Bucket's (pictured left) revs up his extraordinary brain to take a crack at the alleged "hack" of Nelly Hechme's home wifi network by CHRC operatives. That Dean Steacey and other CHRC employees commandeered the wifi network of an Ottawa citizen in order to visit Stormfront (a Neo-Nazi bulletin board) is an allegation made by noted white supremacist (and now Free Speech Hero) Marc Lemire.I won't go into details in this space, because Bucket's first three posts ( here, and here, and here) provide an extensive background to this thrilling episode, with conclusions to follow.
But... something to consider: Bell IP addresses (like 70.48.181.203, the one Nelly Hechme possessed in December of 2006) are assigned dynamically, belonging to different owners at different times.
15 comments:
It's quite sad really when the CHRC can manage to make Mark Lemire the sympathetic figure in all of this.
I don't find him sympathetic. Do you?
Hardly BCL, but even a Nazi deserves the bare minimum from the Canadian legal system. The real shame is HRCs denying proper legal protection to decent Canadians.
The real shame has been Lemire pushing false information on a couple of dopey bloggers who are now getting their balls sued off. And there could be a phase II when the RCMP investigation winds up.
Hardly BCL, but even a Nazi deserves the bare minimum from the Canadian legal system.
How is he not getting it?
Remember, it's the Canadian Legal System. Not the one you make up when you play Bergen Belsen with your dollies.
What a moron.
I have no sympathy for dopey bloggers but watching HRCs orchestrate these three ring circuses is something significantly less then confidence inspiring BCL.
No Canadian should be denied their full legal rights simply because a HRC is conducting a hearing.
No Canadian should be denied their full legal rights simply because a HRC is conducting a hearing.
Who is being denied their full legal rights and how are they being denied them?
Who ti-guy? Anyone who is forced to suffer the indignities of a HRC, that's who.
Standard rules of evidence do not apply and the truth may well not be a defence.
Wanna try your luck under those kind of "rules"?
How would "the truth not being a defence" be relevant to a case involving Lemire? The origonal complaints against him, if I remember correctly, involved statements on his web forum that were anti-semitic AND false.
Who ti-guy? Anyone who is forced to suffer the indignities of a HRC, that's who.
What indignities?
Standard rules of evidence do not apply and the truth may well not be a defence.
What standard rules of evidence?
What standards do apply to quasi-judicial bodies?
How is truth not a defence?
What's wrong BCL, was my point just a little too accurate? Or is truth not a defense in you marsupial world, either? At least YOU know how much of a fucking hypocrite you and your liberal friends are.
BCL, I'm commenting on HRCs in general and not Lemire's case specifically; I should have been more specific. Still, my misgivings about HRCs remain.
"What standards do apply to quasi-judicial bodies?"
"How is truth not a defence?" ti-guy
My points exactly ti-guy. I couldn't agree more.
My points exactly ti-guy. I couldn't agree more.
Can't answer the questions, can you?
Admit it; you don't know what you're talking about. Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you can invent any fantasy about what does or does not apply to or is involved in its administration.
All tribunals of quasi-judicial bodies are subject to the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice.
All you speechies are irremediable fabulists at heart. You live in a fantasy world about what your (and anyone else's) rights and freedoms mean.
I'm sure you're all the type of people who lie to a cop and insist you had no idea you were driving so fast or couldn't possibly have been driving so fast when you're stopped for speeding. You think the law is simply an issue of whatever fantasy you can get yourself to believe.
Again, just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you have any point worth taking seriously.
Oh lighten up ti-guy.
I don't like HRCs not because I don't like the law. I don't like HRCs because too often they play fast and loose with the law and because long established human rights are too easily trampled by HRCs.
I am for human rights and I don't trust HRCs to properly protect them.
Post a Comment