Open letter to Russ Hiebert about the CHRC, Dean Steacy, and wifi hacking allegations

Dear Mr. Hiebert,

In a recent letter to the National Post you wrote the following.

Further, uncontradicted expert evidence presented before the hearing demonstrated that investigator Steacy illegitimately used an unsuspecting private citizen's wireless Internet service to post his offensive comments.

This contains several mistakes.

You are referring to the allegation that on Dec. 8, 2006, Dean Steacy logged into Stormfront using the IP 70.48.181.203.

The "expert evidence" to which you refer is that of a Bell technician who testified on March 25, 2008. If you had bothered to read the transcripts of that testimony, you would know that he did not testify that Steacy had used "a private citizen's wireless internet service to post his offensive comments". Rather, he merely identified the Bell customer who had control of the IP 70.48.181.203 on Dec. 8. He said nothing about that person's wireless, nor about any posts made by anyone anywhere. That is all the supposition, speculation, and conspiratorial fantasy accumulated at extremist blogs and discussion sites in the weeks following that hearing.

Nor, in fact, did Steacy post any comments at all on Dec. 8, as you say, much less offensive ones. Steacy's pseudonym, jadewarr, has only ever made one comment at Stormfront, on Sept. 15, 2006. (It's not offensive, by the way.) Steacey posted nothing on Dec. 8; he merely logged in on that date.

This gets to the central problem with the allegation. The software used for the Stormfront bulletin board records IPs for posts, but not log-ins. A Stormfront moderator, however, has publicly attributed the IP 70.48.181.203 to jadewarr for a different date.

So you can see, although you are correct to say that the "expert evidence" of the Bell technician is uncontradicted, the allegation of wifi-hacking has been investigated by the privacy commissioner and dismissed as likely the result of "a mismatch on the part of a third party".

So in a single sentence above you have made at least three factual errors: the expert testimony said nothing about anyone's wireless; Steacy did not post any comments on the day in question; and the whole allegation has been contradicted by the privacy commissioner.

Everyone, of course, makes mistakes. You, however, are offering this error-filled sentence -- and these are not your only errors -- to rebut claims that you had been misinformed. Did you actually read any of this material?

All of this, however, raises an even more problematic aspect of your recent performance. You chair the Parliamentary Subcommittee for International Human Rights (SIHR), which is a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE). As Chair you have held hearings on Canadian Human Rights Commission. Why is it that your committee is delving into the CHRC at all? To compare how Human Rights is handled in Canada as opposed to other states? Or was the point to provide a platform whereby defamatory allegations could be made in privileged circumstances?

Sincerely,

Buckets

cc: ReidS@parl.gc.ca, SilvaM@parl.gc.ca, ThilaE@parl.gc.ca, SweetD@parl.gc.ca, HiebeR@parl.gc.ca, MarstW@parl.gc.ca, CotleI@parl.gc.ca

Other posts relevant to this controversy:

• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 1: background
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 2: someone else notices Jadewarr
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 3: when exactly did Steacy/jadewarr have 70.48.181.203?
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 4: theoretical possibilities
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 5: Lemire's motion for jadewarr's IP
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 6: what did Lemire ask Black about jadewarr?
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 7: the right IP on the wrong date
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 8: the technician's testimony
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 9: Black affidavit
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 10: the software records posts not log-ins
• CHRC cleared of wifi hacking allegation: I told you so
• An open letter to Senator Anne Cools about 90sAREover and the Richard Warman allegation

Two cases in point

Human Rights expert Richard Moon testified to a committee of the Ontario Legislature today. You can see more of Moon's testimony preliminary transcript at Kinsella:

There are a number of right-wing critics in Canada who, instead of offering serious and plausible criticism of the Human Rights Code regulations, engage in baseless personal attacks. Without compunction, they accuse the civil servants who are mandated to implement human rights legislation of corruption. They use the term “corruption” freely and very loosely, but always in a way that suggests a significant breach of public trust. The accusations have no substance; they are pieced together out of nothing. But what they achieve, what the commentators want them to achieve, is a general sense that there is a serious problem, even if the specifics of the problem are unknown.

Just what might Prof. Moon mean by "the accusations have no substance; they are pieced together out of nothing"? Two examples come to mind.

One of them was to accuse human rights activist Richard Warman of a nasty racist denunciation of Senator Anne Cools on a racist board in 2003, an accusation that was mindlessly repeated by many conservative bloggers. The problem? It was based on a tissue of half-truths, innuendos, and misunderstandings, as I have shown here and here and here and here, and Warman is suing for defamation.

Or, who can forget the crazy allegation that CHRC employee Dean Steacy had hacked the wifi of an Ottawa woman? Both the RCMP and the privacy commissioner investigated, but both quickly dropped the matter. Why? Because there was no clear evidence that any hacking had taken place (here and here).

My experience of investigating these allegations is that underlying them is a seemingly endless string of exaggerations or half-truths or outright lies.

As Prof. Moon testifies:

Over the last few years, these commentators have made a series of baseless accusations against the members and staff or the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and these claims have leaked into the mainstream media, into the National Post, and into the columns of the Globe and Mail. Believe none of it. As I said at the outset, there are some serious questions to be addressed, but I have come to the conclusion that certain individuals who have played a large role in the campaign against human rights laws and human rights commissions, particularly in the context of hate speech, have no interest in serious debate or in the truth.

And that, as we say, is that.

May 10, 2007: Dean Steacy's CHRT testimony

Below is a section of the transcripts from Dean Steacy's testimony from May 10, 2007 (Warman v. Lemire, T1073/5405, vol. 21, pp. 4792).

(This post has been back-dated to the date of the testimony for archival purposes.)

MS KULASZKA:	Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?	p. 4792, line 24
MR. STEACY:	Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.	4
MS KULASZKA:	Okay. That was a clear answer.	6
MR. STEACY:	It's not my job to give value to an American concept.	8
MS KULASZKA:	I will give you an example. The AOL complaints you spoke about earlier and you said that they dealt with postings about the same-sex marriage debate. Is that right?	10
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	15
MS KULASZKA:	Did you give any kind of consideration to the fact that people were participating in a political debate at the time?	16
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	19
MS KULASZKA:	How did you do so?	20
MR. STEACY:	In evaluating the information or the postings that were given by the posters, what was looked at were the arguments that were being made by the complainant and/or the respondent, and basically the positions of the parties. In one case, one of the respondents put the issue forward of freedom of expression. That was part of his defence, and what he had posted was what he had posted. That information was provided to the complainant for his comment, and, again, based on the facts raised or the information provided by both parties, that is what was presented in the investigation report. I didn't make a value judgment as to whether or not the complainant or the respondent -- that the positions they were taking were right or wrong, I presented both parties' positions. My job is not to evaluate the intent or the reasons why the individual posted what he posted, or evaluate the reasons why the complainant is complaining. He has made an allegation and my job is to investigate whether it happened and, based on the pertinent facts, I come up with a recommendation, and that recommendation is presented to the Commission and the Commission makes the decision to deal with it or not to deal with it, and it recommends what it is allowed to recommend.	p. 4793, line 21
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account, for instance, in that case, that there is a political debate, it is very heated, and that people might get emotional about it?	p. 4794, line 23
MR. STEACY:	Yes, that was one of the factors that was taken into account in one of the cases. But, at the same point in time, the comments and how far they went, and where they went, and the level of the intensity that they went, was also factored into the position of the parties.	p. 4795, line 2
MS KULASZKA:	So if someone claims freedom of speech for what they said, it is rejected out of hand?	9
MR. STEACY:	If somebody is claiming freedom of expression, it is not rejected. As I said, freedom of speech is an American concept, it is not a Canadian concept. If somebody said, "I am doing this because of freedom of speech," I would equate that to somebody raising a freedom of expression concept.	12
MS KULASZKA:	But you do realize that freedom of expression is protected under the Charter of Rights in Canada.	19
MR. STEACY:	To a point it is.	22
MS KULASZKA:	Yes, so I am asking you if you try to balance these values, these rights, in an investigation of section 13.	23
MS DAVIES:	Mr. Chair, is the witness being asked to do a constitutional analysis? It is not his job to determine whether section 13 is constitutional, he just applies it.	p. 4796, line 1
THE CHAIR:	Yes, I understand that. That is clear, but I think it is important to understand how the Commission undertakes its investigations. I think that is what is being asked for here, on what basis does he exercise his duties to make recommendations. That's understood. It is certainly quite enlightening to hear what he is saying. Go ahead.	6
MR. STEACY:	What specific type of language am I allowed to use?	16
THE CHAIR:	You are free to use any language you want.	18
MR. STEACY:	I mean profane language.	20
THE CHAIR:	Oh, it's permissible, given the nature of the subject matter. You may use profane language.	21
MR. STEACY:	If, for example, a posting says, "Every gay person should be taken out and whacked because they are butt fuckers," like was in some of the postings, in my interpretation, in the training I received, that goes beyond what is allowable. If somebody writes in a posting, "I disagree with gay marriages because my religious beliefs tell me that it's against my religion," that's freedom of expression.	24
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account on message boards that people are sitting in their homes and they perceive message boards as being a private space?	p. 4797, line 9
MR. STEACY:	No.	13
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account the fact that they believe they are conversing with other people?	14
MR. STEACY:	Yes, I do.	17
MS KULASZKA:	How do you take that into account?	18
MR. STEACY:	Regardless of the fact that you are conversing with somebody else, you don't have the right to say absolutely anything you desire, especially when it's in a written format.	20
MS KULASZKA:	Would you agree that a lot of this material, like the example you just gave, is almost barroom talk? If you were in a bar, you could hear this kind of talk.	24
MR. STEACY:	Yes, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.	p. 4798, line 4
MS KULASZKA:	No, it doesn't mean that it's acceptable, but it is the equivalent, isn't it?	6
MR. STEACY:	No.	9
MS KULASZKA:	Except one is written and one is oral.	10
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	12
MS KULASZKA:	I am going to give you an example. This is something from my personal experience. This is a friend who had retired and her husband was driving her crazy, because he had retired, too, and she was complaining to someone I know about it, and she said, "You know, I think I'm going to have to shoot the bugger." She was talking about her husband, because he kept following her around their apartment. In an oral conversation it's humorous, but what if she had put that on a message board?	13
MR. STEACY:	I would think that the police might think there had been a death threat made.	25
MS KULASZKA:	That's right. It would stop being funny. It would stop being a little profane, but funny, a bit of a joke, and it would become quite serious, simply because it's written. Is that right?	p. 4799, line 2
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	7
MS KULASZKA:	Do you ever take into account that context?	8
MR. STEACY:	Yes, I do, and I have.	10
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account the fact that people who post on a message board are not part of a large-scale scheme to promote hatred?	11
MR. STEACY:	Again, it depends on the case. It depends on what was posted on the board. It depends on what the allegations of the complaint are.	15