Fraser Basin Council

This is my personal experience with Fraser Basin Council in Vancouver, BC, and it is kind of my usual routine life experience in Canada.

I enrolled at University of Victoria, and was admitted to Public Administration, Public Sector Management program. It was part of one of my courses requirement to work with one non-profit organization, and I selected Fraser Basin Council as an intended non-profit organization in order to fulfill my course requirement.

I contacted, one person at, the Fraser Basin Council, and met Mr. Steve LITKE, who was a program manager at the Fraser Basin Council. There was a verbal mutual consent between us that I would work for the Fraser Basin Council as a volunteer every Monday {rest of the day I was preoccupied with my own personal affairs} and by end of the year, the Fraser Basin Council would decide to take two actions about me. One, the above NPO would hire me or not, and in case the Fraser Basin Council did not want to hire me, it would draft me a reference letter. I was working at the Fraser Basin Council at capacity of researcher, and would draft some environmental articles which were aiming at people English as a Second Language.

I kept my promise, and appeared at the Fraser Basin Council every Monday. I noticed the Fraser Basin Council had employment opportunities, and it was time for me to apply for some of the opportunities at the above NPO. Particularly, I worked at the above NPO for nine (9) months, it was sufficient time frame for the above NPO to decide about me. During my volunteer work at the Fraser Basin Council, I discovered that their previous papers were committing copyright infringements, and brought those copyright infringements to the attention of Mr. LITKE.

In November 2008, there was a position of “Transportation Analyst” at the above NPO, and I applied for the above position, and was hoping to be short listed for the above position. The above NPO did not short listed me. What it was so interestingly that during month of November 2008, I received a phone call from Mr. LITKE, and asked me to appear at the Fraser Basin Council following Friday. It was kind of bizarre request from me because Mr. LITKE knew that I could not work for the above NPO Friday due to my own personal commitment. Hence, I had to cancel some of my work, and appeared at the above NPO. This time, Mr. LITKE asked me to sit by a working station close by the lobby area of the above NPO. I noticed two young Anglo Saxon ladies were walking around the offices at the above NPO, and were not sure what to do. Ms. Dianna DILWORTH from Human Resources of the above NPO, and Mr. LITKE from the above NPO ushered the new recruits to the lobby of the above NPO, and began to introduce the new recruits to everyone by the lobby area, where I was sitting. They were laughing with everyone, and Ms. DILWORTH was keep repeating position of “Transportation Analyst” was given to this new recruit. It really hurt me that these people were willing to go this far by calling me come to work, and I had to canceled my own commitments so these individuals would fulfill their own ugly racist desires. I cried for myself, where I was sitting, and looked around the above NPO, and noticed everyone was Anglo Saxon, there was no diversity in that NPO. This NPO did not represent multiculturalism in Canada and never gave me any reference letter for my works that I did for the above NPO. I came to conclusion that Canada never will be my home. I am just a stranger in a strange land, and make the best that I can do.

Steve Litke slitke@fraserbasin.bc.ca
Diana Dilworth ddilworth@fraserbasin.bc.ca


White people murdered native people and took their lands so this is as best as it gets.

Legal Rights:

1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”i
2) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.”ii
Legal Case:
Superior Court. In case of Wyeth-Ayerst Canada Inc., Petitioner v. Louise Phaneuf Respondent. Date: February 21, 2002. The HON. John H. GOMERY, J.S.C. Canada Province of Québec, District of Montreal.
…

“[6] Petitioner's Motion for slander and for the respect of privacy seeks an injunctive order to compel Respondent to cease and refrain from "expressing anything, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, concerning, naming, involving or in respect of the
Petitioner...its affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, management and employees..." and specifically, to withdraw from her web-site "any declarations, allegations or references, concerning the Petitioner, its affiliates" etc. The Motion also asks the Court to condemn Respondent to pay Petitioner the sum of $100,000.00 for punitive and exemplary damages.

[7] The justification alleged for this massive assault upon Respondent's freedom of expression is the supposedly defamatory nature of the contents of Respondent's website, which, according to Petitioner, invades its privacy and damages its reputation. Petitioner also alleges that the privacy of its senior management is violated by the publication of their e-mail addresses on the web-site

[8] The Court is not seized with the merits of Petitioner's proceedings. The application now being made is for a safeguard order in accordance with article 766(4) C.C.P. which empowers the Court, at the time of presentation of a motion and before it has been heard, to "make all orders necessary to protect the rights of the parties for the time and on the conditions it determines."iii
…...

[14]…"The other value to be balanced in a defamation action is the protection of the reputation of the individual. Although much has very properly been said and written about the importance of freedom of expression, little has been written of the importance of reputation. Yet, to most people, their good reputation is to be cherished above all. A good reputation is closely related to the innate worthiness and dignity of the individual. It is an attribute that must, just as much as freedom of expression, be protected by society's laws. In order to undertake the balancing required by this case, something must be said about the value of reputation. Democracy has always recognized and cherished the fundamental importance of an individual. That importance must, in turn, be based upon the good repute of a person. It is that good repute which enhances an individual's sense of worth and value. False allegations can so very quickly and completely destroy a good reputation. A reputation tarnished by libel can seldom regain its former luster. A democratic society, therefore, has an interest in ensuring that its members can enjoy and protect their good reputation so long as it is merited."iv
….

“[16] The same remarks apply to the respect to be given to private life, a value guaranteed in article 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms R.S.Q. C.C-12. The extent to which the right to privacy may limit the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed in article 3 of the Charter will vary according to the degree of privacy to which each person is entitled. Corporations have a lesser right to privacy than individuals. Furthermore it is far from apparent that publication of the email address of a corporate officer constitutes an invasion of the latter's privacy.

[17] Petitioner cites the decision in Investors Group Inc. v. Hudson (1999) R.J.Q. 599 (C.S.) in support of its application. The judgment rendered in that case is not a useful precedent, since the facts upon which it was based cannot be compared to the present circumstances, for two reasons. First of all, in the Hudson case the safeguard order followed a full hearing of the litigation between the parties and a careful reading of the judgment rendered, reported at J.E. 98-1329, reveals that most of Mr. Hudson's allegations about the treatment he had received at the hands of Investors Group Inc. were held to be unfounded. In other words, the defamatory nature of the statements published on his web-site had already been established. Secondly, the particulars of the statements is not known; possibly they were much more intemperate than those by Respondent in the present case.

[18] Respondent is defending herself in this matter without the assistance of an attorney. She says she does not have the means to engage counsel. This is unfortunate; she finds herself embroiled in litigation where the resources of her opponent are enormous, and its readiness to use all the means at its disposal to intimidate her and to contest her claims is evident. Furthermore, because she is not a member of the Bar, costs in her favor cannot be awarded.

[19] For These Reasons, Petitioner's application for a safeguard order is dismissed without costs.”v

Criminal Code of Canada:
“423.1 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) with the intent to provoke a state of fear in
….
(c) a journalist in order to impede him or her in the transmission to the public of information in relation to a criminal organization.
(2) The conduct referred to in subsection (1) consists of
(a) using violence against a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them or destroying or causing damage to the property of any of those persons;
(b) threatening to engage in conduct described in paragraph (a) in Canada or elsewhere;
(c) persistently or repeatedly following a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them, including following that person in a disorderly manner on a highway;
(d) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them; and
(e) besetting or watching the place where a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them resides, works, attends school, carries on business or happens to be.
(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years. 2001, c. 32, s. 11.”vi

Summing up the above legal framework:

Author, of this book, is allowed to express her/his views on Canada, Canadian politicians, and criminal agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Canada or outside of Canada because Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as, Canadian legal rights has given permission to this author to express her/his views on Canada, Canadian politicians, and terrorist agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Canada or outside of Canada. In case, Canada, Canadian politicians, terrorist agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Canada or any given entity commenced a civil-action against this author with respect to this book or content of this book, or any allege tort law against this author. The civil-action will be constituted as an instrument against this author to cause fear, and to intimidate this author's safety and security. Consequently, this author will seek criminal charge/s against the petitioner/s from a Justice of Peace, and in case the Canadian legal system fails, this matter will be brought before United Nations for violation of Human Rights forthwith.

The author of this book acted in good faith at all times, and all materials were located in public domain, and all materials were presented as evidences to reader’s knowledge, and this author did not misrepresent, slandered, mislead, omitted facts, deformation of character, invasion of privacy, breach of trust or violating any kind of tort laws, or criminal laws. This book, solely, was written for educational purpose. Only reader of this book will interpret disclosed evidences for their own reason, and will read this book with their own common sense. Thus, this author has no control over readers mind.
Human Rights 17 July 2007
Justice of Canada 17 July 2007
CANLII 17 July 2007. PG 2
CANLII 17 July 2007. PG 4-5
CANLII17 July 2007
CANLII 03August 2007