Previously “non-existant” tribunal transcripts magically appear, and are secretly handed over — not to the defendants or their lawyers — but to a reporter.
Huh?
While the respondent has to hand-transcribe the audio recording of that hearing — or pay out of his own pocket for someone to do so — the CHRC has a transcribed version. But they don’t turn it over. They try to use it as a PR weapon. (Good luck with that.)
If you’re having trouble grasping the corruption and abuse of process here, imagine a criminal matter. An accused criminal — let’s make it murder — is on trial. He alleges that he’s been framed by the police. On that one day, the court reporter is given the day off — the one day where police tactics are scrutinized and shown to be corrupt.
The police make a transcript, but don’t give it to the accused — who is thereby impaired in his ability to mount a defence. His ability to file an appeal if he’s convicted — by pointing out police corruption — is undermined. The police don’t given him a copy — but they give it to reporters, on the sly, while they trash talk the accused.
Any criminal prosecutor would be disciplined for such unethical practices; the case itself would be jeopardized because the fairness of the trial would be in question. It’s not about whether the accused is guilty or not; it’s bigger than that; it’s about whether or not we, as a society, believe that justice should be done and should be seen to be done. It’s about whether or not the prosecution has the necessary standards of morality that should come with their awesome powers. It’s not even for the accused murderer that we have these rules. It’s for ourselves.
It’s about whether we believe that, in Canadian justice, the ends justify the means.
It’s about whether or not we can trust the people who have been given such police powers, and who want more.
In the case of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the answer is no. We can’t trust them.
Join the discussion of this breaking development at Kate’s.
Sample:
That’s $343 that each party should pay for a transcript? That’s on top of the cost to transcribe it in the first place. Every time, $343, to cover the cost for someone to stick into a photocopy machine.
Meanwhile the Tribunal is sitting on their own copy, paid by taxpayers, but won’t provide a copy to the parties, but does have a copy for the media. At taxpayer expense.
What kind of racket is this?
