The Lynch List, 14-Jun-2010

Here’s a big one for you today:

First: I’d like to request that the Globe and Mail edits their headlines to be a little closer to reality. How about “Hate Crimes Reporting Up By One-Third“?

Note that this statistic measures reported crimes, not real crimes. We have no indication that the number of hate crimes has actually increased.

I don’t doubt for a minute that the apparent increase in hate crimes reporting is due in part to the Human Rights Commission’s stumping for complaints. The promotion of their “services” encourages people to become oversensitive victims with a chip on their shoulder. In addition, the Commissions have been twisting the ear of the police forces for some time, which must have an effect on how they approach the reporting of hate crimes.

Second: Remember the Tribunal decision against the Downtown Vancouver Business Development Association that was reversed in a real court? The Tribunal had slapped Director Charles Gauthier with a $2000 fine for daring to give an interview to the media, and the BC Supreme Court had reversed the ruling and awarded costs to Gauthier.

The Pivot Legal Society, always looking for another way to squander the DVBIA’s money, has decided to appeal the ruling. (More from Jesse Ferreras)

Third: Clearing up some of the confusion on the subject of absolute privilege, it’s something that appears to cut both ways at the Tribunal. Normally, absolute privilege protects a person making a legal submission from civil action (defamation) on anything stated therein.

The Tribunal has declared that submissions to it by applicants and respondents are subject to absolute privilege, i.e. either party can slag the other with malicious and untruthful statements during the proceedings of a complaint, and not be afraid of a defamation suit. So it does appear that a respondent has absolutely no recourse to frivolous and malicious complaints against him/her, especially considering that the Tribunal will not award costs. This is a free license for libel.

At the same time, various other documents, such as eviction notices, are also subject to absolute privilege against defamation. Since the Tribunal honors absolute privilege in its proceedings, it cannot accept these documents as evidence for any breach of the Code. So if you are going to slag someone on prohibited grounds, do it in the context of a legal document and you can’t be held liable.

Fourth: A joint letter from various First Nations groups (and KAIROS, but I digress) asserts that Canadians don’t have a right to govern themselves. International law takes precedence over silly concepts like “freedom” and “democracy”.

Fifth: Walker Morrow continues his ascending writing career at Enter Stage Right: “Speaking of Freedom

About these ads

4 Responses to The Lynch List, 14-Jun-2010

  1. Kevin says:

    There are definitely methodological flaws in any attempt to quantify the level of hate-motivated crime in the country. Among them:
    -potential under-reporting of crime by victims
    -potential that police do not recognize the presence of hatred as a motivating factor
    -potential that victims, or police, overstate the presence of hatred as a motivating factor
    -near-impossibility of assessing whether hatred was in fact a motivating factor.

    But I think it’s clear that there is some level of hate-motivated violence that targets minorities? In other words, that there are at least some instances of violence where the victim is targetted because of their sexual orientation or religion? And where the victim is not simply interpreting it as a hate crime because of an oversensitivity?

    If we agree on that, then doesn’t it make sense that we try to do what we can to understand that trend, even where the statistics are going to be full of problems? As a gay man, I would rather acknowledge the existence of the problem *and* the research flaws, and try to be constructive about finding solutions.

    I know one thing, the Harper government is determined to be “tough on crime” even where the evidence shows that crime is consistently on the decline and their methods aren’t particularly effective. So where there’s at least *some* indication of a rise in this type of crime, I would hope we actually take that seriously, rather than dismiss it out of hand.

  2. Kevin:

    I agree with you that crimes motivated by identity alone do exist, but I first disagree with your assumption that it’s always targeted at minorities.

    I also take issue with the elevation of these crimes above similar crimes with different motives, all of which are “hate” crimes in my opinion since they all disregard the humanity of the victim(s). A disproportionate effort to eradicate this type of crime removes resources from fighting other crimes, and may even constitute a violation of the principles behind the Rule of Law.

    I see the increasing trend in reported hate crime only as the product of an effort by the Human Rights system to justify their existence and an expansion of their powers – the primal motive of every bureaucracy. That would explain, for example, the OHRC’s campaign to have control over data-gathering in the OPP.

  3. […] THE LYNCH LIST– The Lynch List, 16-Jun-2010; The Lynch List, 14-Jun-2010 …. […]

  4. ON Human Wrong Code says:

    First of all, the Tribunal does award costs. I know they’ve released decisions (of no dubious nature of course), wherein it states it does not have the jurisdiction to award costs because it has not made rules under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to do so. Let me let you in on a little secret. The HRTO doesn’t award costs because since June 30, 2008, it hasn’t held a “hearing” in any of the hundreds, probably thousands of the decisions we know and love to see on CanLII.

    You see my friends, individuals can self litigate in the Tribunal now. This is exactly where Mr. McGuinty wants all the vulnerable, trusting, uninformed and uneducated people in Ontario…in one big space at the same time. Self-represented litigants, which represent about 95 percent of complainants that come through, can’t afford lawyers. Under the “old system”, the Commission had carriage of a complaint from investigation to legal representation, even appeals. That, as we have been told over and over, is apparently no longer the statutory responsibility of the Commission under the “new system”. So that’s door number slammed on the complainant who can’t afford a lawyer.

    Door number 2 slams almost as quick from the “Human Rights Legal Support Center” where they have an office at 400 University ave. This office was claimed to have been purchased as part of the 70 something million in taxpayer dollar funding that the government ministries and agencies all along had planned to steal and divide amongst themselves. 400 University avenue is not a new office, it is where the Tribunal used to hold and conduct hearings before June 30, 2008. In other words, it was already the HRTO’s office for about 8 or 9 years prior. There is no Legal Support Center. They asked for funding to hire 22 lawyers and paralegals for the center. Presently, it consists of Kathy Laird (Executive Director) and Kate Sellars. They have represented all of 2 or 3 complainants since June 2008. Yes this also a lesson on how the government misappropriates (defrauds or steals) taxpayer dollars. So that’s door number 2.

    Door number 3, legal very early on in the pitching of Bill 107 announced it would in no way partner with McGuinty government on providing aid for human rights proceedings.

    Finally, the last door number 4, would be the that the Law Society of Upper Canada are co-conspirators and are the communication medium between the corrupt Tribunal adjudicators and the corrupt lawyer for the respondent who is also getting his chunk of the pot from his client, and probably a little of the stolen taxpayer dollars. So even if a complainant managed to somehow get a lawyer after doors 1,2 and 3 have slammed shut, that lawyer will be secretly working to make sure your case never hits a hearing room, but more importantly, to make sure that the complainant has the illusion that he has had his hearing, unfair and unjust as he knows it was, as long as he believes there was a hearing, he won’t know what the hell to do about any of it. That, ladies and gents, is the essence of what the adjudicators, Commission, and the Law Society do for a living. Every one of the adjudicators are not judges or anything like that. They are the a bunch of the most highly skilled lawyers in the province that specialize in the area of the biggest most complex civil litigation that money can buy. They are trained in the art of complex strategic but quick plans to overwhelm and bombard their opponents with confusion, documents fabrication, forgery, invasion of privacy, and so on. They are the ruthless cut-throat big action lawyers that Donald Trump would hire if he was being sued for a billion dollars. It is nothing for them totally have their way with the vulnerable self-represented complainant who cannot even understand when the respondent counsel is insulting and attacking them. Once they have isolated, you have nowhere to go.

    Here’s something every person who has filed an “application” with the HRTO after June 30, 2008. The Form the HRTO says your complaint must be filed in. The first thing you probably notice is how unprofessional it looks. Well you’re right. It’s designed using Adobe Designer. Again, another way to steal more of the money. Part of the Ministry of the Attorney General’s plea for funding was the purchase of services to create new, user friendly forms. They budget it at $700,000 to have them professionally done, but really they buy a couple Adobe Designer programs, pay some kid $20 an hour to desgin forms, the whole thing costs no more than few thousand dollars. The remaining $670,000 goes you knopw where. Anyway, you would also notice on the form that there is a section that supposedly “asks” the applicant if it wishes to “Try Mediation”. You will also notice that there is a only one box to check off, and it says: “YES”, that means, if you don’t want mediation like every single complainant to ever walk through the HRTO doors, then you simply just do nothing. Normally, you see a box for “YES” and “NO”, but not so on the mediation question. Which brings me to my point about why the idiot who replied to my absolute privilege post says that the Tribunal “doesn’t order costs.”
    Very simple. Because you never had a hearing. You may think you did, but every stage the applicant thinks he went through was administrative or procedural. The decision comes out on CanLII like you had a hearing or you were given due process, but when the HRTO files it away to show the Legislature come review time June 30, 2011,your file will in the books likely as having been disposed of by way of ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, which mediation, settlement conference,proceeding that incidentally, like Mr. Pro-Absolute Privilege explains, are all proceedings in which discussions, documents, new allegations, admissions, statements are all….you guessed it…PRIVILEGED. Again, total isolation of the weak so they can have their way without anyone able to hear you scream. These people at the HRTO are no different than the likes of a pedophile, or a rapist. They will lure a vulnerable person in with promises of “access to justice”, and “expeditious resolution”, then when they get you in a room all alone, they violate you in a way that will affect who you are, what you believe, and your trust in in the justice system. Only in this case, the only focus is money, and lots of it. Mark my words. By this time next year or the one after, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario will no longer exist. All human rights matter will be dealt with by the courts. McGuinty, Bentley, the Commission and Tribunal all know that it’s on it;s way out, so why not steal everything off the shelves before they close up shop. Bye!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: