I accuse the Canadian Human Rights Commission of corruption
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a corrupt organization. I've given my factual basis for that bold statement before -- such as their substitution of personal biases for standard procedures; such as Richard Warman's improper interference with investigations; such as the CHRC's own violation of section 13; and such as the stunning revelation that the CHRC hacked a private citizen's Internet account to cover their tracks as they went online to white supremacist websites.
Today I have more evidence of their corruption.
As I noted in March, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing into the abusive and corrupt investigatory practices of the CHRC was not transcribed by a court reporter -- unlike every single other day in the Warman v. Lemire case. The one day when the CHRC was on the defensive was the one day that the respondent -- and any interested members of the public or reporters -- had to make do with their own notes. The Tribunal made an audio recording of the hearing, which is next to useless in terms of searching for key words, skimming pages, etc.
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. Again, I refer to Barbara Hall, who I'd put on a national speaking tour if I could.
No, I think the CHRC should do more spinning. I love that they're trying to brazen it out -- to tell reporters not to believe their lying eyes and ears, to have them ignore subpoenaed evidence from Internet companies, to have them ignore the Privacy Commissioner's looming investigation -- and to believe the desperate, desperate CHRC.
I love it.
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 that.)
If you're having trouble grasping the corruption and abuse of process here, imagine a criminal matter. An accused criminal -- let's make it murder -- is on trial. He alleges that he's been framed by the police. On that one day, the court reporter is given the day off -- the one day where police tactics are scrutinized and shown to be corrupt.
The police make a transcript, but don't give it to the accused -- who is thereby impaired in his ability to mount a defence. His ability to file an appeal if he's convicted -- by pointing out police corruption -- is undermined. The police don't given him a copy -- but they give it to reporters, on the sly, while they trash talk the accused.
Any criminal prosecutor would be disciplined for such unethical practices; the case itself would be jeopardized because the fairness of the trial would be in question. It's not about whether the accused is guilty or not; it's bigger than that; it's about whether or not we, as a society, believe that justice should be done and should be seen to be done. It's about whether or not the prosecution has the necessary standards of morality that should come with their awesome powers. It's not even for the accused murderer that we have these rules. It's for ourselves.
It's about whether we believe that, in Canadian justice, the ends justify the means.
It's about whether or not we can trust the people who have been given such police powers, and who want more.
In the case of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the answer is no. We can't trust them.
They were corrupt, they are corrupt, and they will continue to be corrupt until some adult supervision is brought to bear on them. I'm talking to you, Rob Nicholson.
If a real police force or prosecution was caught in the unethical conduct of the CHRC, the cops and lawyers involved would be taken off the file, and Internal Affairs would be brought in to clean things up. But there is no Internal Affairs office at the CHRC.
There is no oversight.
Fire. Them. All.