I read with more than a little dismay that the federal privacy commissioner has dismissed a complaint that the Canadian Human Rights Commision hijacked a private citizen’s internet connection to post racist material on a white-supremacist website, citing “a lack of evidence”.

The evidence in question was not in doubt. It consists of sworn testimony in a hearing on March 25, 2008, by Alain Monfette of Bell Canada (pp. 5645-5646 of the transcript here).

Why would the privacy commissioner ignore such sworn testimony, and allow a federal agency to invade the privacy of a citizen of Canada, especially for the purpose of posting racist material on the internet?

In addition, the privacy commissioner has the gall to say, “This Office cautions individuals to take appropriate measures to properly secure their Internet connections to avoid any unauthorized uses of their personal information.”

This is like saying “Be careful to build a fence around your yard, lest the police drive across your lawn.”

Will the Conservative Party step up to preserve the rights of Canadians to not only the privacy of their own property, but to the rights of free speech and association that have been repeatedly violated by the federal and provincial “human rights” commissions?

Note that Warren Kinsella of recent infamy has long been a supporter of the “human rights” commissions. Birds of a feather…

As someone who grew up in a third-world dictatorship, it saddens me that those who have a duty to preserve the freedoms that make Canada and Canadian society a beacon for people from around the globe are failing that duty, and ignoring clear violations of the rights of ordinary citizens. I hope that you and the Conservative Party will be working to rectify the situation.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Sincerely,

– Gordon Tisher

Vigna [an employee of the CHRC who is under investigation by the Law Society of Upper Canada for disrupting a trial by claiming he was not in a serene state of mind] has been sending a private investigator to my parents’ house again and again, demanding to see me. My parents, who are far more polite than I am, keep telling Vigna’s hired tough guy that I don’t live there anymore. I did when I was a teenager. But that was in 1990.

The last time Vigna’s hired muscle came to my parents’ house, he refused to leave. My parents said he had a Bluetooth phone device in his ear, and seemed to be taking instructions from someone — Vigna himself? — who told him not to go until he had found me. In the end, Vigna’s enforcer must have lost his serenity, too, because he threw some papers down at my parents feet, and stormed off.

Classy.

More from the National Post and the Ottawa Citizen:

It is a show trial, under the arbitrary powers given to Canada’s obscene “human rights” commissions, by Section 13 of our Human Rights Act.

I wrote “obscene” advisedly. A respondent who comes before Canada’s “human rights” tribunals has none of the defences formerly guaranteed in common law. The truth is no defence, reasonable intention is no defence, nor material harmlessness, there are no rules of evidence, no precedents, nor case law of any kind. The commissars running the tribunals need have no legal training, exhibit none, and owe their appointments to networking among leftwing activists.

There’s lots of commentary on yesterday’s farcical proceedings: Ezra Levant as always, Jay Currie, the man himself has lots of links to media articles, including the National Post:

Mr. Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and a highly controversial figure himself — especially among Jewish groups — claims the Steyn excerpt denigrated and vilified Canadian Muslims and promoted hatred of an identifiable group.

He is not obliged to demonstrate what harm occurred to whom, or to what degree. Maclean’s magazine and Mr. Steyn could still be found to have violated B. C.’s Human Rights Code. No proof of damage is required.

…

“Strict rules of evidence do not apply” in cases before the Tribunal, noted its chairwoman, Heather MacNaughton.

Fire. Them. All.

A Muslim activist in Ontario was offended by this article, and filed complaints in the federal, Ontario and BC “Human Rights” tribunals.

The tribunal is run by a panel of bureaucrats, with no legal expertise whatsoever. There are no rules of evidence, or in fact ANY LEGAL REQUIREMENTS at all. The tribunal has sweeping powers to punish defendants without any process whatsoever. Complaintants’ court costs are paid by you, the taxpayer, and defendents must pay their own fees, even if aquitted. The federal tribunal has NEVER AQUITTED ANYONE. As Macleans’ lawyers have been pointing out all day, the law under which these tribunals take place is so utterly vague that it prohibits anything that does OR MIGHT AT SOME FUTURE TIME incite someone to act “hatefully”. And in fact it allows for NO DEFENSE WHATSOEVER. Period. If someone decides to file a complaint against you, and claims that something you did or said was or might some time in the future be considered hateful, you’re toast.

The BC tribunal has awarded thousands of dollars to a McDonald’s employee who was offended at being told to wash her hands. The Alberta tribunal fined a salon thousands because one employee called another a “loser”. The Ontario tribunal Employees of the federal tribunal have posted thousands of hateful messages on web sites in order to incite people into similar remarks, using stolen internet connections.

The intent of the commissions may have been benign when they were established, but they are now clearly a menace to freedom of speech and the rule of law.

Andrew Coyne was blogging throughout.

Read Ezra Levant‘s blog for lots of background. Update: the three un-elected and completely unaccountable imbeciles in charge of this kangaroo court.

If you live in Canada, you’re living in it.