Violating their own policies, ignoring their own procedures

Officer McGovern claimed that sometimes human rights tribunals rule in favour of the accused. "We do find on both sides," she said, "in case you're interested." And later, "things can go either way, okay?"

But that simply isn't true. The federal Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate under their thought crime provision (section 13, the "hate messages" section, as it's called). But I can't find a single case of thought crime case that resulted in an acquittal in Alberta or federally. The Alberta commission has only heard one thought crime in recent years -- the Boissoin case that I mentioned -- and it was a conviction. I pointed that out, and noted that in the Boissoin case, hurt feelings were enough to convict the accused. No proof of discrimination or actual harm was needed (see paragraph 354 of that decision).

Officer McGovern claimed that she herself wrote the "opposite view" in her briefing on the Boissoin matter. That is, after interrogating that Christian pastor about his Christian beliefs, she claims she recommended that the commission let him go. But they didn't.

What's the point of an interrogation then, really? Why waste everyone's time? If the interrogating officer recommends that someone accused of a thought crime be set free, and the commission prosecutes and convicts him anyways, why even bother going through the motions? Isn't that the definition of a kangaroo court -- a show trial, to pretend that there's some rule of law?

So the commission ignores its own internal policies. But McGovern demonstrates that they ignore substantive law, too. She told me that "to find something is discrimination, not just offensive to some, is a high test." But that's not what the Boissoin decision ruled -- there was no evidence of discrimination or harm, just a lot of officious bystanders, a cadre of complainers-of-fortune, ready to plead hurt feelings (just like in the cartoon case). I had read the 80-page Boissoin decision carefully; McGovern was simply mis-stating it. So I challenged her: "that's not what the Boissoin case wrote!"

Her reply was stunning. She disowned the judgement: "That was Ms. Andreachuk's."

What on Earth does that mean? That Andreachuk -- not a judge, not even a human rights lawyer, but a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge who has a part-time patronage gig on the human rights tribunal -- is considered by the commission's own paid staff to be a rogue adjudicator who ignores the commission's own laws and policies?

McGovern speaks as if Andreachuk was issuing a personal opinion on her own time, as a nutty private citizen. But she did so as an officer of the government, with the authority of the law. Her decisions are enforced by the state.

This video is more technical than the others, because it talks about the inner workings of the commission. But it's more important than the others, because it's first-hand evidence that the commission doesn't follow either its own procedures or substantive law.

Human rights commissions do not follow the rule of law. They violate their own, few internal rules -- and they have a 100% kill rate.

Technical note: there is short hiccup at 1:20 into the clip but no words were omitted.