Photo: Marc Lemire walks to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Ottawa
Jeers and loathing at rights tribunal
By Joseph Brean, National Post
OTTAWA — Investigators at the Canadian Human Rights Commission share control of an online identity called Jadewarr, which they have used to anonymously monitor and contribute to controversial far-right and white supremacist Web sites, in a strategy that a prominent defendant calls entrapment.
The admission came in testimony Tuesday at the final day of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s hearing in the case of Marc Lemire, who is charged with violating the Human Rights Act’s controversial hate speech section because of comments posted on his FreedomSite.
Legally, the admission by CHRC investigator Dean Steacy, and the subsequent cross-examination by Mr. Lemire’s lawyers, was the most significant part of the day, in that it bolstered Mr. Lemire’s case that he should not be held accountable for what others post on his site, especially if those others are government employees.
But as a microcosm of Canada’s beleagured human rights bureacracy, there was much more to take note of, and no shortage of dark humour. (…Canadian Media Article)
Marc Lemire’s Liveblog Entries
Paul Fromm & Marc Lemire Comment
OTTAWA, March 25, 2008. In explosive testimony today before a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal investigating a complaint by perpetual Canadian Human Rights Internet complaint filer Richard Warman, CHRC investigator Dean Steacy admitted to a wide ranging spy operation conducted by himself against dissident websites. His Internet snooping involved setting up multiple accounts and false identities on such websites as Stormfront and the Freedomsite:
March 25 – Morning Session. BELL CANADA
OTTAWA, March 25, 2008.
“The first witness I’ll be calling is Mr. Alain Monfette of Bell Canada,” victim Marc Lemire’s lawyer Barbara Kulaszka led off this morning’s hearing. She asked Mr. Monfette, the Director of Law Enforcement co-ordination for Bell’s security. He had been asked for the registration information of IP 70.48.181.203
“I am not able to disclose this information about our customer. It is confidential if we are to disclose the name and address of our customer, without a Court order,” he answered. The Tribunal member of judge Athanaasios Hadjis then ordered the disclosure of this information.
The user was identified with phone number 613-236-**** registered to Nelly ******* located at 570 ******* W. The account was connected from Dec. 7, 2006 to December 2006.
Next Miss Kulaszka recalled former Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator Hannya Rizk, some of whose answers had been cut short by Giacomo Vigna’s invoking of the seldom used Sec. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, which is used to prevent the divulging of information that might endanger the safety of a person or national security. Mr. Lemire challenged this effort to hide information in Federal Court in January 15, 2008. On the eve of the hearings, the Commission folded and provided almost all of this information. Now the Marc Lemire defence team wanted to get these answers formally on the record under oath.
Posted by Marc Lemire at 9:58 AM
———-
HANNYA RIZK
A quick Google search revealed that 570 Laurier Avenue, West is a pricey Ottawa condo in the $60,000 range with monthly condo fees of $660.
After a short break Paul Fromm, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, an interested party or intervenor supporting Mr. Lemire in this case rose and noted: “For the 20th straight day the complainant Mr. Warman is not in attendance.”
“What investigation would you do to identify the identity of a responedent in Sec. 13 cases?” asked Miss Kulaszka.
“WHOIS and virtual identity search,” Miss Rizk replied.
“Were these the two research methods Mr. Warman taught you?” Miss Kulaszka asked.
“Yes,” Miss Rizk replied.
“Was he the only one who taught you?”
“Yes, he and a colleague Nancy Lalonde,” Rizk responded.
Miss Rizk indicated that she had received this training in the fall of 2003, incidentally when her then colleague Mr. Warman filed his complaint against respondent/victim Mr. Lemire.
Miss Rizk indicated that this were “her first full Sec. 13 investigation.”
“Do you remember how you checked about the ‘Immigrant Poem’?” She sadi she’d gone on Stormfront.org and did not find it.
The fur began to fly when Mr. Christie, rose on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League, to ask whether Mr. Warman ever told her that he and others sometimes post on sites like Stormfront.
Miss Margot Blight on behalf of the Commission repeatedly objected that the questions could only be those asked the last time and objected to under Sec. 37.
“This is a relevant question as to investigative techniques which we were not allowed to ask last time,” Mr. Christie insisted.
“We have evidence that the complainant Mr. Warman coached Miss Rizk, the investigator in this case,” Mr. Christie argued. “We know the Mr. Warman, police and others posted on sites like Stormfront.”
She said Mr. Warman had not told her that he had posted on Stormfront.org She also indicated that she had not sought to indentify any of the people posting on Stromfront..
Posted by Marc Lemire at 10:40 AM
———-
DEAN STEACY – 007
“Mr. Steacy’s assistant is not here today,” said Margot Blight, referring to the Oriental woman who had led him in and assisted him at the last hearing..
Before the examination could continue, Margot Blight, the Commission’s lawyer, complained that the defence was seeking to introduce new evidence on the Anne Cools issue. Mr. lemire has charged that Richard Warman posted a scurrilous attack on the Black Canadian senator under one of his numerous assumed identities.
“Do Commission employees sign up accounts on Stromfront under pseudonyms such as ‘jadewarr.,?’ asked Miss Kulaszka.
“Yes,” Steacy admitted. “It a short form for ‘Jade Warrior’ from a novel I read as a teenager.”
“Why did you do this?” she asked.
“So that I could get on to sites I was investigating.”
“My understanding is that you can’t get everything unless you’ve signed up.”
“Did you private message people?” she asked
“I don’t recall,” he said,
“How many posts did you make,” she asked.
“I don’t remember,” he stated..
“Do you know who Nelly Hachne is?” Miss Kulaszka asked in regard to the owner of the address to which the IP of the “Jadewarr” post was registered.
“I have no idea who that is,” Steacy insisted.
“When did you join Stormfront, when did you become a member?
“I don’t remember the exact date.”
“Would you agree it was February, 2005” she pursued.
“Why did you join?”
“Because I was doing an investigation,” he replied.
Miss Kulaszka took him to a Stormfront thread begun my Mr. Lemire about a complaint initiated before the Commission about officer Stephen Camp of the Edmonton Police Service. Lemire also pointed out that the CHRC had refused to accept a complaint about racist jokes posted by some RCMP officers about Indians. Lemire pointed out that the CHRC’s preferred targets were “white working class” dissidents
“My complaint about police postings was returned by investigator Dean Steacy because it was two-sided, even though it was FAXed,” Mr. Lemire had posted.”
Mr. Steacy admitted he had been an investigator of Mr. Lemire’s complaint about the RCMP and Peel Regional Police.
“You replied as the ‘anti-hate advisor’ of the CHRC to Mr. Lemire that the criteria had not been met.”
Then, Miss Kulaszka asked why Mr. Steacy would ask on Stormfront as “Jadewarr” why he would. ask Mr. Lemire why he was complaining against the RCMP. “Why not just ask him yourself?” she continued.
That past was in September, but you’d rejected his complaint in May, she countered.
“You were one of the investigators who recommended that complaints by [rightists]
Alexan Kulbashian and Andrew Guille be rejected.”
“Yes,,” Steacy admitted.
“You were trying to find out whether Mr. Lemire’s complaint was being made to be vexatious.” Miss Kulaszka asked.
“I guess so,” he admitted.
“Why would you post this as you’d already told him the complaint did not fall within the Act?” Miss Kulaszka continued
Miss Kulaszka asked whether, had Mr. Lemire answered Mr.Steacy’s post, and denounced favouritism from Rcihard Warman, that this might be “retaliation” under the Act.
Steacy refused to answer a hypothetical complaint.
Mr. Steacy claimed not to know how much money Mr. Warman had made from his complaints and complaints of retaliation.
“Who helped you set up this account ass ‘jadewarr’?” Miss Kulaszka asked.
“My assistant,” he explained..
Steacy admitted telling other investigators including Sandy Kozak of his Internet spying,
He also admitted to signing up as “jadewarr” on the Freedomsite and as Oldenrevenge ([email protected] on Stormfront
Although he was not the investigator of the Freedomsite complaint, he signed up with an account on the Freedomsite. Steacy had been an investigator of the case for just a couple of months.
“Why would you sign up whn you could view the site as just a guest?” Miss Kulaszka asked.
“Did you post on the freedomsite?” she asked.
Mr. Steacy could not recall, nor could he recall whether he had told Richard Warman about his spying.
He admitted to signing up on BCWhitepride, freedominion, Recomnetwork and VNN..He had signed up as “jadewarr” on all and to having posted on BCWhitepride.
“I had interaction with two individuals who seemed to be behind BCWhitepride tying to find out their mailing address.”
Dean Steacy indicated thathis manager John Chamberlain at the Commission knew of his spying. He stated that he had come up with the idea of such spying.
While he stated that he had never discussed his spyhing with Richard Warman, Mr. Warman was aware that “jadewarr” was him.
Apparently, other investigators knew of the “jadewarr” membership and e-mail address. Everyone who knew of the account, knew what the password was – my assistant, Sandy Kozak and John Chamberlain.”..
The reports of what we’re doing is contained in the investigation files.
Miss Kulaszka asked whether Mr. Warman knew the password. In a cagey answer, Mr. Steacy said he didn’t know but coujldn’t be certain that he might have.
Posted by Marc Lemire at 1:07 PM
———-
STEACY CONTINUED AFTER LUNCH
Mr. Steacy admitted that he had previously testified that monitoring of website was “complaint driven.”
He began to stumble when questioned about his spying on the conservative website called freedomnion.ca. He joined as “jadewarr” on April 5, 2006. “Was there a complaint when you joined?” Miss Kulaszka asked.
He said there was a complaint from one Marie-Line Gentes, which has since been withdrawn. However, Miss Kulaszka pointed out that her complaint was not filed with the Commission until September 29, 2006.
“Were you investigating at this point?” Miss Kulaszka asked.
“No,” said Steacy. However, headed, “I did some initial work at the intake stage,” he tried to explain, indicating that there might have been an informal letter or phone call. Interestingly, at the “intake” stage of Marc Lemire’s complaint about the RCMP, where the complaint was rejected merely because it had allegedly been sent on two-sided paper. Miss Kulaszka pointed out that the posting by a Mr. Whatcott of Saskatchewan which Miss Gentes would subsequently complain about was not posted until two weeks after Dean Steacy signed up
He couldn’t recall the last time he was on freedominion. Barbara Kulaszka then confronted him with evidence that he had visited the site on January 18, 2008. He went on the website, he said, because he’d been informed by someone, who he couldn’t recall, that his spying had been discovered and mentioned on freedominion.
Miss Kulaszka reminded him that, in a report urging the Commission to not accept Chris Guille’s complained about CAERS website Recommnet for being vexatious and that a Stromfront poster named “Fenrisson” advice that dissidents file complaints with the CHRC was “well known in neo-Nazi circles.”
Apparently, an unnamed legal representative from CAERS had brought the name Fenrisson to his attention,
The same allegation that Fenrisson had posted information urging people to make complaints to the CHRC was passed on to investigator Sandy Kozak and was used to dismiss a complaint against Mr. Warman.
Mr.. Steacy stated he began to investigate who Fenrisson was: “I interacted with him. I can’t remember if it was a PM.”
“You thought it might be one of the respondents from CAERS,” Miss Kulaszka queried.
“No, I thought it was one of the complainants, but I testified last Spring it was one of the respondents. I meant Mr. Kulbashian, or Mr. Guille or Mr. Lemire or Mr. Fromm.” Mr. Fromm has never, in fact, filed a Sec. 13.1 complaint.
Citing “privacy issues, when Mr. Steacy was asked about other people contemplating complaints against freedominion.ca, he said: I refuse to answer. If I could remember their names, I wouldn’t tell you.
The defence team learned that there are no CHRC guidelines as to the sort of material investigators may post in their spying activities.
Miss Kulaszka asked whether anyone at the Commission had done a study of whether people had been entrapped by posts they’d make or other investigators or complainants like Mr. Warman had made. Mr. Steacy said he wasn’t aware of any.
“Given the fact that nobody knows who anybody is, it could well be someone complaining against themselves,” Miss Kulaszka joked when referred to he case of Warman (Richard) v. Warman (Eldon). In this case, Richard Warman had used the pseudonym marydufford. [Warman is fond of impersonating women on line, as is communist Shane Ruttle Martinez, another Commission witness..)
Mr. Steacy, although he’d investigated the Warman v Glenn Bahr case, said he was not aware that Sgt. Stephen Camp, was estate. Interestingly, at that hearing, Warman objected to Mr. Fromm’s question whether officer camp was “Estate”, “on the ground that that goes to the issue of the police investigative techniques.
Mr. Fromm had then objected; “Excuse me, How is Mr. Warman privy to police investigation techniques.”
Mr. Steacy’s testimony pointed to the chummy relationship between the Commission and some police force hate squads.” For instance, the London “hate squad” had obtained a warrant seized James Scott Richardson’s hard drive. Sgt. Terry Wilson turned over a copy of the computer hard drive to Mr. Steacy on his request.
Posted by Marc Lemire at 3:42 PM
———-
STEACY CROSS-EXAMINATION Ending of Kulaszka and CHRISTIE
Under persistent questioning from Barbara Kulaszka, Dean Steacy admitted that, under the legislation, there is no exemption for investigators postiing “hate” on the Internet.
Margot Blight cut into Doug Christie’s time, repeating no less than three times, “as I recall” during a windy objection to his request that redacted documents from Harvey Goldberg’s correspondence be revealed.
“On behalf of this witness, Ms Blight said there was no formal relationship between the CHRC and police departments,” but this document reads: “The Commission has signed an MOU with the RCMP.” This was from January, 2006.
Steacy answered that the MOU dealt with other matters at the Commission. “We don’t have an MOU with the RCMP involving Sec. 13.1. It has nothing to do with Sec. 131. It deals with prevention.” Mr. Christie then confronted Mr. Steacy with an April 18 memo to Harvey Goldenberg from a blacked out name: “CHRC officers in charge of investigating hate message complaints have outlined a few issues that might be the subject of potential working group’s activities [including] improving access to the provincial and municipal-level information; obtaining more direct access to CPIC and/or improving efficiency and speed in sharing information.”
Mr. Steacy admitted he’s taken a course in “investigating hate-related cases.”
In another heavily blacked out document from May, 2006 Harvey Goldberg suggests a blacked out name from the Canadian Jewish Congress who might be able to provide expert testimony in a Sec. 319 case about “hate” on a website .
“Is it the case that the Commission sits down with representatives of the police forces of London, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and the OPP, CSIS the Department of Justice to discuss Sec. 13.1″ does this not trouble you,” Mr. Christie demanded.
“No, it doesn’t,” Mr. Steacy responded.
“If there are a number of people using pseudonyms and you don’t know who they are, but the website is controlled by a Canadian, does this not concern you?” Mr. Christie asked.
“Do you have any central registry of pseudonyms” of investigators, Mr. Christie and was told no.
Mr. Steacy said there was no such provision.
“So, it’s possible,” Mr. Christie continued, “that you could prosecute someone for running a site where someone under a pseudonym was posting hate.”
“I guess,” Mr. Steacy agreed.
“I understand what you’ve done is use the services of London Police Department to gain access to the encrypted hard drive of Mr. Scott Richardson’s hard drive. You didn’t have a search warrant for that.”
Mr. Steacy had to agree.
“Did you ask Const.. Wilson if he informed the Justice of the Peace when he obtained the search warrant that he would distribute this information to other bodies?” Mr.. Christie continued.
Mr. Steacy had to agree that he had not.
Only four people have the password to “Jadewarr.” Mr. Steacy said he had different assistants in December, 2006 who would have had the password to “Jadewarr”. The assistant was posting at 3:00 in the morning..
Asked by Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression how, as a person blind since 2004, he could do his job in what is essentially a visual medium. Mr. Fromm was immediately attacked by Commission lawyer Margot Blight for attacking the witness.
“Not so said Mr. Fromm, it’s a perfectly valid question: How does he do his job?” Comments were made about “special accommodations for Mr, Steacy.”
It turns our from Mr. Steacy’s testimony that he relies on screen reach software which tells him what symbols are. He prints off pages and his assistant reads them to him and, where there’s a question about a symbol, the assistant is referred to a compendium Mr. Stacey prepared.
Posted by Marc Lemire at 5:54 PM — The FreedomSite Blog
Help support Marc Lemire’s vital work at FreedomSite.org
Help support Paul Fromm’s vital work at PaulFromm.com
Related:
Maclean’s Reporter Kady O’Malley’s Liveblog
Warman v. Lemire – and the human right to liveblog
Warman v. Lemire – and the human right to liveblog (Part 2)
Warman v. Lemire – and the human right to liveblog (Part 3)
