisions.

There recommendation is for a rewrite of Section 3 to go back to pre-1996 days of the legislation.

Here is the current phrasing:

3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or
displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol,
emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a
class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability,
mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of
income or family status of that person or class of persons.

They recommend removal of all the bolded words, which were added for 1997, as follows, so it would look like what was then numbered as Section 2:

2(1) No person shall publish or display before the public or cause to be published
or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other
representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against
any person or class of persons for any purpose because of the race, religious
beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry or place
of origin of that person or class of persons.

It's a thought. It's a start. It's soft.

Soon, I will look at the experience of a few other countries with this nonsense, as reported by Mr. Chipeur in his brief for Stephen

Racial Profiling

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

I woke up this morning angry, not of course with the beautiful vision lying next to me (that would be my wife), but because over night it had dawned on me.

When I was a younger man, after I qualified as a Chartered Accountant, I worked for a time in the National Tax Department of one of the large Big 8 then firms of CAs in their Toronto main office. I worked on the 42nd floor of the Royal Trust Tower. In those days you could see the Island airport, and in those particular days I saw them put the needle on top of the CN Tower with a giant Sikorsky helicopter. That was pretty cool, but note my point, just a reminiscence that shows how old I am.

Anyway, I worked for a man, Bill Goodlet, who had spent many years with the then Department of National Revenue, and had been one of the bright minds involved in a very significant reform of our taxing system in Canada in 1971. He taught me only one thing that I particularly remember and value in my bag of tricks to this day.

It was the articulation of his Repugnancy Index. We were a National Tax Department so it was our duty to review trends and bumpf and to find ways for clients of the firm across Canada to save tax dollars. Essentially, we shovelled clouds many days. But, in our shovelling, we looked at tax savings ideas as we came across them. In looking at these ideas, schemes really, I learned about the Repugnancy Index.

He taught me to step back from my planning on tax savings and reviews of other tax plans and look at it from all angles and see if it had a figurative smell to it by trying to look at it as others would do, if they were ordinary people, without our specialised training, and also how our peers and detractors would view our plans. If we detected a mental aroma, we had to determine if the aroma were one of decaying flesh (dead - get rid of it), disease (see if it can be healed) or newborn fresh skin. I have carried that with me for about 30 years, and wish I had opened that pocket in my trick bag a few more times over the years.

But, the Repugnancy Index buzzer went off for me over night, which is why I awoke angry this morning.

The Ontario HRC has accused Constable Michael Shaw of racial profiling as I blogged here, and of course as written about elsewhere by many. If Constable Michael Shaw was black, and Mr. Phipps was white, and if the black Constable Shaw had asked Mr. Phipps for ID, this case would never have occurred in the first case, even if the white Mr. Phipps had filed a Form 1 complaint with the HRC. First off, the white Mr. Phipps would know better than to even try to file a complaint.

Why you ask? Because the Ontario HRC has a mandate like all CASHRA members seem to, to do racial profiling in case selection, and case follow up. That's why I am so angry this morning. We are being had on this issue among many, by an organisation purporting to be working for our good, doing exactly what it is accusing police officers of doing, and they are getting away with it, which is the most galling thing of all.

I have known for a few days that something about the Michael Shaw case wasn't sitting well with me, and I thought that it just was that it was a lousy decision, and that Kaye Joachim really had no background or real world experience for drawing such a conclusion. Then, I put it all together.

No matter what anyone tells you in this fair province, as long as the Ontario HRC keeps running as it does, there are not equal rights for all Ontarians, and I don't think it is any better anywhere else in this land, or under J. Ly's umbrella.

I am looking at how Barb Hall took the one case of a blind person on the TTC, and turned that into call outs on the TTC and then on all of the transit systems in Ontario, at great cost to all of us as taxpayers, and is now nagging through her own HRC the last 3 who are struggling to comply. You might look at my blog post here that included that topic.

In the mean time, she is set to take on the Chief of Police of the Toronto PD, Bill Blair in September about racial profiling, having dinged his Constable Shaw. She is going in the same direction with this one, folks. She, the queen of profiling is going to claim that police, who actually have crime statistics on their side to assist them in predicting behaviours, is going to blame Toronto's Police Chief for systemic profiling in his force. If she wins this case, and she has a good track record of winning these ridiculous decisions, this does not bode well for police forces all around Ontario.

Someone needs to use Freedom of Information access to get data on the Ontario Human Rights Commission handling of complaints for a period of time to analyse their statistics and find out beyond their self serving annual report the truth of their activities. You want to see profiling. You'll find it there.

How long can this absurdity continue?

Windmill Tilting in Canada Where There Aren't Any Real Windmills

Don Quixote Prophesies the Birth and Death of the HRC Industry in Canada (sorta maybe)

The Bishop De Angelis (Ontario HRC) and Stephen Boissoin (Ontario HRC) cases are perfect examples of what is wrong in the Human Rights industry in this country. Call it much ado over nothing.

You know, Don Quixote had a windmill to tilt at, at least. He didn't have to use his own investigators to go out and build one from scratch, so he could hop onto Rocinante and joust with it.

But methinks that maybe there is more to the Don Quixote/HRC mental link than just one little verbal jab. Let's see.

Don Quixote - farce, lots of play on words, quick wit, and humour. HRCs - definitely got the farce part down. They play with words, rather than on them. Wit yes, but quick does not come to mind, more likely half, dim, nit. Humour, not in the occurrence like in Don Quixote, but in the retelling, but then it's more a theater of the absurd. Still, there is some comparative there.

OK, let's see if The Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote of La Mancha as written by Miguel de Cervantes in Spain in 1605 might possibly have been a prophetic work written about the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Since the author took great poetic licence in his marvellous work, I shall give myself similar liberty as well. For a source of unparalleled wisdom, I have selected an article in Wikipedia about the book as a jumping off point here.

First of all, the story of Don Quixote is the story of a man who "has become obsessed with books of chivalry, and believes their every word to be true, despite the fact that many of the events in them are clearly impossible." As we know, he then sets out in his delusion on quests for adventure. Along the way he "tilts at windmills" in one case, that aren't really the evil giants that he thinks them to be. His episodes of misadventure are ridiculous in his misinterpretation of reality.

Let's stop for a moment to catch our breath. Pop quiz. Does this remind you, gentle reader of any person or persons, or government institutions who shall remain nameless, but who work on behalf of the Human Rights juggernaut in our country, and its provinces? If so, how many names come to mind?

The big difference of course is that the misadventures at the HRCs are happening to real people, and the people on the horses leading the charge are also real people, thinking they are doing a good job ridding the country of some form of malice, but not unlike Quixote really.

Of course, there is another comparison of which I was not aware, and that is some of the wit of Cervantes in his naming of the never seen Dulcinea, which means an allusion to illusion, and of the Don's horse Rocinante, which means reversal.

Methinks that the name Dulcinea might make a good nick name for first female HRC leader that gets the sack, since it seems that more than one of them appears fond of alluding to illusion, though currently they are living in a state of delusion of grandeur. And, of course for the second HRC sackee, we can reserve the nick name Rocinante, for the reversal of fortune that has come.

As I have read many case decisions from the HRCs of this once but no longer so fair land, I have become familiar with their literary attributes and so thought a comparison to those self same attributes from Quixote to be appropriate. Sort of farce meets farce. May the farce be with you.

The writer of the Wikipedia piece begins with the title of the book, and starts with the word "ingenious", reminding us that it means inventive, and is a hint of what is to come in the novel. It makes me wonder if maybe the Case Decisions I have read should be prefaced with "The Ingenious Case of such and so" since they too seem most inventive, a kind word. Ezra Levant is a little more blunt and colourful in his description, but inventive it is.

Don Quixote is a farce, but in its farce as it works towards conclusion, the eyes of Quixote are opened and he sees that what he thought was chivalry was silliness. In the end, he dies in his melancholy. Well, the eye opening part is not likely to happen for our leaders of HRCs. It is more likely to be a "Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya" experience that wakes them up, as the fickle finger of fate turns the dial of history away from them some day in the future. After all this is real life, not a fairy story.

The book left us with a couple of phrases and words that are part of our lexicon which are relevant to discussions about our beloved HRCs.

One such word is "quixotism". Of course, we don't use that one every day, but in talking about our HRCs we sure could. It means: "engaging in foolish impracticality in pursuit of ideals ; especially those ideals manifested by rash, lofty and romantic ideas; or extravagantly chivalrous action. It also serves to describe an idealism without regard to practicality." Except for the chivalrous action bit, and the romantic ideas, it fits the HRCs to a "t". Idealism without practicality kind of fits, as does foolish impracticality.

The poet John Cleveland had already put this word to use in 1644 in his book "The Character of a London Diurnall". In it he wrote: "The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads." Boy, does that sound familiar. Reminds me particularly of the Ontario HRC need to get call outs on all transit companies in Ontario so the few blind people who occasionally ride can hear every stop on every bus in Ontario, whether they are there or not. That phrase hits the nail right on the windmill of my mind.

As an aside. I hadn't known what a diurnall was. It's not a 2 holer in a men's room, as I might have guessed, but a daily newspaper in the old days.

Quixote also left us with "tilting at windmills" as an idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles. Of course, the question is all about time and space. One might have thought that Ezra Levant was tilting at windmills a couple of years ago, and Stephen Boissoin as well. Today, it seems that if they can afford to stay the course, and the truth is allowed to see the light of day, that the real windmill tilters will be exposed. One can only hope.

In the end, Don Quixote regains his sanity and renounces his attempts at chivalry for the ridiculousness that they were. Seeing the truth though, he slips into a serious melancholy that eats away at him. He eventually dies a broken man.

Here is what I predict will happen with our HRCs and their leadership and followership, as the winds of politics shift. If I am correct, the tides will change, and the politicians who are now in power, will claim outrage at the misconduct that they have effectively condoned with blind eye for so many years. They will sack all those who drank the Kool Aid, as though they were the problem, not just the symptom, maybe get a Royal Commission or two or an Inquiry or three.

The politicians will claim that their predecessors did it, and we fixed it. What good boys and girls we are. With impunity, they will destroy the careers of the HRC czars and czarinas, who may or may not land on their feet in some other party sinecure, depending on their party affiliation.

When might this happen? Not soon enough, but hopefully before too much more damage is done.

What's stopping it from happening? Too few voices in the wilderness crying out about the injustice, and too many victims silenced by settlement secrecy contracts. We need more voices dear reader. When the critical mass gets too big to ignore, something will be done.

Constable Michael Shaw

Thank You in Return

Today, I received a simple but meaningful to me, comment to the posting that I made about Constable Michael Shaw recently, after his senseless gutting over nothing at the hands of the Ontario HRC, which so disgusted me.

It was from the Constable himself. He identified himself by his badge number and Division, and said simply "Thank You." 2 of the most important words in the English language.

I did not write the piece to be thanked by him particularly. I wrote it because he was screwed over, and I hate it when people are screwed over by our HRCs. But, I really hate it when public servants particularly those who put their lives at risk so we can be safe, and those who spend their lives teaching our children are abused by our government minions in the name of BS Human Rights violations that occurred only in the mind of some person who can't let go of their childhood, and takes it out on an adult who looked at them sideways. Of course, in Constable Shaw's case, he didn't look at him sideways but straight in the face and asked him for ID.

So, I appreciated that Constable Shaw took a moment in his day to acknowledge that I had spoken up for him. Those two words made my day. It honoured me to be appreciated.

When I wrote the article about Constable Shaw, I articulated my cousin's death while on patrol in 52 Division many years ago, and a couple of other things, including a recent speeding stop I had in Michigan.

But, here's another example with a following question. A couple of years ago, I was proceeding along a stretch of 80 km road on the north side of London approaching an intersection with a green light. Suddenly, a car crossed right in front of my path, and I t-boned him in the empty passenger side of his car and destroyed my car with two of my daughters as passengers. In short order, there was a police car on the scene, and members of the London equivalent of the SWAT team also arrived in their van, because they were nearest to the scene, and fortunately not otherwise occupied.

These men and women treated my two children, the driver of the other car, and myself with dignity and respect, ensuring that we were safe and physically unharmed. My kids and I got to ride home in the tactical unit van, to the confusion of our neighbours. I recall very little of that night, which is part of why I failed to mention it in the last piece, but I do recall being treated very respectfully. If the accident had occurred in Division 33 in Toronto, one of the responding officers could have been Constable Shaw. Oh, but not right now, because he is off on administrative leave over this nonsense.

So, here's the question. If you are in an accident, and need help, who would you prefer to be on the scene, a part time mail man like Mr. Phipps, or Constable Shaw? I choose Constable Shaw, but only Mr. Phipps is still on the job. That's the real tragedy.

The Secret World of the HRCs

Not So Secret Anymore

Each of us operates in two worlds, the one where we are in the public eye, and the one in private. Typically, we are on our best behaviour when we are in the public eye, because that is where our reputation with man is made or lost. Not always, of course, and not everybody, but usually. But, in private where nobody is watching, that's something a little bit different isn't it? When nobody is watching over my shoulder, the real me steps out of the shadows, and the real me is a sinful blighter, not about to burn buildings or rape and pillage, but it is in secret where my worst thoughts and vilest plans are hatched, and fortunately it is where they generally stay. Whew!!!

But, I know God. Personally, I have a relationship with him. I know He sees me in my secret places. In other words, there are no secret places from Him. Does that keep me from thinking evil thoughts? No sirree, Bob. I may be redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, but I am still a sinaholic, and daily I have to work to walk that path He sets before me. Some days I manage to stay on it longer, if I sleep in.

But, what happens if what you do in public is actually able to be kept a secret, at least in your own mind, and your own mind is the only mind you really care about? And what happens if the heady aroma of that power seduces you into thinking that You are your own God, you, the one in the mirror?

What would that look like? Well, until recently it looked like your local HRC. It has puzzled me these last few months why the Barbara Hall's and Jennifer Lynch's of this world, in particular these two apparently intelligent women, who are well educated, have striven to be where they are, and why they are seemingly prepared to do whatever it takes to remain there, particularly when whatever it takes is being unmasked as fictitious, to put it gently. Ezra Levant has called Ms. Lynch a damned liar in the blogosphere, and worse as well. He used some pretty cool words. Tsk, tsk, Ezra. You are a little intemperate with your words, dear fellow. Let's just say she appears to be creative with the truth. But in her defence, we have heard in HRC case testimony that the truth is not an appropriate defence, so maybe she thinks she is testifying in her own star chamber and the truth is just another option.

But things keep keep getting uglier. Just the other day, it made a bit more sense for me when I was reading about a key weapon in their arsenal, SILENCE, here at No Apologies. Neil Dykstra wrote:

Imagine the following scenario. You are accused of a petty crime of which you are innocent. Without any more than a cursory investigation, you are compelled to meet with your accuser and a mediator. There, they tell you that you can either give them five thousand dollars in a settlement, or they will haul you into court and prosecute you for the crime. Even though you would most likely be proved innocent in a court of law, you are not eligible for legal aid and would be on the hook for over twenty thousand dollars in legal fees.

Trapped, you accept their demands. As they push the settlement document forward for your signature, there is a condition on the bottom stating that you are forbidden to talk about any aspect of this agreement. Nobody would ever know about the wrongs you have suffered. It’s the cherry on the top of a sundae of injustice.

Say it ain't so, Joe. Fiction? Maybe in that it is not a real incident. However, the methods are real. As Mr. Dykstra goes on to state, every HRC in Canada has a mediation procedure like the one described here. This mediation procedure doesn't come after there has been some investigation of the complaint. In fact, the only thing that has happened to date is that the complaint has been screened to see if the HRC thinks it is within its purview to deal with it. By the way, that does not mean it is within its jurisdiction legally, just that they think that they can get away with dealing with it. If they deal with it, and you pay up and sign the little keep your yap shut clause, we'll never know, will we?

The existing Ontario HRC case of Bishop De Angelis and the "12" St. Michael's Cobourg parishioners is a case in point. To date, Jim Corcoran has only filed his complaint. The HRC has vetted it to conclude that they can deal with it, and the "12" and the Bishop have responded, mainly to say that the Ontario HRC has no jurisdiction, as well, of course that the complaint is baseless.

So now, the case comes before a mediator. As Mr. Dykstra goes on to say, that's when the fish or cut bait decisions come in. Here, the real victim, and it's not the Complainant, has to decide whether to settle, or let it go forward, whatever that means. Sort of, but I will come back to that later.

Well, whatever that means is this. If the complaint goes forward, the Complainant doesn't pay a nickel, just stands back and lets the investigators for the HRC do their thing. These investigators are not interested in using criminal investigative processes, like digging for all the evidence, or even testing the veracity of testimony from witnesses. Heresay works just fine for them, the more the better. Truth, who cares really? Truer words were never spoken. No, true words might not even get spoken.

The legal fees of the Complainant are paid for, since the lawyers are HRC lawyers. In the event that the case gets to the kangaroo court, it goes to an independent court though, the Human Rights Tribunal. Sure, they're independent. I am able to leap over tall buildings too. It's a sausage machine, folks.

But, the real victims, in the Corcoran case, Bishop De Angelis and the "12" have to hire their own lawyers, 2 sets by the way, since their interests are somewhat different, and the dollars mount up.

So, given a chance, most Respondents (Defendants really) choose to settle if they possibly can, even if they have done nothing wrong. To choose between paying $5,000 in settlement of a bogus claim, or spend 3 years fighting a losing battle where the cards are stacked against you, and the truth is not a valid defence, mainly because nobody is looking for it, listening to it, or would get it if it bit them on the nose, seems like a no brainer, particularly when you factor in the cash cost of legal fees, and the personal humiliation of being there, unless your skin is made of teflon or stainless steel.

But, then you could have the worst of all situations that my friend the school principal found herself in, where the parent who filed the bogus claim is so determined to make a noise that she refused to settle, even when encouraged by the HRC staff member, and so off you go into the sausage machine. My friend would have gladly paid off this woman just to shut her up, and to stop this hateful noise going on all around her over nothing. But the woman was under no compulsion to accept mediation.

Of course, the Corcoran case won't settle in mediation since Corcoran has asked for the sun, moon and the stars, $265,000 and a bunch of grovelling by the Bishop. He's so far off the planet, that he will have to take a space shuttle just to get to the mediation hearing.

But, when it gets down to an actual mediated settlement if you are lucky enough, there are standard forms of documents that are used as a template and this clause is (no surprise here) part of the Ontario template:

The parties agree that these Minutes of Settlement and Release are confidential as between them and will not be disclosed to any third party save as may be required by law or in order to implement the terms of settlement contained herein. It is understood by the parties that the Commission is not so bound. It is understood that the complainant may disclose the terms herein to her/his immediate family members, legal and/or financial advisers.

So, the fact that the funds extorted, are actually called special damages or general damages in the documentation, as opposed to blood money, where in all probability it has never been proven that anyone was damaged is not lost on me. I don't know about you, but this puts noxious fumes up against my BS filter.

And now I get it. I see why people I would take under normal circumstances (of which these of course are not good examples) to be probably sane people are doing what appear to be insane things, why well educated people are behaving like, well children who have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Thus said Lord Action in 1887 in a letter to Mandell Creighton when he was Editor of the English Historical Review. Rev. Creighton later became Bishop of Peterborough, and then Bishop of London England, and hopefully used these words wisely for counsel. But long before him, Lord William Pitt, British Prime Minister back in 1770, in a speech to the United Kingdom House of Lords said: "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."

Truer words were never spoken, and they give pause to the situation of our HRCs and the mood we find ourselves in, with barbarians at the gate, like Ezra Levant, clamoring for accountability and more ("Fire. Them. All."), and the inmates manning the bulwarks and shouting down the opposition as mere drivel from malcontents, naysayers and meanies. How dare we question their methods, intentions, and their . . . well right to do what they do.

But, as more troops join the siege, I wonder how long the battlements will stand the onslaught before something is done, before parliamentarians finally say "Enough is enough" or mount a charge of their own to secure their own power bases. Tim Hudak made reform of the Ontario HRC part of his platform to become head of the Ontario Conservative Party. That got my attention, as well as the attention of many others. What will he have to say when session re-opens in Toronto in the Fall? I hope it will be a lot.

And when Ottawa comes back into session, will anyone be on the bandwagon that Ezra Levant and others have started in motion?

How many more people will have their Human Rights trampled by the Human Rights Commissions czars and czarinas with their unlimited powers before this is all over?

And another question. Will anyone find the way to instigate class action suits on behalf of all those who have had their rights taken away by these frivolous settlements, and promises to be silent?

Oh, and one more question. Will Walker Morrow be able to figure out how to get Ontario Freedom of Information access so we can find out what the real story was on these cases that the Ontario HRC is trying to hide from us?

Latest Word on the Corcoran/De Angelis Case in Ontario

Scary Fundamentalist Comments on Corcoran Attempts at Secrecy

As Scary Fundamentalist reports:

[Corcoran] said that it was never his intention for the matter to become public and that someone leaked it to the Catholic Registrar who wrote an item

He has some other choice things to say as well about it all, but read what I have to say tomorrow about power and The Secret World of the HRCs.

These attempts to extort the people of Ontario and the rest of Canada are now seeing the light of day, and as their ugliness comes forward, people of goodwill are stepping out and saying that enough is enough.

Jennifer Lynch T-Shirts On Sale

Get 'Em While They're Hot

So, the long awaited winning t-shirt in the Jennifer Lynch slogan contest has arrived, and is available for purchase. It sports the catchy winning slogan:

This T-shirt exposes Jennifer Lynch to hatred and contempt

It is available from Blazing Cat Fur's site here, with black letters on a white shirt, yellow letters on black, and for those really out there hot pink lettering on black. $5 of the proceeds goes to the legal defence funds of Ezra Levant, 5 Feet of Fury, Small Dead Animals and Free Dominion. Shop early and often.

Just a question, but is anyone going to do anything to support Stephen Boissoin? It's not that I don't think that those being supported by the t-shirt fund and other activities aren't freedom fighters, but Stephen's case is the defining case at this point in time. The way I look at the numbers he is about $50,000 in the hole and on the way to a deeper debt after his trial next month. You can also donate to him at his site here.

All these folks can use our support.

Can I Really Feel Your Pain?

Empathy - What's That All About?

I have been giving some thought to empathy and how we come by it, and what it means in our society. First, I was wondering if I have any of it, and if so when and where I got it. After some thought, I realised that I do have some, then I started asking why and for what purpose, and of course what does it have to do with Canada's HRC industry.

Looking at my own personal history with empathy, I concluded that I wasn't born with it. After all, when I was born I was cold, wet, hungry, and my butt hurt from that first slap on it. Empathy was not big on my list of things to do or be right then. For the next 2 years and 9 months, I don't think it was a big thing for me either. I had 2 adults all to myself, and even though the female one was getting fat towards the end of that time period, it was all about me, and I don't imagine empathy was on my mind.

Then, my little sister was born. My amount of attention dropped off, but I learned that I got attention if I was good to her, and also if I was bad to her. The attention when I was bad to her hurt. The attention when I was good to her was much nicer, so I leaned towards good to her. No empathy in that, more about self preservation.

Then I started school. I didn't learn about empathy there either. Can't say that there was a lot of opportunity to learn about empathy in the business world as I studied to become a chartered accountant, and then went into public practice and industry over the years.

No, for me it started to happen when my wife became ill and I was in a car accident several years ago, and not immediately. Being disabled gives you two choices, deal with it or let it deal with you. It took years to get past it dealing with us, to where we could deal with it and then with each other properly, but we are there much of the time, and it includes a lot of empathy for me now in my life.

For me, it took personal losses, deeply felt to be able to empathize with others and their losses at a level beneath the most surface of emotions and words.

For others, like Craig Kielburger (along with his brother Marc) who started a Child Rights advocacy group when he was 12 years old and now runs the successful worldwide organisation Me to We, empathy came at a very early age and seemingly out of the blue. A friend of mine, who is their Chief Operations Director at Me to We, Renee Hodgkinson had her own path to a life of empathy towards others. but, they achieved their empathy by reaching out to others, and meeting them in their own surroundings and could not help but be touched by living with them and hearing their stories.

Meanwhile, most people never achieve any real empathy, because they/we are too busy about our days doing the chores of life, including unfortunately in our society of today, parenting as a duty.

Empathy is defined as "Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives" in the American Heritage Dictionary. I don't know, but it seems like empathy would be a good thing to bring to a Human Rights organisation, and if so, then to the investigation of and dealing with human rights complaints.

Take for example the De Angelis/Corcoran case before the Ontario HRC. Not that one again. My latest post on it was here. Now, Corcoran filed a Form 1, and the parishioners and Bishop have filed their response by the deadlines, and there will be a mediation hearing in 4-6 months or so. Doesn't sound too empathetic to me, or likely to bring any healing to the situation either.

What would happen if the Ontario HRC investigator interviewed all the parties separately empathetically (with empathy for all parties, not just the complainant) trying to understand their situation, feelings and motives? I imagine he/she would get an earful, and if he/she was a good listener would have a really good opportunity to do some good in this situation. It would require an open mind, and an open heart. I wonder if they have any of those types among the troops over there. It would be nice. To dream the impossible dream.

If not, then what use is the Ontario HRC or any of the other HRCs really? If not, then they are just glorified sausage making making machines. Put a complaint in at the front end, chew up the Respondent for a lengthy period of time, declare a victory for Human Rights, and move on the next complaint and unlucky schmoe.

I like my concept better, enough to suggest that they either change what they are doing or stop doing it altogether, because it is harmful to our society, not helpful.

The people that I like most on this planet are not those with a cause, but those with empathy for those who are disadvantaged. Empathetic people are more about "We" and less about "Me".

I don't see a whole lot of that in the Human Rights industry. The cause of the Rightists has gotten so distorted as to have lost all focus on its original mission, but that's for another time. Even they deserve some empathy, because they have lost their way, and with the power that they have been given, wouldn't we have done the same under similar circumstances?

Out of the Mouths of Babes

Words from a Homily

The deacon in our Parish gave this little story as part of his homily at mass this morning, and big surprise, it reminded me of the HRCs of this country and the challenges we all face with them.

A little girl goes to her mother to complain about her older sister. She tells her mother that her sister will not play dolls with her. Mother very logically suggests that she play dolls by herself then. The wise little child replies: "That won't work. Then the voices will all sound the same."

If the HRCs have their way, we will become homogeneous. We will all be politically correct when we speak, and when we act. We will be officially respectful of others. Our voices will all sound the same. However, we will all be passively aggressive, because we will be angry as h?ll, because we have been silenced, without being heard. Our voices will be the same and no one will play with us, and we will not want to play with anyone else either.

Just a thought.