Barrel Strength

Indulge me as I walk through this from the point of view of a communications person. The CHRT announced a decision that it would no longer transcribe and release tribunal testimony, beginning with the March 25 Lemire hearing. All right, fine, a little research revealed that this had been in contemplation for some months but only wanted some good reason to take effect. (The needle on the Sinister meter is only flickering a little.) The hearings were to be available in audio format. However, when I called to obtain a CD (with the purpose of organizing an online transcription bee) I learned that it could only be obtained by an Access to Information request.

“You’re kidding.”

“No.”

At that point, I desisted and sat back to await events, because John Pacheco was doing a great job slicing the testimony to ribbons and it was clear that exceptionally stupid people were in charge at the commission.

From the perspective of a communications professional, this is a carnival of ineptitude. First of all, does anyone who has ever worked in a bureaucracy believe there would not be an official written transcript for internal use? And there would not be half a dozen ways for the outside world to discover that? And that not releasing it - like all the others - would make you look petty and fearful and bitter and hateful and obstructive and small?

In the transcript, the fellow who has presided over the travesty said, “Have you had the opportunity to use the audio system; Mr. Fromm, that we have in place now, because it’s quite user friendly? I’m relying on it quite extensively.” Why? Why would he ‘rely on it’? He already had written transcripts for all previous hearings. Which brings us to the sudden banning of written transcripts just in time for the one that promised to continue to bring CHRC wrongdoing to the surface. I do not think it is a coincidence, I think it is a calculated measure to drive up defendants’ costs at a critical time.

Then, apparently, someone at the Commission leaked the official transcript - which should not but does exist - to a presumably ‘friendly’ journalist. To vindicate the commission. In 60’s advertising jargon, “Fuzzy thinking.” To reporters, the call for ‘balance’ means walking all the evidence in hand around to every possible adversary, in search of a good, balancing quote. That part is working great so far, for the reporter and Ezra and the cause of free speech. I wonder how it’s working at the Commission?