Hadjis Decision - Sept. 2, 2009 (Warman vs Lemire)

[Mark Fournier]

Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
August 31, 2009

<center> The Hadjis Decision - Sept. 2, 2009
Warman vs Lemire
</center>
Almost a full year after the closing arguments were heard in the CHRC/Richard Warman vs Marc Lemire case, chairman Hadjis will be releasing his ruling this Wednesday morning. According to a communication from Katherine Julien, the Registry Officer of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal:

<blockquote>The Tribunal will be releasing its decision in the matter of Richard Warman v. Marc Lemire at 9:30 a.m. (Ottawa time) on Wednesday, September 2, 2009.
</blockquote>
This is a ruling heavily weighted with legal and political significance. If the tribunal finds Marc Lemire guilty a constitutional challenge to Section 13 launched by Mr. Lemire will continue its way through the process, but the challenge will be scuttled if Hadjis rules in favour of Lemire. If the tribunal ruling is for Lemire, he has a wide open case of abuse of process against just about everybody involved in the five year long case pressed against him. The CHRC/CHRT may also decide to use this opportunity to throw Richard Warman under the bus.

There are several other cases on hold, in a variety of venues, pending the ruling in CHRC/Richard Warman vs Lemire. This is a big one.

[cinyc]

Wednesday morning? Not the Friday before Labour Day, as some were expecting? Interesting.

Do the parties already know the outcome?

[Connie Fournier]

I don't think anyone knows anything yet. This is a real nail-biter!!

[Connie Fournier]

A blast from the past....

Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
October 25, 2008
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/v ... ?p=1247921


<center>The Trial of Athanasios Hadjis
Richard Warman vs Marc Lemire </center>


When Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) Chairman, Athanasios Hadjis, first heard of Marc Lemire, Mr. Lemire was supposed to be just another pebble being crushed under the CHRC/Richard Warman steamroller. But that was five years ago and before anyone knew Lemire would turn out to be an immovable boulder.

Athanasios Hadjis has chaired several ‘hate crime’ hearings for Canadian Human Rights Tribunals and his rulings have contributed to the CHRT’s 100% conviction rate on Section 13 complaints. He has issued convictions and has handed down a variety of punishments to those he has convicted. These punishments included large fines to the federal government and cash awards to Richard Warman for hurt feelings and such.

Connie and I came late to the Lemire case. We might not have heard of it at all if we had not ourselves been attacked by the CHRC through an absurd complaint filed by Marie-Line Gentes (a complaint that was dropped in the face of the publicity it generated.) Shortly after the Gentes complaint was dropped, by both Gentes and the CHRC, we were hit by three SLAPP suits by former CHRC employee Richard Warman. At that point we decided to investigate our attackers and much has become public as a result.

Soon after the SLAPP suits began arriving, the human rights cases against Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn hit the news. There is a football adage that says “Defences win championships, offences sell tickets.” Steyn and Levant put on a great offensive show and they sold a lot of tickets. Many Canadian eyes were opened by their to-be-aborted cases and the public “learned much that may have lay hidden.” Although they may no longer have a dog in this fight, the battle goes on and the defence is back on the field.

There has been very little media attention paid to the Lemire case, yet it is one of the most far-reaching cases of our time. Many other cases, in these tribunals and in the real courts, are on hold pending Hadjis’ decision in the Lemire case.

When the Lemire hearings ended with closing arguments in Toronto this fall, the trial of Athanasios Hadjis began.

Being a relative newcomer to human rights commissions and tribunals, I have only had two opportunities to see Mr. Hadjis in action as a tribunal chairman, both times in the Lemire case. His rulings in a number of cases are available in the public record, but I wanted to see what I could gain by direct observation. Who is this man?

From his conviction rate alone one could conclude that he is a raving ideologue, but he gives no indication of being such when he is chairing a hearing. While I could think of a number of derogatory terms for him, based on his rulings, after seeing him in person “fool” would not number among them. Mr. Hadjis is obviously very intelligent, he seems to be a master of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and he appears to be quite aware of the huge political forces at play around this case.

He also knows when he is being manipulated or lied to. You can see the awareness in his facial expressions and body language when a CHRC member or witness lies to him, when the CHRC alters evidence, or when a CHRC employee or witness comes down with an obvious case of selective amnesia. Yet I find this troubling. With all of this going on before his eyes, why has he consistently ruled in favour of the CHRC and Richard Warman? Was doing so part of his unofficial job description? Was it because until recently no one was watching?

A lot of people are watching now and that completely changes the political landscape in which these tribunals operate. In the real world a prosecutor must decide whether he has enough evidence for a conviction before he approaches the courts and a judge must weigh whether his decisions will be overturned. The primary concern of these prosecutions and convictions is politics. Rather than weigh evidence and the quality of decisions, they need only weigh what they can get away with politically.

The Steyn article clearly violated the CHRC’s in-house “Hallmarks of Hate” and it did so in a very public way, yet the commission backed away from prosecuting him. It wasn’t for lack of evidence, in the world of the CHRC, they had a slam dunk case against him. They backed off because they couldn’t get away with it politically and that is all that matters to an organization that is entirely political in nature.

The Lemire case began in the dark and that was where it was supposed to end, but it has already left the land of obscurity. Now it is a hot potato--of interest to the public and to legal and political communities--and it will ultimately lead to a Charter challenge of Section 13, a challenge that is destined to succeed.

Athanasios Hadjis knows these things. He knows from the representation sent to the hearings from the Ministry of Justice that the Harper government wants Section 13 on the books so badly that they did a complete turnaround and read a list of reasons (including the Anne Cools post) that Hadjis could use to dismiss the lemire case due to abuse of process. He also has to know that if he does so he will stop the Charter challenge the Harper government so badly fears in its tracks. Mr. Hadjis also has to understand the freedoms and liberties that are at stake in this case. If he did not understand those issues when he first sat in the Chair, he surely does now.

The pressure on Mr. Haduis is huge and it is coming from many quarters. What will he do?

When the Lemire hearings ended the trial of Athanasios Hadjis began.

We can only await the outcome.

[Mark Fournier]

This is the underlying case that introduced the public to so many things. Thanks to the meticulous documenting of all that has happened in this case, it is Marc Lemire who brought so much of the CHRC's skullduggery to light. This is the case that introduced us to Section 13, to the CHRC itself, to Richard Warman, jadewarr, lucy, 90sAREover, the Anne Cools post, the hacking of Nellie Hechme's private account, and much more.

[fourhorses]

Lemire Decision expected Wednesday morning


August 31, 2009


Now this should be interesting. Will the Member swallow his disgust at the lies, subterfuge, procedural irregularity and potential illegalities and deliver the expected decision finding Lemire in violation of s.13.1? Or will he conclude that the CHRC has gone to far in pursuit of a weak case, cite a strict reading of Taylor and note the Commission’s misbehaviour, and dismiss the matter?

Towards the end of the Lemire hearings it was pretty clear that Member Hadjis was losing sympathy for the CHRC and its principal complainant. But will that be enough?

From a purely strategic perspective I suspect the Coward Lynch is on her knees before God praying that the Member dismisses. After all, if he does not dismiss Lemire will be going – in due course – to the Supreme Court and there I suspect the “balance” in Taylor will be rebalanced by a Court rather more in tune with s. 2’s protections of free expression and a free press. Plus, and this would depend on the Member’s reasons, if the Member sustains the complaint he is going to somehow have to deal with the steaming pile of crap which counts as Commission procedure and investigative techniques. He’ll have to deal with Vigna’s serenity problem and the substitution of evidence. He will have to reach a conclusion on the investigative techniques of the CHRC. And those procedures and investigative techniques may well raise Charter questions all on their own.

On past performance the CHRT is likely to sustain the complaint against Lemire. The 100% record and all. But in this instance there are excellent reasons on the face of the record to dismiss the complaint and, perhaps, an institutional interest in making Lemire “go away”.

I note that Wednesday at 9:30 will give the story barely one news cycle before the Labour Day doldrums set in. I also note that news cycle is normally pretty dull. From where I sit that suggests that the Tribunal and the Commission would like the story to go away….fast. And that, frankly, suggests dismissal. Possibly with a few rather nasty observations as to conduct.


http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/

[Connie Fournier]

The lawyer for the Attorney General, in his final submissions at the Warman vs Lemire hearing, had the following to say:

Mr. Fothergill, recounting the numerous Commission abuses of Mr. Lemire's rights, including the non attendance of Mr. Warman even for the final submissions, said Mr. Lemire should have sought judicial review, but, he added, "that if you feel the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute by these acts, you can dismiss the complaint, as Mr. Fromm, advocated, on those grounds."

"If you consider these abuses that Mr. Lemire complains of – and I take no position on them – they are administrative and you can dismiss the complaint or stay the proceedings, rather than invalidate the legislation and the will of Parliament."

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/09/lem ... dmits.html

The list of "abuses" was quite comprehensive, and it was apparent that Fothergill was attempting to give Hadjis a list of reasons to dismiss the complaint so that there would be no constitutional challenge.

The burning question is, "Will Hadjis attempt to impose a penalty on Lemire, moving the challenge forward, or will he find that the CHRC and/or Richard Warman behaved inappropriately enough that the case should be dismissed?"

I don't know about you, but I can't WAIT until Wednesday!!

[fourhorses]

I think Jay is right on the "Lemire go away" scenario.

[Jay Currie]

I was betting Friday before the Long Weekend would signal dismissal. I don't see any reason why Wednesday should change my tea leaf reading.

Given the general impropriety of the CHRC and the cosy relationship it has enjoyed with the CHRT over the years I normally would not be surprised if the coward Lynch has a copy of the decision. But this time is different.

The record of CHRC procedural abuse and investigative misconduct is too lengthy to be ignored. Warman has already been woodshedded once by a Tribunal but the charges of misconduct here are far more substantial. Jadewarr and the lose of Mr. Vigna's serenity in the face of evidence tampering can and should be the basis for outright dismissal.

Which is too bad because, once again, we are unlikely to have the opportunity of the SCC reviewing and, I suspect, distinguishing Taylor.

Dismissal will be a huge win for Marc Lemire but it will leave the problem of s. 13.1 squarely in the hands of the CPC.

[fourhorses]

Connie
That counter is is so cool ....

[Harry Abrams]

Dismissal will be a huge win for Marc Lemire but it will leave the problem of s. 13.1 squarely in the hands of the CPC.

Nope. A straight dismissal (if it happened) on merits won't affect the legislation at all.

[Connie Fournier]

Dismissal will be a huge win for Marc Lemire but it will leave the problem of s. 13.1 squarely in the hands of the CPC.

Nope. A straight dismissal (if it happened) on merits won't affect the legislation at all.

I think he means that it will be up to the CPC to do something if there is not going to be a constitutional challenge.

I think it is overly optimistic to expect Harper to do anything, though, considering he had his gonads removed shortly after arriving in Ottawa.

[Connie Fournier]

Connie
That counter is is so cool ....

It stretches the page a bit, but I think we can put up with it for a couple of days while we wait for the news!

[Jay Currie]

That's what I meant, Connie.

If Lemire is dismissed - for whatever reason - the CPC is stuck having to deal with s. 13.1

Now, what maybe very interesting are the Member's reasons if he dismisses for procedural irregularity on the part of Warman and the Commission or if those irregularities form part of his reasons.

At that point - if the Commission's and Warman's behaviour are in issue - it is time for an all out political push.

[BlawBlaw]

But does a dismissal necessarily open up the whole, furry lot of them to an abuse of process counter-offensive by Lemire? I guess it would be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot.