Canada might seem a tranquil country, but it is also the country where the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been playing a game that any Big Brother nation could be more than proud of: setting up people so that they will commit a crime - of the human rights' kind - and then charge them, to show how everything is fine and well in Canada and human rights are protected by... Big Brother.

A tribunal prosecuting alleged hatemonger Marc Lemire has been able to change the entire scope and focus of the actual tribunal. Rather than focus on the "crime", the Canadian Human Rights Commission's modus operandi has been brought out - and it seems it's a lot of dirty laundry that's been uncovered.
The tribunal revealed how its members were logging onto Internet hate sites under assumed names, trying to conceal what they were up to by using the wireless Internet account belonging to a young woman who seems to be completely uninvolved in any of it and, according to Lemire, trying to entrap people who visited his site.
Only the unusual circumstance of these people being publicly cross-examined brought any of this to light. Canada has now discovered that the CHRC tolerates sleazy behaviours among its investigating officers that have no place in a free society.

Marc Lemire is a computer whiz, and also past-president of the late Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi organization. That is to say that while a quick glance at his freedomsite.org looks mostly concerned with free speech, he is not the ideal poster boy for it.
Enter Richard Warman, a former CHRC employee but now a serial complainer to it with a seemingly boundless vulnerability to offence. He complains about offensive comments on Lemire's web page. Lemire is then charged under Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which makes it illegal to disseminate material on the Internet "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."
For Warman, it is a familiar evolution; he has done this a dozen times before with other people, and is so far 12 for 12. Lemire, however, suspects the commission itself may be the source of some comments. Sure enough, at the tribunal, two CHRC employees admit logging in under false names to post provocative comments.
So, how do you feel about the Canadian state using agents as provocateurs? That is, people who will pretend to think like you, egg you on until you say something you might not otherwise have said, then haul you before a human rights tribunal? Is that the role of government? Maybe it was in the Soviet Union, maybe it is in China. But in Canada? That's assuming you accept the Canadian state has any business having an opinion about what you think in the first place.

Then, there's this business of the drive-by Wi-Fi. What high and mighty servants we Canadians do have who, having cloaked themselves in a fake identity - Jadewarr was one - then presume to appropriate the Internet address of a private citizen, and use it to post messages to a site most people wouldn't want to have anything to do with. If the police set up their radar camera in your driveway, you'd have a legitimate beef. It's like that, except these people aren't even policemen investigating a real crime, they're bureaucrats trying to convict somebody of a crime that's only "likely."
Yes, police go undercover to catch drug dealers. CSIS also has covert powers. But this something altogether different, not? There is a totalitarian feel to this. The CHRC is not a secret police, but some of its people are playing at things secret police forces do. They are not necessarily even bad people, but the KGB and the Spanish Inquisition, to name a couple of enforcers of orthodoxy, have this in common: They all believed what they were doing was a good thing, even as they trampled all over liberty. Warman, for instance, is on record: "It's imperative individuals and groups take steps as strong as they can to defend human rights in Canada, because if they're not defended, they get undermined." And to do so, it appears a select group of people have made sure to create a totally fabricated series of events, to be played out for general consumption, that "human rights" are defended.