What about the CHRC's 100% conviction rate?

I've been asked about the Canadian Human Rights Commission's 100% conviction rate, and if the rejection of the complaints against Maclean's and Catholic Insight mean they're no longer batting 1000.

The answer is: they've never lost a case they've prosecuted. They simply chose to drop the aforementioned two cases because of political heat.

The CHRC is a pseudo-police and prosecution; the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is a pseudo-court. Of course, neither have the training, experience, oversight or competence of real police, prosecutors and courts, but that's another problem.

Every single section 13 thought crimes case the CHRC has taken to the CHRT "court" has resulted in a conviction. In other words, if the CHRC takes you to "court", there's really no point in showing up -- you'll be found guilty.

The one case that didn't result in a conviction was the absurd case of beachesboy@aol.com vs. drumsaremybeat@aol.com. That's really what the case was called -- two obviously fake e-mail addresses duking it out. (The defendants were later named. But the complaint was actually filed and accepted as two imaginary people.)

The CHRC spent thousands of dollars finding out who drumsaremybeat@aol.com was. That's because he was the "target" of the CHRC. They kept the identity of beachesboy@aol.com a secret.

Imagine that -- in the 21st century, in a free country, a trial where the defendant isn't even allowed to know the identity of his accuser. And both the CHRC and the CHRT were fine with that. That ruling -- surprise! -- was from Athanasios Hadjis, who is chairing the Warman v. Lemire hearing in such a biased manner. Here's what Hadjis wrote:

When the complaint was referred to the Tribunal for inquiry, the Commission provided the Tribunal with the Complainant's name and contact information. However, the Commission also requested that these details not be revealed publicly, citing "safety" concerns. The Tribunal has, accordingly, to this date, not disclosed the Complainant's name and contact information to Mr.  and Ms. Fleming, nor anyone else...

The Complainant has pointed out that he has filed several more s. 13 complaints against other individuals. A number of these complaints have already been referred to the Tribunal. The Complainant claims that on at least one occasion in the past, when some statements by him condemning discriminatory conduct were reported in the media, he received a number of threats at his home.

Gee -- a serial complainant who cries wolf about his personal safety. I wonder if he knows Richard Warman? 

beachesboy@aol.com could have been anyone -- a publicity-shy politicians settling a score; a convicted criminal with no credibility; a CHRC staff member; a relative of the CHRT "judge"; anyone. That's the problem when you have secret trials -- there's no telling what could be hidden, and why.

In the end, the CHRT convened a hearing by conference call. But no-one showed up -- not even beachesboy@aol.com, the secret accuser who was allowed to keep his secrecy. By that point in time, a hundred thousand taxpayers' dollars had been spent. And the nominal plaintiff -- even with his outrageous secrecy -- didn't even bother to attend.

No complainant. No target. It was just the CHRT "judge" on the phone, like a fool. What could she do, but acquit.

That is the only section 13 thought crimes case in the history of the CHRC and CHRT where someone who was referred to a hearing got off. Not because he was acquitted -- just because of the incompetence of the prosecution, and the unreliability of the complainant.