L'Ombre de l'Olivier

The Shadow of the Olive Tree

being the maunderings of an Englishman on the Côte d'Azur

21 October 2008 Blog Home : October 2008 : Permalink

Richard Warman is a Delicate Sensitive Flower

So are Dean Steacy and Sandy Kozak. All three of these poor defenceless creatures are (or were) "employed" by the Canadian Human Rights Commission as investigators. Now you might think that an investigator of human rights would be some sort of principled campaigner for justice who would put other people's human rights before the dangers of seeing their own reputations sullied. Similar perhaps to the kind of thick-skinned hard-boiled detectives we see on TV who work tirelessly to bring the guilty to justice no matter the effect on their own career or family life. But if you did think that you'd apparently be wrong.

Little Dickie Defenseperoffspring* and his fellow instigators vestigators of human rights violations are believed by their colleague (and boss?) Ms Natalie Dagenais to be quite sensitive to being thought of as anything other than veritable paragons of virtue. Thus in her passing on of evidence to the noble and wise commisioners, she decided to censor certain sections of one of the documents in question lest the commissioners be forced to read a number of smears on their no doubt otherwise pristine reputations. The BNattie one excuses this because the "personal information [...] is not relevant to this complaint".

Of course perhaps I'm doing the BNattie one, little Dickie and his partners in crime human rights violation instigating investigating a disservice. Maybe it is not that the instigators vestigators are so senstive but that the commissioners suffer from short attention spans and Ms Dagenerateais is purposely ensuring that the commissioners remain focussed on the investigation in question. Of course in that case it is to be hoped that she has also forbidden the commsioners to access the internet unsupervised because if they do they might discover not only what text has been blacked out - the original is here - but also learn that the accusations are based on verified fact.

Just to make it easy for the commissioners, if they manage to google Ezra Levant, Natalie Dagenais and Rob Wells, then  they should either find this post or the one linked above. If they find the one above then the original submission with all the censored bits is readily available, but I hope they come here because I have helpfully highlighted in yellow below the bits that were highlighted in black by the censor.

That’s hypocrisy, but it’s not surprising coming from an organization so sick that its staff perpetrate racist slurs through their own vile posts on the Internet. It is now public knowledge that staff at the CHRC, like Dean Steacy and Richard Warman, joined neo-Nazi groups and surfed the net in full racist drag. The fact that everyone from the Chief Commissioner on down hasn’t been fired for this scandal is amazing to me.


One of the tenets of Canadian law – a real human right, not one of your counterfeit human rights such as the “right not to be offended” – is equal justice under law. That means that rich or poor, powerful or powerless, everybody is treated the same way before the law. It’s a legal tradition that dates all the way back to the Magna Carta signed by King John. I know he’s a dead white man, and Christian to boot, so the CHRC would regard him as the enemy. But Canada still follows those rules.

But not over at the CHRC. Your own staff commits heinous acts of online bigotry, publishing the worst filth imaginable. Richard Warman – your former staffer, currently your most active complainant, and the CHRC’s star witness whose expenses are paid for with tax dollars to this day – went online to write that gays are “sexual deviants” who are a “cancer” in society. He called for the creation of an Apartheid city in Canada to be called “Whiteville”. He called federal cabinet ministers, such as former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, “scum” because they’re Jewish. He made literally hundreds of similar posts. Yet every complaint to the CHRC about Warman’s own hatemongering has been rejected.

The Commission is rotten to the core. And you and your commissioners don’t give a damn about it. The CHRC even hired a crooked cop, Sandy Kozak, who was drummed out of a police force for corruption. She was too dirty for them, but just right for you. That’s the standard of ethics at the CHRC.

Incorrect law

My contempt for the CHRC and its political masters is deep. The thought that your crooked ex-cop colleague, Sandy Kozak, was the investigator examining the saintly Fr. de Valk, is a grotesque moral inversion.

Some other thoughts. The basic problem here, as Mr Levant makes very clear, is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission seems to be a bully. Moreover it combines the usual combination of bullying with cowardice and adds the bureaucrats dislike for negative publicity to the mix. When it, or its provincial counterparts, are challenged by someone who has money and an ability to get attention from the news media it scuttles away as fast as it can like a cockroach being disturbed while foraging in the kitchen. On the other hand when it has someone with little or no resources and no way to make news it goes ahead and forces the individual to submit to its authority.

What is also odd is that the CHRC complaints (or at least the ones that are investigated) only concern the rights of non-white heterosexual non-christians. It occurs to me that this apparent bias is in itself a human rights violation so I wonder if someone will file a human rights complaint against the CHRC itself?

Finally it is unclear to me when the "right not to be offended" came into being and why it only applies to non-white heterosexual non-christians. One wonders whether the CHRC would like to investigate, say, gay anti-catholic protestors such as a certain Rob Wells for offending catholics.

*Note that Warman is a highly troublesome name that could cause offense to certain classes of readers. War refers to a hateful activity that is only waged by fascist tyrants these days. Liberal democratic societies have defense forces hence I have taken the liberty of replacing "war" with "defense". Likewise "man" is clearly sexist and hence should be replaced by "person". Unfortunately "person" is itself discriminatory against daughters and must therefore be rendered peroffspring. The author is surprised that Mr Defenseperoffspring has not done the decent thing and had his name changed to something less likely to cause offense to feminists, peace-campaigners and other like-minded groups.