Why I'm optimistic

I enjoyed my day in Ottawa yesterday. Lunch at the Parliamentary Dining Room is always a treat -- and a good way to bump into plenty of MPs and Senators. I dined with a handful of free speechnik staffers, which was fun.

I stopped by Question Period, which is always entertaining. (It's also very relaxing, since they take your BlackBerry away from you when you sit in the gallery. That always makes me feel like I'm on vacation!) Seriously, though, QP put me in a great mood because Brent Rathgeber, the MP from St. Albert, made a great statement about section 13, censorship and freedom. You can read that one-minute statement here.

That put a spring in my step as I headed down to the Railway Committee Room, a grand room right in the heart of Parliament's Centre Block. I was 45 minutes early, so I had a good chance to kibitz with friends as they trickled in, including great freedom bloggers like Roy Eappen.

I was pleased with the media turn-out for the event -- almost ten reporters in the room, and more who were watching the proceedings on TV.

I drafted my opening remarks (pasted below in English and French!) strategically: I spent almost no time focusing on the philosophical objections to a censorship law, and almost all my time on the corruption and abuse at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. My thinking was that, in ten minutes of opening remarks, it would be extremely unlikely that I would "convert" anyone from supporting censorship to supporting free speech (although Athanasios Hadjis's conversion shows that it is possible; but that took two years). Rather, if I focused on the corruption, abuse and criminality of the CHRC, that would be something that even those who support censorship in principle would be shocked by. Whether you're Conservative, Liberal, Bloc or NDP, you probably agree it's inappropriate for a government agency to be a den of neo-Nazi membership, Internet hacking, hiring of corrupt ex-cops, stealing police evidence, etc.

Frankly, I didn't want to simply go through the same old motions in the free speech vs. censorship debate -- I wanted to forcefully introduce radioactive facts into the discussion, and talk about that.

As it turns out, that same-old debate didn't happen.

Brian Murphy, the Liberal MP who went first, actually introduced himself before the meeting and told me he had read my book! (I was thrilled -- and I regret that I didn't connect with him to sign it!) I thought that his questions were fair -- I wouldn't call them supportive, but I wouldn't call them hostile -- and it was clear that he was genuinely concerned about the corruption allegations I made verbally and in my book. He wondered aloud if my book was the subject of defamation litigation; it actually is not -- not a single person has sued me or my publisher for anything in the book. (I mention that, because the facts are rock-solid. Even nuisance litigator Richard Warman has -- shockingly -- not sued for anything in the book. I must be losing my touch.)

Joe Comartin, the NDP MP, was not as well-briefed as Murphy was, and he was candid enough to admit it. I sensed in him a genuine concern about the scandalous report I made. He asked me for documentation (which I will send him and the whole committee this week), and asked if I would return, presumably once he had time to digest everything. I found that very encouraging: I managed to get his attention, which is half the battle in Ottawa. Comartin made some traditional arguments about censorship laws stopping violence; I think they're shopworn and weak arguments, and they're not sustained by history, and I tried to point that out. But even if Comartin and I disagree on the principle of censorship -- and I still hold out hope that I can persuade him of its folly, even on the practical level of trying to censor ideas in the era of the Internet -- I think that I can appeal to his sense of fairness and justice by showing him just how corrupt the CHRC is.

I really appreciated the thoughtful questions by Serge Menard of the Bloc Quebecois. It was clear that he and his colleague, Marc Lemay, were new to this file. That makes sense: the massive debate on this subject in Canada has been almost completely in the English language press. (I'd have to check to be sure, but I don't think that in the 32 year history of section 13, anyone from Quebec has been either a complainant or a victim.) It just isn't on the radar screen in French Quebec. But I sensed in them a genuine interest and curiosity, and I think that they took advantage of their questions to brief themselves quite quickly. I didn't sense the same philosophical opposition in Menard as I did in Comartin. But, like Comartin, Menard clearly cares about the administration of justice not being thrown into disrepute.

Ujjal Dosanjh was an interesting case. The Liberal MP from Vancouver -- a former NDP member and in fact a former Communist -- seemed to be the most defensive about section 13 in the room. That said, he told reporters afterwards that he was very much in favour of reform -- he just hadn't made up his mind about what kind of reforms he wants! Fair enough. I found him very bright and engaging, and despite his clearly partisan approach, I think he is intellectually honest on this file.

He pressed me about the criminal conviction of Jim Keegstra, the anti-Semitic teacher. I answered honestly: I don't think that Keegstra is a criminal, just a foolish man who ought to have been fired for teaching lies and propaganda in a classroom. Dosanjh grabbed this answer as some sort of political "win" -- proof of the radicalism of my ideas. After all, I didn't think Keegstra was a criminal!

That's true; but I think Dosanjh's desired effect was lost because I happen to be Jewish, and so the implication that I might not care about anti-Semitism just doesn't stick. More to the point, the committee is studying section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the criminal code. I would expect that any recommendations from the committee would deal only with the CHRA, and not the Criminal Code, so in that context, I'm not pressing for him to repeal the criminal provision, too, though that is my personal opinion. Politics is the art of the possible; as a pundit, blogger and author I can call for the repeal of both; but as someone who is actually trying to accomplish legal reform, repealing section 13 and having the CHRC's culture of corruption flushed out are what I'm aiming for. I'm happy to let Dosanjh call me "radical" for wanting to repeal the Criminal Code provision, precisely because that makes merely repealing section 13 "moderate" and "reasonable" by comparison. I didn't mind our debate at all.

The Conservative MPs were more reserved, because I think they generally agreed with Mark Steyn and me. I think they are still a little bit cautious about coming out forcefully for reform, because they are worried how it might play politically. But I think that they must have left that committee hearing feeling the same way I did: that the Bloc wasn't alive to the debate, but not committed to preserving section 13; there are elements within the Liberals and NDP who are ideologically resistant to repealing it, but not completely closed to the question; and that the corruption, abuse and criminality at the CHRC is something that every party is repulsed by. Perhaps that's the winning formula in this minority Parliament.

That said, let's also acknowledge that there is a strong libertarian element in the Liberal Party (and perhaps the others) that was not necessarily represented in that committee. Remember, it was Liberal Keith Martin who first put the private member's motion to repeal section 13; and other Liberals (like Sen. Grafstein) have been excellent on the file. And, as Steyn pointed out in his remarks, Michael Ignatieff himself has written and spoken strongly about freedom of speech.

I won't go on any longer right now. I found all of the questions to have been put in good faith; I found all of the MPs to be receptive to my concerns about the corruption, abuse and criminality at the CHRC; and I was grateful to the MPs who expressed a desire to learn more. Finally, even the more feisty MPs in the opposition telegraphed their openness to reforms -- even Dosanjh himself.

I have never been more optimistic.

P.S. Here is the text of my opening remarks as written, in English and then in French. (I ad libbed a bit in my actual delivery). I'll link to the actual Hansard transcript when it's up:

Last month, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the censorship provision, was declared unconstitutional. Athanasios Hadjis, the vice-chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, ruled that section violated the Charter. He said the Canadian Human Rights Commission had become a bully, calling it, quote, “aggressive” and “confrontational”.

And in March, Edward Lustig, another tribunal member, ruled that the commission’s conduct was quote, “disturbing and disappointing”. He said he would follow Mr. Hadjis’s lead on the question of its constitutionality.

Mr. Hadjis is a past president of a large multicultural organization in Montreal and was appointed by Prime Minister Chretien. Mr. Lustig was appointed by Prime Minister Harper.

So that’s the state of affairs today: Conservative and Liberal members of the tribunal agree: the commission is out of control.  The tribunal will not enforce the illegal law. They’ve concluded that the commission is abusing our human rights, like freedom of speech.

So how did things go off the rails?

To understand what the commission does, we have to understand what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t help minorities. It doesn’t help immigrants, or gays. In fact, all but two of the commission’s censorship prosecutions in the past decade have been launched by the same individual, a privileged white male lawyer here in Ottawa, named Richard Warman. He was actually a commission employee, and he started filing censorship complaints while he worked there – and his co-workers would investigate his complaints. Needless to say, he won them all – and was awarded tens of thousands of dollars, tax free.

When Mr. Warman left the commission five years ago and went to work for the Department of National Defence, he continued to file complaints. Even though he no longer works at the commission, they still pay his expenses – travel, hotels, parking, meals, even an honorarium. The commission doesn’t pay anyone else in Canada to file complaints. Section 13 really is Richard Warman’s personal law. Without him, there would be no prosecutions.

That in itself raises issues like conflict of interest and abuse of office and malicious prosecution. But that’s not why Mr. Hadjis or Mr. Lustig rejected section 13. Like I mentioned, they called the commission, quote “disturbing, disappointing, aggressive and confrontational”.

I’ll give you examples of that conduct now. I think it will shock you. I myself couldn’t believe it at first. So I would be happy to provide documentary evidence for what I’m about to say – almost all of it comes from sworn testimony of commission staff themselves. Here goes:

Mr. Warman does something I don’t think Canadians expect a government employee to do. For nearly ten years, he’s been a member of a neo-Nazi group called Stormfront. And another neo-Nazi group called Vanguard. And another called the Canadian Heritage Alliance. He actually fills out membership forms. And then he goes online to their websites, and writes bigoted, hateful things. Like that gays are a “cancer” on society. Or white police should be loyal to “their race”. Or that Jews like Irwin Cotler are, quote, “scum”. Seriously: he did this as a commission employee.

He wrote hundreds of bigoted messages like that.

And he convinced other commission staff to do the same thing. At least seven staff have membership privileges in Nazi organizations. Last year, investigator Dean Steacy admitted under oath he was one of them, and he fingered his two assistants and Sandy Kozak and Giacomo Vigna; and their manager John Chamberlin, too.

Several years ago, Mr. Warman, Mr. Vigna and Mr. Steacy sat down at a computer together, and logged into a neo-Nazi website, using their membership. But to cover their tracks, they hacked into wireless Internet account of a private citizen named Nelly Hechme, so they couldn’t be traced back to the commission.

Bell Canada’s security officer testified to this fact, and the RCMP investigated it for months. The status of the investigation is officially “unsolved”, but the commission remains the only suspect.

I could go on: I could mention the lack of a written ethics code; that Ms. Kozak was hired after she was drummed out of a police force for corruption; that the commission illegally “borrows” material from police evidence lockers, without a warrant; that Mr. Steacy boasts this kind of behavior doesn’t break any rules, because there are no rules. And instead of cleaning up this mess, the chief of the commission, Jennifer Lynch, defends it – and attacks anyone who criticizes it.

Section 13 was thrown out not just because censorship is un-Canadian, and a violation of the Charter. It was thrown out because the commission itself has become a threat to our human rights, and both Liberal and Conservative tribunal members refuse to let that go on one minute longer. I hope this committee will be united in their revulsion to what I’ve just reported, too.

Thank you.

 

Le mois dernier, l’article 13 de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne, la clause de censure, a été déclaré inconstitutionnel. Athanasios Hadjis, membre instructeur du Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne, a décidé que cet article enfreint la Charte. Il a jugé que la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne est devenue tyrannique, il l’a traité d’  « agressive » et « militante ».

 

Et au mois de mars, Edward Lustig, un autre membre du Tribunal, a décidé que le comportement de la Commission était « troublant et décevant ».  Il a dit qu’il suivrait M. Hadjis sur la question de sa constitutionnalité.

 

M. Hadjis est un ancien président d’une importante organisation multiculturelle à Montréal et a été nommé par le Premier ministre Chrétien. M. Lustig a été nommé par le Premier ministre Harper.

 

Voilà l'état des choses aujourd’hui : des membres Conservateurs et Libéraux du Tribunal sont d’accord : la Commission est hors contrôle. Le Tribunal n’appliquera pas cette loi illégale. Ils ont jugé que la Commission viole nos droits de la personne, comme celui de la liberté d'expression.

 

Mais comment cela se fait-il qu'on en soit arrivé là ?

 

Afin de comprendre ce que fait la Commission, on doit d’abord comprendre ce qu’elle ne fait pas. Elle n’aide pas les minorités. Elle n’aide pas les immigrants, ou les homosexuels. En fait, hormis deux cas, toutes les poursuites-bâillons au cours de la dernière décennie ont été intentées par un seul et même individu, un avocat blanc et privilégié dénommé Richard Warman. En réalité, il était encore un employé de la Commission quand il  a commencé à déposer des plaintes – et ses collègues enquêtaient sur ces mêmes plaintes. Il va sans dire qu’il les a toutes gagnées – tout en se faisant décerner des dizaines de milliers de dollars, un revenu non imposable.

 

Quand M. Warman a quitté la Commission il y a de cela cinq ans pour entreprendre un nouveau poste au Ministère de la Défense nationale, il a continué à déposer des plaintes.  Bien qu’il ne travaille plus à la Commission, cette dernière paie encore ses dépenses – voyages, hôtels, stationnements, repas et même des honoraires. Richard Warman est la seule personne au Canada qui est ainsi rémunérée par la Commission pour déposer des plaintes. L’article 13 est en réalité une loi personnelle de cet individu. Sans lui il n’y aurait pas de poursuites.

 

Ceci en soi soulève des questions de conflit d’intérêts, d’abus de position et de poursuites malicieuses. Mais ce n’est pas pour cela que M. Hadjis ou M. Lustig ont rejeté l’article 13. Comme déjà mentionné, ils ont qualifié la Commission de « troublante, décevante, agressive et militante ».

 

À présent, je vais vous donner des exemples de cette conduite. Je pense qu’elle va vous choquer. Moi-même j’avais peine à y croire au début. Donc, je serais heureux d’apporter des preuves documentaires à l’appui de ce que j’avance – presque tout nous parvient des témoignages du personnel de la Commission donnés sous serment. En voici ces quelques exemples :

 

M. Warman fait quelque chose dont les canadiens ne s’attendent pas de la part des employés à la solde du gouvernement fédéral. Depuis environ dix ans,  il est membre d’organisations néo-Nazis telles que Stormfront, Vanguard et Canadian Heritage Alliance. En réalité, il rempli des formulaires d’adhésions. Ensuite il va sur leurs sites Web avec l’intention de rédiger des messages racistes et haineux. Tels que, les homosexuels sont un « cancer » pour la société. Les agents de police devraient être loyaux envers « leur race ». Ou encore que les juifs comme Irwin Cotler sont les « rebuts » de la société. Sérieusement, il a dit tout cela en étant un employé de la Commission.

 

Il a ainsi rédigé des centaines et des centaines de messages haineux et racistes.

 

Et il a convaincu d’autres employés de la Commission d’en faire autant. Au moins sept employés de la Commission sont membres en bonne et due forme d’organisations néo-Nazis. L’an dernier, l’enquêteur Dean Steacy a admis sous serment qu’il était membre d’organisations néo-Nazis et il a du même coup pointé du doigt deux adjoints et Sandy Kozak et Giacomo Vigna; et aussi leur gestionnaire, John Chamberlain.

 

Il y a quelques années, M. Warman, M. Vigna et M. Steacy se sont assis ensemble devant un ordinateur de la Commission dans le but de se connecter en leur qualité de membres à un site Web néo-Nazi. Mais afin de couvrir leurs traces, ils ont piraté un compte de réseau sans fil d’une citoyenne ordinaire dénommée Nelly Hechme, parce qu’ils avaient peur d’être retracés et découverts.

 

Un agent de sécurité de Bell Canada a temoigné à cet effet et la GRC a mené une enquête pendant des mois. Le statut de cette enquête est officiellement «non résolu »; cependant, la Commission est le seul suspect.

 

Je pourrais continuer comme cela indéfiniment, je pourrais mentionner le manque d’un code d’éthique; que Mme Kozak a été engagée après avoir été renvoyée de la police pour une affaire de corruption; que la Commission “emprunte” des éléments de preuve matériels appartenant aux forces policières, et ceci sans autorisation légitime; que M. Steacy se vante que ce genre de comportement ne contrevient pas à des règles, parce qu’il n’y a pas de règles. Et au lieu de nettoyer ce fouillis, Jennifer Lynch, la présidente de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne, le défend – et attaque toute personne qui ose le critiquer.

 

L’article 13 n’a pas été jugé inconstitutionnel par la Commission seulement parce que la censure n’est pas dans les mœurs des canadiens et qu’il viole la Charte. Il a été jugé inconstitutionnel parce la Commission elle-même est devenue une menace pour nos droits de la personne et les membres Libéraux et Conservateurs du Tribunal refusent que cela continue une minute de plus. J’espère que ce comité sera aussi uni dans son dégout pour ce que je viens de lui relater.

 

 

Merci.