Original Article here

By Walker Morrow,

The Citizen October 9, 2009 12:00 AM

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is in a lot of trouble these days.

It all started last year, when a web administrator named Marc Lemire was taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the Commission's kissin' cousin, where CHRC complaints are seen if they're deemed Tribunal-worthy) on behalf of Richard Warman, who is a former Commission employee.

Warman's complaint before the Tribunal was filed under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act; indeed, Warman has filed all but two of the Section 13(1) complaints that have gone to Tribunal in the past 10 years. He's the kissin' part of the familial relationship.

Needless to say, I come down very strongly against Section 13(1). It's a censorship act, and the human rights system presiding over it is too easy to game in one person's favor, and too open to corruption to be trusted with the task besides. In short, it's the perfect combination of bad law and bad handling of the law: a sort of perfect storm of incompetence and illiberalism. And it's time for it to be put to an end.

Case in point: during the Warman v. Lemire proceedings it was revealed that Richard Warman had routinely logged on to very-far-right or white supremacist websites, posted disgustingly bigoted comments, and then attempted to entrap with CHRC complaints some of those who responded to his comments -- all for the sake of eliminating hatred in the Dominion, of course. The financial settlements from his successful complaints had nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

Not only had Warman been trolling for hate, it was revealed that CHRC investigators had been doing the same: creating hatred to punish hatred, only on the public dime (by the way, as far as I know, none of these employees have been fired; in fact, the CHRC has actively denied that such trolling actually occurred despite court testimony to the contrary). Not only had they done this, but it's possible that they may have even hacked into a private citizen's internet account in order to mask their CHRC identity while trolling; an RCMP investigation into the matter dribbled off after the trail started leading into American territory.

It was also revealed that Warman had continued to use CHRC computers after he had stopped working for the CHRC. Some of his complaints before the CHRC were shown to have been given to people that he had worked with previously -- a major conflict of interest. After this corruption was brought to light, investigations were begun, not only by the RCMP, but by the Privacy Commissioner as well, and a Parliamentary Review of the CHRC's activities was conducted -- which the head of the CHRC, Jennifer Lynch, did not even deign to attend. Later it was revealed that while Richard Warman had been pursuing Warman v. Lemire, the CHRC had been investigating him under similar charges.

This rather incestuous situation has been going on for years. No CHRC employee has been fired publicly. None have been censured publicly. The CHRC and CHRT continue to see complaints under Section 13(1).

There have been developments, though. You see, the Tribunal judge on the Warman v. Lemire case, Anthanasios Hadjis, only just recently released his ruling on the matter. His decision? Marc Lemire is guilty under Section 13(1) of the CHRA, but the application of Section 54(1)(c) of the Act, which can be used in conjunction with Section 13(1) to impose penalties upon guilty parties, is unconstitutional, because it would violate Marc Lemire's right to freedom of speech.

Well. Duh. That's what freedom-of-speech advocates have been saying for months, even years. But Hadjis' decision was made, and the CHRC? Well, it wasn't happy about it. And it's decided to appeal the decision because, well, they've got a cushy thing goin' on. A judicial review of the constitutionality of Sections 13(1) and 54(1)(c) will be coming...whenever it comes, and it will be interesting to see the results when a real court -- not a quasi-judicial Tribunal -- gets its hands on the details of the CHRC's misconduct and of Richard Warman's abuse of Section 13(1).

But until then, Section 13(1) still gets to see its day in court. Or before committee, anyway. As reported by the CBC, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is going to be reviewing Section 13(1) of the CHRA on Oct. 5 -- unfortunately, the day that I'm sending this article in for publication. I will share with you my thoughts on Monday's proceedings in my next article. Stay tuned.