[Editor's Note: While the following article by Ezra Levant is important in the overall understanding of how these Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) function as tools of state/political censorship it is also important to take heed of some of the subtleties embedded within it, especially as they pertain to those accused victims who are not, like Levant and Steyn, either Jewish or both Jewish and pro-Zionist as in the case of Steyn. The reason I make mention of this point is because of the consistency, found within both of their defensive arguments, of making disparaging comments against the rest of us who have been accused of various crimes by the HRCs and thus pretentiously assuming that the HRCs are being frivolous in charging us because, as both Steyn and Levant blatantly state, we are little more than "losers", "marginal" or "oddball" citizens who don't warrant being noticed in the first place.

Considering that their own cases are being buttressed in a very critical way by the supreme and relentless efforts on the part of Marc Lemire and his Internet Freedom Defence Team consisting of Paul Fromm and lawyers Barbara Kulaszka and Doug Christie, all of whom have exposed the dangerous machinations of the HRCs, one would expect just a tad of due respect for these people rather than the needless, arrogant references which Levant and Steyn intersperse within their otherwise poignant commentaries.

If Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are going to accuse the HRCs of hypocrisy and bigotry then maybe they ought to reconsider their own tactic of ethically or morally divorcing their own cases from those of the others involved and start working pro-actively and positively with them rather than exploiting the efforts of others while, at the same time, dismissing their respective political viewpoints as being unworthy of any serious merit.

Psychologically (and politically) speaking I see this as a very telling point for both Levant and Steyn and therefore bring it to the reader's attention.]

———–

http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/a-secret-trial.html

A secret trial
By Ezra Levant
March 9, 2008

One of the hallmarks of justice in a liberal democracy is transparency. In extreme circumstances there are secret trials in Canada, or trials that are open to the public but that are covered by publication bans, but such secrecy is only permitted for very unusual and overwhelming reasons — such as to protect the identity of a child victim of a crime, or for true national security reasons. Secret trials, such as those conducted in the Star Chamber, are notoriously susceptible to abuse, and erode public confidence in the administration of justice.

So it should come as no surprise that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing on March 25th — where human rights commission staff themselves are to be cross-examined on their dubious tactics of anonymous infiltration of websites, entrapment and even the bizarre practice of commission staff themselves planting bigoted remarks on websites — is going to be closed to the public.

It is hypocritical in the extreme that HRC staff who scrutinize every public utterance and private thought of their victims will be exempted from public scrutiny themselves. There is no legitimate reason for this blackout, other than the HRCs simply being HRCs and engaging in censorship and the restriction of public debate. Usually they censor political expression they disagree with; this time they censor their own embarrassing conduct from being seen and heard by taxpaying Canadians. I don’t blame them, frankly — the more their inner workings are publicized, the greater will be the demand for politicians to rein in their excesses. The videos of my own interrogation at the hands of the Alberta Human Rights Commission have been seen more than 500,000 times; imagine the publicity that a videoclip of HRC staffers admitting to planting evidence of bigotry would receive.

I’m disgusted but not surprised by the tribunal’s decision to be secretive. And I won’t hold out hope that Canada’s large media companies, who normally rush to court in unison to overturn other publication bans, will do so here.

But however appalling this secret hearing is, it’s nothing compared to what the commission itself wanted. Here is a ruling last year by the tribunal that refers to the commission’s wish list in this case (most of which was rejected). The commission didn’t just want to exclude the public from the hearing. It wanted to exclude the accused himself from the hearing:

[5] …Their physical and visual appearance would be seen by the Tribunal and counsel via video while everyone else, including Mr. Lemire, would be seated in a separate room where they would only be able to hear the audio portion of the testimonies.

[9] The Commission submits that the evidence it has filed provides a reasonable ground for the fear regarding the personal and professional safety of the Commission witnesses. Yet, the special measures that the Commission is asking the Tribunal to adopt do not relate to the witnesses’ security at the hearing….

[10] The issue therefore, for the Commission, does not seem to be security at the hearing but rather the witnesses’ identities or more correctly, the capture and publication of the three witnesses’ images…

[11] Interestingly, no similar request was made when Mr. Warman and the expert witnesses testified in Toronto, although it would appear that their images could already be found on the Internet.

[12] The Commission has directed me to a number of decisions where courts have ordered that special measures be taken regarding the evidence of witnesses. I note, however, that the special measures in these cases relate to the concealment of the witnesses’ names. In the present case, we not only know the names of the witnesses but we also know that they are employees of the Commission.

[15] …If granted, Mr. Lemire will be excluded from the hearing examining his own alleged conduct. He will be denied the opportunity to view the evidence. His opportunity to assist and instruct his lawyer will be restricted.

The commission didn’t just want a secret trial, kept out of the public eye. They wanted a secret trial where secrets were kept from the accused himself. Uncle Joe would have been proud.

Canada’s human rights commissions have fostered a sick culture of obsessive secrecy, unfairness towards the accused and un-Canadian procedures. But this is more than that: it’s a psychological clue as to how the commission’s staff regard themselves. They don’t see themselves as thin-skinned busy-bodies, or politically correct censors, or bureaucratic bullies, strangling marginal and oddball citizens with red tape. They see themselves as stars in a James Bond movie, or an episode of 24, where they are the fearless protectors of all that is good, fighting against powerful, evil, violent men — and if they need to break a few rules along the way, well that’s a price we have to pay. It would be laughable if it weren’t destroying the lives of innocent people — and the reputation of justice.

These aren’t counter-terrorists, or even real police. These commission staff aren’t Jack Bauer or Horatio Kane. They’re civil servants who sit in their government offices, surfing the Internet under fake names, posting bigoted comments to chat sites, and then complaining about it. Comparing them to Pee-wee Herman is more accurate.

There are those who believe all that’s necessary here is to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to excise section 13, the thought crimes provision. That’s essential, but it’s not enough. The problem with these human rights commissions isn’t just that they dare to tell Canadians what they can or can’t say and think. It’s that their processes and procedures — no matter what they’re investigating — are abusive, one-sided and un-Canadian. So-called human rights activists would know that instinctively if the victims hauled before these HRCs were, say, named Omar Khadr or Maher Arar. But the human rights industry isn’t really about human rights. It’s about “maximum disruption” to those the state finds politically incorrect. What a dishonour to our country.