"women n***** imports knew their place" - Warman

[DA_Champion]

I have not been following this issue completely... but just wtf.

[Observer]

The reference to section 22(1) of the Criminal Code is interesting. Read alone it does look a bit of a stretch, but perhaps it throws more light on the topic to cite some other sections that go with it -

Parties to offence

21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;

(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or

(c) abets any person in committing it.

Common intention

(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an <b>unlawful purpose</b> and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.


Person counselling offence

22. (1) Where a person <b>counsels</b> another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

(2) Every one who <b>counsels</b> another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.

Definition of “counsel”
(3) For the purposes of this Act, <b> "counsel" includes procure, solicit or incite.</b>

Where one party cannot be convicted

23.1 For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused notwithstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, <b>counsels</b> or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence.

I wonder if the case is quite as weak as is being assumed? I suppose we can't know the answer unless the question goes before a court - i.e. a real court, not one of these tribunals.

[Edward Kennedy]

These damned fool lieberal liars and bigots at the HRC's are little more than cowards, hiding behind the system. If they had to face someone alone and take the consequences of their words/actions face on they would be a sorry looking lot.

There is much more to the story and all is not as it meets the eye. These bas___rds are well aware of the problems they have now brought on themselves and I beleive that with the present discoveries of their criminal activity, a counter lawsuit should be seriously considered against Crybaby and the OHRC.

I have $$$ to contribute to that, but will let Constance and Mark discuss this, perhaps even with a consultation from their lawyer. Indeed, as some have postulated, I would think that the HRC's should be dumped and ALL who have been victimized by their subterfuge and bullying tactics reimbursed for time, costs, and with punitive damages also assigned. I also think individuals in these scumbag organizations should also be personally prosecuted/sued and made to be responsible for their deeds.

[TomFoolery]

Quote:

Duties of the Commission

(h) shall, so far as is practical and consistent with the application of Part III, try by persuasion, publicity or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices referred to in sections 5 to 14.1.

Hmmm...carte blanche.

Considering the HRC's don't need to uphold the constitution, nor provide fair trial, or stay within the law in exercising their Power - I wonder how far they are/were away from causing the disappearance of citizens - never to be heard from again.

[Edward Kennedy]

WLM wrote:

n any event we will never know if Eldon W was being framed or not because he didn't show up to account to his CHRC inquisitors...he did not even acknowledge the CHRC summons...he ignored them....we all should.

What are the penalties for this?

---------------------
If the aggrieved person happens to be the wrong choice by the perp, to be victimized, there would be a VERY serious penalty here.

I heard a vet once tell a bureaucrat to his face in the presence of SUPPORTING witnesses that he had "shot dead far better men than the bureaucrat".

The bureaucrat did not have a chance to get the fellow charged as none of them "heard" the threat and the polcie could do nothing.

I often have thought that some on the spot justice against perps by the intended victim would go a long way in making cowards and bullies and harassers who use the system, much more responsible.

Actually, we have let the damned system remove our right to redress. Would sexual assaults decline if in fact the father, brother, or husband of the victim imposed sentence and punishment on the perp? I know of pone case where the father of the victim, whose daughter was physically abused, almost killed the perp. His son who was also there had to restrain him from continuing to beat the guy when he had him down and unconscious. Guess what? The perp NEVER committed another act of violence against his wife. That was over two decades ago.

[Quipu]

It sure is a juicy story. It is not often you get opportunities handed to you. The CPC is missing the boat on this one. I think our MP's should spend some time online rather than watching themselves on
TV.

I'm afraid that if the Harper Conservatives stepped forward and took action against the CHC the headlines in tomorrow's papers would read:

"Harper Conservatives attack Canadian Human Rights"

This issue will need to be handled with kid gloves. A communication strategy that is media savvy. Let's not forget how the Harper government has been attacked over its handling of the "Status of Women" file. The Liberals and NDP have done a good job of spinning that into "Harper hates women".

These are very crafty folks we're dealing with. Let's not blow it.

[Mark Fournier]

It's up to us to make it safe for our leaders to step forward, they lack the courage to do it on their own.

[Theresa]

DA Wrote:

but just wtf.

You will not get a 'good and faithful ' Jewish girl talking like that DA.

[Theresa]

Quipu wrote:

I'm afraid that if the Harper Conservatives stepped forward and took action against the CHC the headlines in tomorrow's papers would read:

"Harper Conservatives attack Canadian Human Rights"

This issue will need to be handled with kid gloves. A communication strategy that is media savvy. Let's not forget how the Harper government has been attacked over its handling of the "Status of Women" file. The Liberals and NDP have done a good job of spinning that into "Harper hates women".

These are very crafty folks we're dealing with. Let's not blow it.

Then maybe Harper should make some smart and careful public comments about his concern for free speech with the Maclean's affair. Words we are all familiar and comfortable with. I mean 'McLean's' for heaven's sake-traditionally a left wing magazine and they are under fire. This is an opportune time for Harper to make a public statement of concern regarding Mcleans if he does not want to associate with right wingers.

[TomFoolery]

What concerns me is that this newsworthy item will not have any pick-up in the MSM...not unlike Ezra's situation.

The MSM has either been threatened into silence, or are complicit and agreeable with such activities.

ITs disgusting where we are at as a nation.

[T.G.]

What concerns me is that this newsworthy item will not have any pick-up in the MSM...not unlike Ezra's situation.

The MSM has either been threatened into silence, or are complicit and agreeable with such activities.

ITs disgusting where we are at as a nation.

Yes, the media are perhaps the key problem; even the politicians kowtow to what they think the media will do about a certain topic or other. We see the Levant case getting absolutely no play in the Star or Globe, I don't think CTV or CBC or Global are doing anything, either. Rest assured, the same will happen with Warman, even if he's guilty of something criminal.

I agree, it's amazing where we are as a country and it's time for revolutionary changes. I don't have any faith in a Harper-led government to do anything except tinker with trivial matters like lowering the GST one per cent. Whoop-dee-doo.

[Smaug]

What concerns me is that this newsworthy item will not have any pick-up in the MSM...not unlike Ezra's situation.

The MSM has either been threatened into silence, or are complicit and agreeable with such activities.

ITs disgusting where we are at as a nation.

Thats one of the reasons why I want an inquiry. Call it an inquiry into the 'Mclean's Affair' if you must avoid direct refrence to the CHRC for political reasons (once the mag and Steyn are fined as they surely will be), but make the terms of refrence broad enough to encompass the CHRC in its entirety and the print and Tv media.

Why does the media ignore the CHRC. Are they afraid or complicit?

[Quipu]

What concerns me is that this newsworthy item will not have any pick-up in the MSM...not unlike Ezra's situation.

The MSM has either been threatened into silence, or are complicit and agreeable with such activities.

ITs disgusting where we are at as a nation.

I agree that we've sunk pretty far. We have quite a long way to climb back and I would hate to see more damage done by making knee-jerk statements that will be used against the cause of free speech.

This issue needs to make it into main stream consciousness, and be seen as an issue, before the CPC is pegged as "attacking the CHRC".

[goldhound]

The CBC could show how fair and balanced they are by having their W5 investigate

[cinyc]

What concerns me is that this newsworthy item will not have any pick-up in the MSM...not unlike Ezra's situation.

The MSM has either been threatened into silence, or are complicit and agreeable with such activities.

ITs disgusting where we are at as a nation.

There are so many angles here for the MSM to investigate were they so intrepid. For example, assuming the affidavit is true (and there's little reason not to if Warman and the CHRC haven't denied it), what does Senator Cools think about a member of the HRC, likely acting under color of law, calling her the n-word AND the c-word (a twofer in politcally correct circles) in an apparent attempt to manufacture evidence to shut down a website and/or entrap its users?

By the way, according the affidavit, 90sAREover not only deliberately typed the n-word. He also approved it when told the word wasn't in the website's spell checker.

Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn will be on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor on Tuesday. What does it say about the Canadian MSM when a US cable news network is paying more attention to a Canadian story than they are?

Edit: My assumption about the affidavit might not be correct. In the Lemire proceeding, Warman specifically denied posting as 90sAREforever. And he also claimed to have been investigating Lemire on his own time, not in his capacity as a CHRC member.