| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fourhorses
|
 Posted: 03/ 20/ 08 3:35 pm Post subject: Barbara Kulaszka hammers CHRC request for a Secret Hearing |
 |
|
Barbara Kulaszka hammers CHRC request for a Secret Hearing
March 20, 200
TO: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,
160 Elgin St., 11th Floor,
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4
Attention: Ms. Carol Ann Hartung, Registry Officer
Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405
To the Tribunal:
I have the submissions of Ms. Blight concerning whether the proceedings on March 25th should be opened to the public and wish to make this reply.
Ms. Blight refers to the ruling of the Tribunal on May7th, but I believe she means the ruling made on May 9th, the first day of the hearings in Ottawa. That was the ruling that governed the hearing and which remains in effect. The ruling was that the witnesses’ testimony would be heard in camera with no cameras allowed. The Tribunal refused to make an order that a description of the witnesses not be published, after the following exchange which started at page 4397:
| Quote: | 11 MR. DUFRESNE: If I may, I would like
12 to clarify one issue. We were also seeking a directive
13 that a description of the witnesses not be --\
14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Descriptions.
15 MR. DUFRESNE: We have concerns, as
16 indicated in our motion, of some of these things making
17 their way onto the internet.
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that essential?
19 I don't even know if I have authority to issue a
20 direction like that.
21 Can you find for me something in a
22 statute where I can issue an authority telling a person
23 what they can and cannot write about afterwards?
24 MR. DUFRESNE: In our submission, it
25 is in 52. It is the preamble to 52, which states that
4398
1 the member or panel conducting the inquiry may take any
2 measure and make any order that the member or panel
3 considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of
4 the inquiry.
5 This is a directive to the parties.
6 You could order an in camera hearing,
7 and nothing would go out to the world.
8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because it's
9 in camera. Because it's within my confines.
10 MR. DUFRESNE: But, presumably,
11 parties to an in camera hearing couldn't go outside and
12 disclose what took place, either --
13 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's true.
14 MR. DUFRESNE: -- and it's in the
15 same sense what we are asking.
16 It is very limited: No description
17 of the visual appearance.
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can I have an
19 undertaking, Ms Kulaszka, that you won't go writing
20 someplace what these people look like?
21 MS KULASZKA: My position is that it
22 is virtually unenforceable. Unless there is something
23 very, very different about these two people --
24 She is blonde. She is five-foot-six.
25 Ms Joyal could -- well, she is not
1 five-foot-six. I don't know how tall Ms Joyal is.
4399
2 It is unenforceable.
3 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is. It is
4 almost making a travesty of my process. I will not
5 issue that kind of directive. I'm sorry.
6 They probably never thought about it
7 until you mentioned it. Now, watch, they are going to
8 write up, "Blonde, five-foot-six." They never would
9 have thought to put that in.
10 There is no indication that any of
11 these individuals have done anything like that. The
12 only photos that we have from this hearing, Mr.
13 Dufresne, are of themselves, calling themselves the big
14 defence team.
15 We need some context.
16 I am prepared to go this far because
17 of the bigger picture that you have raised, although
18 Mr. Fromm has raised some objections on that point,
19 which I hear him on.
20 I am going that far, but please --
21 MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, I want to
22 remind you that there are photos of judges and members
23 of the Tribunal --
24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there are.
25 MR. VIGNA: -- not just photos of
4400
1 themselves.
2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Vigna, who is
3 more exposed here with the allegations that have been
4 made in your motion? You and I and all of the other
5 members of the Tribunal.
6 And we haven't been immune. I read
7 that article. The article went right to the core of
8 what is going on in this room -- that little story, the
9 fictional one. But yet we move on, we go on.
10 MR. DUFRESNE: On that basis, Mr.
11 Chair, we are prepared to proceed with, essentially,
12 two of the requests that we made, the in camera and the
13 measures with respect to cameras.
14 I want to state for the record that,
15 while all of our requests have not been addressed, the
16 Commission takes the security of its staff very
17 seriously. Unlike Commission counsel, who, by the
18 nature of their work, are going to be exposed to public
19 scrutiny, Commission investigators do not have similar
20 functions.
21 As a result, we have taken a strong
22 position on that, but we accept the Tribunal's ruling
23 on that basis. |
At that point, I requested that the Commission rescind its certification under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act which the Commission had served the previous day with respect to the visual appearance of the witnesses at p. 4401:
| Quote: |
2 MS KULASZKA: Could they rescind
3 their section 37 certification for the record?
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: On the assumption
5 that we are proceeding on that basis?
6 MR. DUFRESNE: We rescind, again, for
7 the purpose of their testimony, but we reserve our
8 right to invoke it for questions.
9 MS KULASZKA: Thank you.
|
The Commission withdrew its section 37 CEA objection and accepted the ruling of the Tribunal refusing to make an order banning persons present from writing a description of the witnesses.
The Commission now renews this request for such an order. It is respectfully submitted that it has brought no new arguments about how this order would be enforceable or whether this Tribunal has such jurisdiction outside the confines of the hearing room
Further, it provided evidence of only two threads from Stormfront message board where the fact that Mr. Steacy is blind was mentioned, primarily in an account by Paul Fromm of the hearings in May. This account merely mentioned the fact in passing. In the two threads, only one or two posters mentioned his blindness. Even though this case has been discussed extensively on the Internet, the Commission could bring not one other instance of a further description of the witness
The fact is that in the Internet community, Mr. Steacy’s blindness has been of virtually no interest. The interest is in the case, the evidence and its implications for bloggers and webmasters and freedom of speech and conscience.
The Commission produces evidence (minus the URL and any identifying markers which should have been on the bottom of each page) of one poster on a message board who is obviously angry. If this is all it takes to exclude the public from a hearing dealing with matters going to the fundamental constitutional rights of Canadians on the Internet, then there is every reason for persons to assume false identities to post up threats.
This Tribunal has consistently upheld the principle that its hearings must be open to the public, even in extremely personal and sensitive cases such as sexual harassment. In Bouvier v. Metro Express, 1992 CanLII 1429 (C.H.R.T.), the Tribunal held, in response for a request that a hearing be held in camera:
| Quote: |
One final point of a procedural nature should be noted before we proceed. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for Loomis asked that the matter be heard in camera. Counsel for the Commission had no objection to this request, nor did the respondent Lacroix. The Act does permit a tribunal to order that a hearing be in camera, as follows:
Sec. 52. A hearing of a Tribunal shall be public, but a Tribunal may exclude members of the public during the whole or any part of a hearing if it onsiders that exclusion to be in the public interest.
In view of how important it is that the judicial process in our society be public, and particularly in the area of human rights where the educational aspect of the process plays a leading role, and in view of the decisions in Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre, [1982] 1 S.C.R.175 and Edmonton Journal v. Alberta, 1989 CanLII 20 (S.C.C.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326, we refused the request by Loomis that the hearing be held in camera. As Madam Justice Wilson noted in the latter case, which dealt with the public nature of trials in separation and divorce cases, it is sometimes necessary in the interest of all the parties for even the intimate and delicate details of their marital life to be disclosed:
But in addition to the interest of the public at large in an open court process there may be compelling arguments in its favour related to the interests of litigants generally. Many may feel vindicated by the public airing of the injustices they feel they have suffered alone and without any support in the community. Indeed, this may be the first time that a spouse is able to speak openly about events that have taken place in the privacy of the home. They may welcome the public endorsement for what they have suffered in private ignominy.
(p. 1361)
|
Marc Lemire has been accused of being a racist, Nazi, hate-monger, anti-Semite, White Supremacist etc. in these hearings. The primary allegations are based on postings made by other people on a message board. It is extremely important to him that what the Commission has been doing is revealed in a public hearing. Marc Lemire “may feel vindicated by the public airing of the injustices [he] [has] suffered alone and without any support in the community.”
Many people have been found by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to have posted discriminatory hate messages on message boards, particularly Stormfront. It now has been revealed that Dean Steacy was a member of Stormfront and posted there. It is already known that Richard Warman, who was the complainant in all of the cases against these persons, was also a member of Stormfront and posted messages which even the Commission itself has acknowledged violated section 13. It is now known that Sgt. Stephen Camp, a police officer, was also a member of Stormfront and posted racist messages.
What is being revealed here is shocking and goes to the root of the findings in many Tribunal decisions in cases brought by Richard Warman.
The Tribunal must not underestimate the implications of the disclosure which has already been made.
This evidence, to preserve the integrity of this Tribunal, must be heard in public.
Yours truly,
Barbara Kulaszka
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/03/barbara-kulaszka-hammers-chrc-request.html
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 03/ 20/ 08 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cinyc Location: New York Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 03/ 20/ 08 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. A legal argument that actually quotes transcripts and the law.
The CHRC couldn't have thought of doing that.
Let's give them some help. There ARE laws here that the Commission seems to be glossing over, specifically Section 52 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Section 52(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act allows the Tribunal to close the hearings if:
| Quote: | | (c) there is a real and substantial risk that the disclosure of personal or other matters will cause undue hardship to the persons involved such that the need to prevent disclosure outweighs the societal interest that the inquiry be conducted in public; |
The need to prevent disclosure must outweigh "the societal interest that the inquiry be conducted in public".
The Commission itself admits that it "is obvious that there is public interest in the hearing" and it supports "the principle that the public should have as much access as is possible to Tribunal proceedings." In other words, the Commission admits that there is a societal interest that the hearings be held open to the public - and that interest is great.
So the question then becomes whether there is any "real and substantial risk" that disclosure could cause undue hardship here that outweighs the societal interest to hold a public hearing. There's probably no "real and substantial risk" at all, unless the Commission's position is that the testimony of every witness about whom negative things have been posted by a few cranks on the Internet must be held in camera. But even assuming there were such risk, the Commission's main concern appears to be that Mr. Steacy and Ms. Rizk's pictures not be taken and posted on the Internet. Well, the Tribunal has already issued a ban on cameras in the hearing room. That ought to be sufficient, especially where even the Commission agrees the public's interest in holding an open hearing is great.
Section 52(1)(d) of the Canadian Human Rights Act allows the Tribunal to close the hearings if:
| Quote: | | (d) there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered. |
Not just ANY possibility - a SERIOUS possibility. Are the rantings of one Internet crank really all that serious? Especially when no specific threats have been made against Dean Steacy in the first place? And even if "Edward Kennedy's" alleged threats were serious, wouldn't the proper response be to bar "Edward Kennedy" from the hearing room, not members of the general public and the press?
Again, the Commission is implying that the testimony of every witness about whom negative things have been posted on the Internet must be held in camera. Yet they didn't object when Richard Warman - a person who told the CRTC that he wanted to shut down Canadian access to foreign websites where he thought death threats had ACTUALLY been made against him - was left open to the public. And the Commission seems to have allowed CHRC employee Harvey Goldberg to testify in public because his picture was already on the Internet.
We seem to be coming back to the same thing - the Commission's main concern appears to be that doesn't want Mr. Steacy or Ms. Rizk's pictures to be placed on the Internet as a result of attending the hearing. Well, there's ALREADY a ban on cameras in the hearing room. That ought to be sufficient to address the Commission's concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
 Mark FournierMember
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 15060 Location: Kingston, ON Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 03/ 21/ 08 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bump
_________________
"If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you. If you are willing to use violence to impose your ideas on your fellow man, you are a menace to society." - Entropy Squared |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
 Connie FournierMember
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 21101 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 03/ 21/ 08 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have heard that Nick Vandergragt will be covering this issue on CFRA radio tonight from 6-9pm.
With emphasis on the issue of CHRC agents posting on websites.
You can listen live here: http://www.cfra.com
Listen and call in!
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 21101 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 03/ 21/ 08 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bump for CFRA at 6pm!
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EdS
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 16584 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Age: 15 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 03/ 21/ 08 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CFRA link broken. No workie. 
_________________
"There are some opinions so stupid, only liberals could hold them"
-- after George Orwell
General Militia of Flight 93 reporting for duty!
"Let's Roll!"
"Groyser Chochem" of the Shadowy GroupTM
 Am Ysroel Chai |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 21101 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 03/ 21/ 08 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, their site might be down. I couldn't get in earlier, either.
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EdS
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 16584 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Age: 15 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 03/ 21/ 08 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I having transwisker radio. Work good, tovarische.
_________________
"There are some opinions so stupid, only liberals could hold them"
-- after George Orwell
General Militia of Flight 93 reporting for duty!
"Let's Roll!"
"Groyser Chochem" of the Shadowy GroupTM
Am Ysroel Chai |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 21101 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 03/ 21/ 08 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You may have to be our on-site reporter if the rest of us can't get in, Ed.
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 21101 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 03/ 21/ 08 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CFRA's website is down, but you can get their streaming audio here: http://www.canadianwebradio.com/ontario.html
The stations are in alphabetical order.
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Barbara Kulaszka hammers CHRC request for a Secret Hearing |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
