| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
 Mark FournierMember
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 15606 Location: Kingston, ON Gender: Male
|
 Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 1:32 am Post subject: Marc Lemire gets some answers - CHRC's entrapment techniques |
 |
|
Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
January 15, 2008
Marc Lemire gets some answers
In a Toronto courtroom today Marc Lemire won another victory when the CHRC withdrew its attempt to hide its shady techniques behind Section 37 of the Canadian Evidence Act. This section permits government agencies to conceal or refuse to disclose information injurious to Canadian government security and/or the operation of federal agencies. The CHRC has been using this Section to hide the identities of its employees, and the techniques they use, to try to entrap people on the internet into saying things the CHRC can then use against them in their tribunals.
Shortly before the hearing was scheduled to begin the CHRC decided to drop their attempt to continue to hide their activities in the Marc Lemire case. They didn't make this decision because they had suddenly developed honourable principles, they did it because they knew the court was going to rule against them and they didn't want an official ruling that might prevent them from using the same jiggery-pokery when they attack their next victims.
What was at stake in this case was a copy of questions and answers put forth to two CHRC employees concerning their 'investigative' techniques and who exactly it was trying to entrap internet posters.
We have obtained a copy of the questions and answers from the federal court and have made them available here in pdf format.
The significance of this document is it directly ties the screen name jadewarr to a specific CHRC employee.
The second part of Lemire's victory today is the court's ruling that Lemire can now request the CHRC tribunal subpoena Bell Canada for the identity of another poster who Lemire's legal team believes to be another CHRC employee, one whose name many people may recognize when the person's identity is revealed.
Inch by inch the layer of slime is being removed from the CHRC and what is being revealed below appears to be even worse than what we've been seeing so far.
_________________
"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." - Entropy Squared |
|
| 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!
|
 |
| calmage Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Total posts: 242 Location: Okanagan Valley Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
ahhh yes... Mark Lemire
While I don't agree with Lemire's virulent antisemitism..
I can't knock his taking on the fight for free speech with the CHRC
Even though Lemire was charged with hate speech... he really didn't break the law.
Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, place a very narrow and specific limitation on the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Only when hateful speech is so extreme that it actually `advocates genocide' or `incites hatred to such an extent that it will lead to a breach of the peace' is it criminal. In all other cases, Canadians enjoy the right to express their own thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, no matter who may disagree with them or be offended.
This was actually a huge issue in my area as Lemire hosted his website on a provider in the Okanagan here for a bit... and the host server refused to comply regarding shutting Mr. Lemire down in defense of free speech.
Oliver BC was branded the hate capital of Canada... 
But then.. they did beat up some french people as well... 
Dang... you'd have to love stess to be dealing with this as long as he has... 
_________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Abe Lincoln
The search for truth
www.clarity.forumotion.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlawBlaw
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Total posts: 6734 Location: Toronto, ON Age: 43 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
One thing that is so wrong with the CHRC (and other human rights commissions) is that they act as investigators and prosecutors rather than merely responding to and hearing disputes. To this extent, they are acting like hate speech police, and should be subject to the same limitations that police are as far as entrapment is concerned.
With the hate speech, I am thinking that entrapment would require the entrapers to violate the very statute that they are trying to enforce. If "hateful" comments could be likely to expose people to hate or contempt, then baiting or provoking people into making such comments would be causally connected to the exposure to hate that anyone might experience. The statute itself does not limit it to two degrees of separation: the message sender, the hateful recipient, and the hated group. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| TomFoolery Joined: 18 Dec 2005 Total posts: 5879
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ther are a few very annoying things about his letter.
First, its not a sworn affidavit,
Second, the person who supposedly wrote the letter didn't even sign it.
It was signed by a third Party (EP) on behalf of the person the letter was written for.
I just see gameplaying going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlawBlaw
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Total posts: 6734 Location: Toronto, ON Age: 43 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forget not being sworn, it is ostensibly "without prejudice" which means their position is that it can't be entered into evidence at all.
However, just because they say that doesn't make it so. Most without prejudice communications fall under "settlement privilege", but they are usually bona fide offers to wrap up things and they can't be used against you later (like if you offer $10,000 to make the law suit go away, the other side can't use your offer to show that you owe them $10,000 or any amount).
There are cases where people declare a communication "without prejudice" and the judge still accepts it as evidence.
I haven't done Ontario Rules for 5 years or so, and I am not familiar with human rights legislation. However, in a real court you have "examinations for discovery" where you get to cross examine the other party. Under human rights laws, the commission becomes a party, but there is not examination because it isn't a real court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 22196 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
The judge wouldn't let them get away with the 'without predjudice' crap.
She said it was meaningless since they had already produced the answers to the questions, and that she would not be putting those words in her ruling.
She seemed a little annoyed that their lawyer kept saying it.
It was actually attached to an affadavit, too. We just didn't scan that because we didn't think it was as important as the questions and answers themselves.
_________________
"...single men must have access to donor eggs and “gestational carriers.” - David Johnston, Governor General Appointee
(The man Stephen Harper calls "the best of Canada") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roy Wilson
Joined: 04 Apr 2004 Total posts: 27708 Location: Peterborough Age: 61 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting read. Unusual decision for a Canadian judge, maybe there is still some hope in our system.
_________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS THEY KEEP YOU FREE. SUPPORT FARMERS, THEY FEED YOU.
 SUPPORT ISRAEL
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlawBlaw
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Total posts: 6734 Location: Toronto, ON Age: 43 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It depends on the judge. I know some would be pissed if they slapped "without prejudice" on substantive communications and then tried to have them declared inadmissible.
How is this relevant to the Warman law suit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kate Shaw
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Total posts: 22076 Location: Toronto Age: 62 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | With the hate speech, I am thinking that entrapment would require the entrapers to violate the very statute that they are trying to enforce. If "hateful" comments could be likely to expose people to hate or contempt, then baiting or provoking people into making such comments would be causally connected to the exposure to hate that anyone might experience. |
In the McLaren/Ferrari Spy Case (which is much more interesting, actually) the defence to a similar attempt (at blackmail, in this case) was countered when the person who was the subject of the attempt promptly reported not only the substance of what the wannabe blackmailer had, but the name of the person trying the dirty trick.
I would think that in this case the defence would be to immediately brand the "entrapment type speech" as unacceptable and make the troll go away. [Didn't Borat whoever he really is get slapped with a suit for similarly entrapping people into saying un-PC stuff and then filming them and putting it in his movie?]
_________________
"I overcame my natural self possssion and started a blithe conversation with this total stranger, an act that in New York is as automatic as blinking but that in Canada is grounds fo summary arrest and censure by Parliament." (Allen Abel, native Brooklynite livingi in Toronto, in Flatbush Odyssey)
 Support Israel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darski
Joined: 20 Jul 2007 Total posts: 2690 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I keep asking myself why the first respondent is so adamant about not knowing what any other agent has been doing.... no matter what is asked.
it looks to me like another "Big Lie" getting set up.
_________________
My Canada does not include Quebec bring on the vote |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 22196 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BlawBlaw wrote: | | How is this relevant to the Warman law suit? |
Some of the material that Warman has called "defamatory" in our suit is information that came out in the Warman vs Lemire CHRT hearing.
Now that the CHRT can no longer hide behind Section 37, evidence will be entered into the tribunal records that will prove the truth of those statements.
_________________
"...single men must have access to donor eggs and “gestational carriers.” - David Johnston, Governor General Appointee
(The man Stephen Harper calls "the best of Canada") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frankie
Joined: 30 Mar 2003 Total posts: 6591 Location: Ontario Age: 11 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | How is this relevant to the Warman law suit? |
My Dad always tells me to read between the lines. 
_________________
The opinions expressed by the above poster are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the forum's moderators or owners. Questions and comments can be sent to the boy on the left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
styky
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By continuing with this action would it not open them to a legal prosecution under the Criminal Code s. 423 Watching and Besetting law?
I would really like to hear a legal opinion on that.
_________________
FREE DOMINION FORUM RULES
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honor; duty; mercy; hope ~ Sir Winston Churchill
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people''''s money." Margaret Thatcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 22196 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darski wrote: | I keep asking myself why the first respondent is so adamant about not knowing what any other agent has been doing.... no matter what is asked.
it looks to me like another "Big Lie" getting set up. |
You bet your sweet bootie!!
Their lawyer actually had the audacity to tell the judge that they want to make sure they can continue to use Section 37 when they feel it is necessary to 'protect their secret investigative techniques'.
I actually curled my fingers around the seat of my chair at that point to make sure that I didn't jump up and start ranting. 
_________________
"...single men must have access to donor eggs and “gestational carriers.” - David Johnston, Governor General Appointee
(The man Stephen Harper calls "the best of Canada") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlawBlaw
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Total posts: 6734 Location: Toronto, ON Age: 43 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Connie Fournier wrote: | | BlawBlaw wrote: | | How is this relevant to the Warman law suit? |
Some of the material that Warman has called "defamatory" in our suit is information that came out in the Warman vs Lemire CHRT hearing.
Now that the CHRT can no longer hide behind Section 37, evidence will be entered into the tribunal records that will prove the truth of those statements. |
Ah. At least you are in a real court where truth is relevant. |
|
| 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!
|
|
|
