<center>CHRC doesn't like complainant, so Steacy calls the cops!
In April of 2006, <a href=http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/guille.pdf>Andrew Guille's complaint</a> against Canadian Anti-racist Education and Research Society (CAERS), and their website http://www.recomnetwork.org
was accepted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
I have a copy of the complaint but I am not going to post it because the quotes from the recomnetwork site are some of the foulest filth I have ever seen. Suffice it to say, they went as far as to speak positively about black people hanging from trees.
In any case, the reaction of the CHRC to this complaint is quite informative.
Although they admit, "CAERS appears to have technically violated section 13 of the Act by allowing postings containing hatred to appear on its website"
, it is Dean Steacy's recommendation that the Commission not
deal with this complaint. It is apparent that the fact that Richard Warman's buddy Alan Dutton and his CAERS organization were friends of the CHRC, (and on the government dole) was far more important to Mr. Steacy than whether or not they had actually violated the Human Rights Act.The reasons
Steacy states that CAERS is a registered charity that "receives funding from both the federal and provincial governments and it has a long history of opposing racism. One of its projects is the operation of http://www.recomnetwork.org whose purpose is to track and monitor hate crime and provide solutions to racism."CAERS receives government funding so they should be above investigation.
Steacy says that the source of the postings were individuals who are opposed to the work of CAERS, and several of Richard Warman's complaints that had "been posted verbatim on Recomnetwork.org". When the complaints were posted, the links to the sites in the complaints became active so the site was actually directing traffic to sites that were in violation of section 13.
CAERS is given a pass because "the reason for posting Richard Warman's hate messaging complaints is for purely educational purposes"
and because "CAERS states that it is vigilant in trying to ensure that these types of posts are removed; however, in this case, it would appear that these postings were missed"
.I wonder if this defence will work for Marc Lemire?
Steacy refers to the "Fenrisson" post from Stormfront. Fenrisson was an anonymous user who posted the following in the Stormfront forum, "For the rest of us we can use the CHRC to our advantage. As it costs no more than the price of an envelope you can file a claim against someone without fear of legal retaliation as you are protected by the CHRC from such. Should someone who comes after our own say or do something that even remotely contravenes the rules of the commission...they may find they are suddenly swamped with dozens of claims against them. If nothing else it bogs down an already stressed system designed to destroy us, all for the price of a letter."
Nobody replied to that obscure little post, and attempts to contact Fenrisson privately resulted in no reply. The CHRC, however, has used that post on more than one occasion as 'evidence' that there is a widespread conspiracy to lodge frivolous complaints. How convenient.But, most frightening of all...
The most frightening part of the report from Dean Steacy relates to how the Commission invaded the privacy of the complainant. The Human Rights Act is supposed to protect the complainant from harassment, but we see in the official report that Dean Steacy himself began an investigation of Andrew Guille in an attempt to justify throwing out his complaint. He starts by naming members of Guille's family, and commenting on the unsavoury reputation of Guille's sister, Melissa.
Then Steacy writes, "On July 13, 2006, the investigator [Steacy] interviewed Sgt. Don McKinnon of the London Police Force." Steacy not only conducted an investigation of an innocent complainant, he went to the police about him!
"[Sgt McKinnon] indicated that he also has pictures of Mr. Guille partying with white supremacists at several different rallies that they have held in southwestern Ontario."
Paging George Orwell!
Next, Steacy interviewed Matthew Lauder who is currently being sued for defamation by Marc Lemire for, among other things, claiming that Lemire assaulted someone because he was black. Lauder gives hearsay information about Andrew Guille's acquaintances and activities which Steacy gleefully includes in his report.
Steacy also points out that CAERS removed hyperlinks and offensive postings. This is ironic because Marc Lemire's forum had ceased to exist
before he even received notice that there was a complaint against him, but he has been forced to fight for five years and there is no end in sight.
There is no place in a free society for a commission that maintains one set of rules for those they perceive as their enemies and another for their friends. It is appalling that an innocent citizen would be investigated by the police simply because he exercised his right under the Human Rights Act to file a complaint.
This is just one more example why Section 13.1 needs to go, and an inquiry needs to be called into the dealings of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
While they are at it, I would like to know what Alan Dutton and CAERS has been doing with my tax dollars...wouldn't you?