This one has been a foregone conclusion ever since Marc Lemire pulled similar claims from his constitutional challenge a couple of months ago. If the man behind the criminal complaint didn't believe his own allegations, why should anyone else? Nevertheless, the decision has been a long time coming.
Furthermore, the charges were ridiculous in the first place. As I have argued repeatedly, at about 350 metres distance, Nelly Hechme's wifi network was out of range of CHRC computers. Nor would it have been necessary for the CHRC to hack her connection, as a wifi scan of the street in front of CHRC HQ shows any number of wireless access points within range.
Furthermore, as some excellent work by Bucket's demonstrated (well, I helped a little), the IP address that Stormfront owner Don Black and Marc Lemire handed over to the tribunal was originally used by CHRC investigator Dean Steacey to access Stormfront in September of 2006. Given the highly dynamic nature of Bell's wireless network, it is wildly unlikely that Streacey's computer should have been given the same IP address in December, when he accessed the site on a 2nd occasion.
I wrote at the time:
Hint One: Most likely nobody visited Stormfront from 70.48.181.203 on December 8, 2006. Not Steacy, not Hechme--nobody. Lemire's criminal complaint, which refs that IP number, will therefore come to nought.
Hint Two: Given the search tools employed by Stormfront, a thorough search of IPs related to Jadewarr should have returned more than a single address. And the address used by CHRC staff in December, 2006 is almost certainly sitting undiscovered in Stormfront records.
This is interesting in the light of this bit from Brean's National Post story:
...to investigate further would involve [the RCMP] going after technical data from a website based in the United States, stormfront.org, which they said is not possible.
Mark Lemire elaborates unhelpfully:
...the RCMP will not criminally charge the CHRC with theft of an innocent woman’s internet connection because the evidence leads to an American website, which is outside the jurisdiction of the RCMP.
Well, wait a minute, if Don Black handed over technical information to Lemire, why could he not do the same for the RCMP? It is quite possible that he in fact refused to hand over this information, and that he is hiding the presence of the 2nd address mentioned above in his records. In other words, the information turned over to the Tribunal and RCMP may have been intentionally left incomplete.
16 comments:
It is quite possible that he in fact refused to hand over this information...
That's my guess. These people are psychopaths, after all.
I've never been convinced that the information presented by Lemire has ever been accurate or verifiable.
Ezra used the words "morally grotesque." What a hoot.
Oh and some paranoid lunatic writes over at Ezra's blog:
There is a rather distinct smell of "fix" here.
I'd be interested in the details of the investigation.
And, hey, last time I looked the RCMP filed a report and the Crown decided if charges were warranted.
Nice to see the RCMP saving tax dollars and usurping the role of the Crown.
I think that "smell" is Jay Currie's bong water.
Oh its worse than that Catfur and Ezra also the dump on Farber accusing him basically of wanting to cover up this issue. All Farber said was that it would have been better had not the name of the woman (whose wifi was allegedly "stolen")not been revealed. And that's true becuase it became a privacy issue and even the privacy commisioner is looking into why Bell released the name. He never suggests a cover-up. But par for the course, Ezra and BCF lying that is.
Lemire was the guy spilled her name in the first place. It wasn't supposed to get beyond the tribunal room.
But par for the course, Ezra and BCF lying that is.
Aren't they the same person?
Two of us from the Western Standard talked about this months ago when the "computer hacking" claims first started flying.
I explained, on technical grounds, why the accusations were pretty silly. Buckets' very thorough analysis (which I think I found through your blog; thanks for that!) sealed the deal: BS from the start.
So I said: drop it. Don't even mention it. Even if Lemire were an upstanding citizen, it wouldn't matter, as the evidence just didn't support the accusations.
Now some other people are looking more than a tad ridiculous; and it serves them right.
But par for the course, Ezra and BCF lying that is.
Aren't they the same person?
LOL
Terence, good on you. Other than Brean from the NP, the MSM were pretty sloppy with this. I emailed one guy, maybe from the Chronicle Herald, and told him how iffy the complaints were, and he basically replied that, maybe, but they hadn't been disproven yet. So, like, he was going to milk them until that time.
Now some other people are looking more than a tad ridiculous; and it serves them right.
I don't why the speechies complicate their lives so unnecessarily. It's not helping them. The innuendo and smear inevitably morphs into libel and at that point, no one can defend them.
Ti-Guy bang on...I truly hope Farber sues the pants off BCF/Ezra together , seperately or as "one".
It is a real lesson in misanthropy to read blogs from the hard right most notably exemplified by Ezra Levant with his fellow travellers, five feet, catfurry and others who salivate at his every word and command.
It seems to me that the reason he gets away with this is that he is a bully. Sadly people are afraid of bullies. Even large organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress don't want to dirty their hands with the likes of a back-alley verbal thug like Levant.
And most people will know that CJC certainly has the wherewithall to take Ezra on. However I also suppose that Ezra would love them to do just that. He clearly has a fountain of money (do mommy and daddy fund his cause?)from which to draw so he doesn't at this point seem to fear monetary punishemnt.So all the CJC would do by launching a law suit would be to give Ezra more oxygen to allow his devilish tale to swing and his forked tongue to babble.
I praise folks like Warren Kinsella and Richard Warman for going ahead with their law suits. I know the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly but once daddy has to shell out $100,000.00+ perhaps he may take Ezra out to the woodshed and give him a good spanking.
I'm not sure if the CJC people read your blog but I would say to them that I admire their steadfastness in simply ignoring Levant. While they want to stay away from a fight I have to imagine that Farber, totally ignoring levant, (and to his credit he has never responded publically to this shlob) has to really, really bug ol' Ezra.
Ahh well, I will sit back and await the civil Courts. Warren or Richard pleasde let us know when and where the case will be heard. I know there are many of us who would gladly be there to watch and smile.
"I don't why the speechies complicate their lives so unnecessarily. It's not helping them. The innuendo and smear inevitably morphs into libel and at that point, no one can defend them."
Ti-Guy,
Agreed. I don't get it, either. However, there is a lot of anger (some justified, imho, and some not) toward the CHRC, Richard Warman, and anyone else connected with the commission.
That anger needs to be fit into a larger narrative with well-defined villains as targets. Otherwise, getting angry at the CHRC is kind of like getting angry with the woman at the counter of the DMV: satisfying short-term, pointless long-term.
But if you can manage to cobble together a conspiracy theory about the CHRC, the Mounties, Bell Canada, and the ghost of Che Guevara, you can keep the anger going all night long.
Must be nice to have a purpose. Still, I'd rather be sailing.
Terence, once the baloney has been cleared away (the wifi hacking, the Lucy posts, etc.) what is left to be justifiably angry about?
If you look at the hate that comes so easily to the speechies (as any cursory observation of any of their blogs and comment sections reveals), it's obvious (and has been known to me for a long time, because I've had to deal with people like this for most of my life) that these people don't make any distinctions between hate and anger, which are two very different things. These people are very angry about something (and it's different for each one, but quite often related to abusive upbringing, under-education, income insecurity and the reduced status of established power structures, most notably the patriarchy), but instead of understanding that, they settle on scapegoats to explain/justify their anger, which is what ends up being hate. Some of them are better able to conceal it, but it doesn't take much for it to come to the fore. Even the lately-rehabilitated Michael Coren still looks like he could start calling for the nuclear extermination of Iranians at any moment.
Since these issues are overwhelmingly psychological, there's nothing the rest of us can or should do about it. It's not our problem. However, if these people were cleared out of the discussion (and I accuse The Western Standard for continuing to fail in this respect), I think the rest of us (those in the reality-based world) could have more insightful, more nuanced discussions about a very complex issue, where everything...freedom of thought/conscience vs. expression, private vs. public expression, individual expression vs. public communtication or mass media and censorship vs. mediation...are hopelessly, and in the case of the smarter speechies, like Levant, Shaidle and Steyn, deliberately conflated and confused. At the very least, we'd understand when we've simply reached respectful disagreement and that the rest is simply a process for democracy and the rule of law.
By the way, I hate Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn because I know they are against human rights protection and equality before the law in toto and that this is a way for them to attack that at the margins. I don't really hate Kathy Shaidle all that much, since she is, obviously, just a narcissistic mediocrity on a lifelong campaign to compel the rest of us find her as fascinating as she knows she is.
Ti-Guy,
"However, if these people were cleared out of the discussion (and I accuse The Western Standard for continuing to fail in this respect)"
You mean the WS hasn't done an adequate clearing job? Fair enough.
BCL,
"once the baloney has been cleared away (the wifi hacking, the Lucy posts, etc.) what is left to be justifiably angry about"
I'm not sure. The thought that government bureaucrats (i.e. stupid people, at least from my perspective) get to determine what can and can't be said in Canada, what is likely to promote hatred, and what is not, fills me with a kind of fury sometimes.
If I thought Lori Andreachuk and others working for the various human rights commissions were a reasonable approximation of Plato's Guardians, it wouldn't bother me nearly so much.
I still think Section 13 and provincial equivalents are hopelessly vague. A vague law isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the people enforcing it are wise. So where do we find people like that?
Still, I'm not going to waste time getting angry at the people stuck enforcing what I see as a badly written law.
Caveat: there's an old post on my blog I wrote minutes after viewing Ezra's performance before the commission. It's pretty much packed full of incoherent fury. Even there, it's directed more at the people of Canada for letting something like that come to pass than anyone in particular.
I'm not sure. The thought that government bureaucrats (i.e. stupid people, at least from my perspective) get to determine what can and can't be said in Canada, what is likely to promote hatred, and what is not, fills me with a kind of fury sometimes.
That's just a consequence of affluence. People end up not having enough real problems to worry about.
I suggest going to work in the 3rd World.
Post a Comment