Jennifer Lynch, the Chief Commissioner of the CHRC, gave a speech yesterday in which she said the “cacophony of protest” over the complaint against Macleans had “moved to one of discrediting Commissions’ processes, professionalism and staff” — as if the latter was some unreasonable and out-of-bounds development not congruent with the first. In each instance where she noted criticisms of the HRCs’ mandate and processes she dismissed the legitimacy of those concerns without addressing their substance. To the insular, bureaucratically-cloistered Lynch, it’s self-evident that reasonable people understand that such criticisms are ridiculous and need not be addressed.
Lynch complains in her speech that the HRCs have in effect been a victim of an “unbalanced” debate. After saying “Much of what was written was inaccurate, unfair, and at times scary”, she provides examples of such outrages:
Articles described human rights commissions and their employees in this way:
• “Gestapo”
• “human rights racket”
• “welcome to the whacky world of Canadian human rights
• “a secret and decadent institution”
Apparently it’s a self-evident outrage for Canadians to comment in their own terms on the behavior of the HRCs and their employees. Watch in this next bit how she creates a false “threat” by comprehensively and mindfully eliding the actual context:
One human rights expert who wrote a letter to a major daily paper faced an accusation in a response letter by a journalist the next day asking, ‘is (name of person) a drunken pedophile?’
Here’s the actual passage in question, from a letter written by Mark Steyn in response to a published letter by human rights lawyer Pearl Eliadis:
Let me take just one sentence: ‘Are Levant and Steyn hatemongerers? Maybe not. But no one has decided that.’
Overlooking her curious belief that ‘hatemongerers’ is a word, whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Eliadis stands on its head the bedrock principle of English justice and airily declares that my status as a ‘hatemongerer’ is unknown until ‘decided’ by the apparatchiks of the HRC.
Can anyone play this game? ‘Is Pearl Eliadis a drunken pedophile? Maybe not. But no one has decided that.’ In her justification of the HRC process, Eliadis only confirms what’s wrong with it.
Despite Jennifer Lynch’s repeated spin that she welcomes and wishes to encourage a broad and reasonable debate, she in effect portrays the HRCs as being victimized by the existence of any debate that isn’t undertaken on the HRC-types’ own chosen terms. One needn’t look deeply between the lines to see that, in her view, a reasonable and fair debate about free speech can only begin when the opposing side finally acknowledges the legitimacy of the HRCs and their mandate, and stops being so mean.
If you haven’t already done so, please read Lynch’s speech before commenting.
Because “victims” are society’s new “heroes” (according to our betters in the elite Establishment), Lynch has no choice but to adopt the “victim” pose as her latest tactic.
Sane normal folks like the rest of us are rightly dumbstruck by the irony and her chutzpah — but the Establishment is not populated by sane normal folks.
From the report:
“-Human rights commissions have been set up as a kind of parallel police and legal system, yet without any of the procedural safeguards, rules of evidence, or simple professional expertise of the real thing.”
“-…our human rights commissions have flown under the radar of public attention for too long, ignored by … a judiciary that has inexplicably allowed these pseudo-courts to flourish under their very noses.”
A former Cabinet Minister recently wrote about an author’s description:
“-His story of the terrible abuse of power at the Canadian Human Rights Commission is a bone-chilling horror story. God help you if you get caught in (a human rights commission’s) crosshairs, because if it investigates you, the ordinary rules of justice don’t apply, including the normal legal protections for the accused.”
These comments clearly show misunderstanding about the separate roles of Commissions and Tribunals and our processes”
Oh, My mistake. I think what she is getting at here is that they are wrong about the COMMISSIONS. These statements are all true about the TRIBUNALS. Oh, how we have misjudged…
Gotta protect our phoney baloney jobs.
How do people like her end up in positions like that? I’m sure she feels like a hero, supposedly standing up for those who feel they may have been discriminated against, but she and her organization have become a convenient tool whereby the perpetually offended can satisfy their urge to force others to behave according to their own standards, and make a tidy sum in the process.
It’s now a competition to see who can be the best victim. Of course those charged by the commission and forced to spend vast amounts of money, time, and effort to defend themselves against spurious charges can’t be referred to as victims. They don’t count. It needs to be said – especially if they are white. There are different standards for caucasians when it comes to these tribunals.
I’d like to see Lynch and her cronies sued into oblivion for all of the harm they’ve done to our freedoms, and the harm they’ve done to the original idea of these commissions as they continue to far outstrip their mandate and purpose.
I won’t say what I really think about her, because I don’t want to be profane. She should be fired yesterday, and the commission closed.
She should be fired for making the assertion that Steyn called Pearl Eliadis a pedophile. Lynch is either a liar or she can’t read, either of which should disqualify her from her position.
The HRCs aren’t about rights, they are about enforcing left-wing PC beliefs. I’d recommend that the post-Harper leader of the Cons stack it with right-wing crazies and direct them to persecute left-wing dolts (are there any other kind?) until they get it through their thick skulls what it’s all about.
So how does one lodge a complaint about the HRC’s hypocritical intolerance of the freedom of speech and to whom do you submit it to???
I’m not seeing how Jennifer Lynch is “the victim” here. She has used the authority given to her to badger anyone who disagrees with very vocal special interest groups.
This “speech” is self-serving at best.
Good catch, cold canadian. In effect, “the toothless proles who would recoil from our assault clearly show misunderstanding about the separate roles of the club and the fist that’s wielding it.”
The entire report is an eye-crossingly bald elision of the real issues that are at stake; it’s rife with circular-logic bureaucratese that sneers at America’s tradition of free speech while fetishizing the model of other nations that censor thoughts for the “common good”.
Underneath the endlessly circular, self-referential, banal bureaucratese, the CHRC’s recent report amounts to one long sighed plaint that those who would criticize the HRCs for their egregious abuse and their arrogance and their unaccountability simply don’t understand. There’s a constant, quietly hammered, between-the-lines suggestion throughout that this lack of understanding is so very deeply rooted in the profound ignorance of the HRCs opponents that there’s simply no point in even attempting to explain it to them. It’s essentially, “our critics don’t get it, so let’s just move on without them as per our fundamental entitlement to do so, and build a better, more just world.”
Read the report aloud in a North-Korean accent, and you’ll understand the significance of the it’s very existence.
She’s an idiot and a scumbag; is it important to wonder which she is more of? (I say idiot, but that’s really just intuition.)
re. Kathy @3:37 – The word chutzpah does connote brazenness and offense; but I believe it also carries a cadence of audacity and daring, originality and boldness; we shouldn’t give Lynch that kind of credit.
You have to read this document very carefully. In it she basically said that the commission is valuable for the human rights system – not for the rights themselves. This is the most important phrase in the speech. There are other very important points too. She spoke to someone, but not to the Canadian people.
This individual (JL) does not admit for a moment that there may be opinion different than hers. What if she is just replaced, for starters?
I can’t wait to see Styne shred this and then Levant can turn it into conffetti
Maybe Commissioner Lynch can file a human rights complaints on behalf of the CHRC for the CHRC’s hurt feelings.
She acknowledges that there are different opinions, Aaron, she just – clearly – doesn’t feel it necessary to actually address them point-by-point in substance, because those views are just so wrong, and those who hold them are self-evidently mean and unfair by virtue the fact that they hold those views.
Orvict, Stein and Ezra *have* been shredding Lynch and the CHRC’s new report — go to their respective sites.
Agree, I should have worded better. I was referring to this passage:
What I wanted to say, was that for her there is no doubt that only her opinion is correct.
Every effort by Lynch to justify these Hrc’s only gives more ammunition to dissenters.
I enjoy the way both writers MS,EL unspin the double speak.
Look we already have hate crime and libel and slander laws in our criminal code. They rely, as must anything that is ‘just and fair’ on actual evidence.
The HRCs, on the other hand, reject actuality, reject truth, reject objectivity.
Remember, Section 13.1 isn’t focused on ACTUAL rights unfair treatment. It is focused on expressions that ‘are likely to’ cause someone to be ‘viewed with hatred or contempt’. Note that phrase ‘are likely to’. That means that no ACTUAL experience of ‘being hated or viewed with contempt’ need occur. Not one.
And who can, empirically, prove that If X person said blah blah, THEN, this caused Y person to be ‘viewed with hatred’? Who can prove this? Heck, Y person might be viewed with hatred for any number of well-founded reasons that have nothing to do with X person.
There are two very real violations of our rights. Our rights as humans and as citizens.
The first is the fallacious and utterly illogical nature of this clause, with its focus on events that have never occurred, on emotions that have never been experienced, and on connections that are impossible to prove.
The second violation is the utter arrogance of these HRC bureaucrats, unelected, unaccountable, who dare to assume their intellectual and moral superiority over the rest of us.
How dare our governance treat its citizens in such a manner?
Aaron; exactly. There’s a huge leap from “extreme hateful expression” to hurt feelings.
I note that she doesn’t give explicit examples of that she refers to.
(Isn’t the Committee Hearing on the CHRC being held today?)
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain… or I’ll have you shot.”
Roaches hate it when we turn on the light too, Jennifer. Maybe you scurry harder you can make it to the baseboard before somebody swats you, eh? Because I very much doubt anyone it turning the light off any time soon.
Yes, according to Levant…http://ezralevant.com/2009/06/parliamentary-hearings-into-ch.html
But I don’t see a specific entry at CPAC’s schedule…http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=107〈=e
Anyone have any idea when it’s being broadcast?
Lynch:
:In Alberta, the recent passing (June 2, 2009) of Bill: 44, the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act maintained the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s role over hate, but not without a chorus of ‘boos’ from the far right.”
This coming from a truly open-minded individual. I, being one of those who chorused with a ‘boo’, but not from the far right. It came from deep down, in the middle of my gut.
Apparently now, Lynch is quantifying the dissent. If it’s from the far right (I guess all dissent about the HRC is now from the far right) the thoughts and opinions are not worthy. Will ANY political party pick up on this?
“any debate that isn’t undertaken on the HRC-types own chosen terms.”
It’s easy to imagine this strategy being arrived at in a conference room, or possibly they paid a lot of money to a communicaions consultant. Looking back, it’s good that Ezra Levant refused to recognize their authority or even to shake hands. Do not give them any ground. At all.
“Is Jennifer Lynch and idiot and a scumbag. Maybe not. But no one has decided that.”
The evidence looks overwhelming from where I sit!
“Is Jennifer Lynch an idiot and a scumbag. Maybe not. But no one has decided that.”
The evidence looks overwhelming from where I sit!
“It’s easy to imagine this strategy being arrived at in a conference room…” — wyatt
Exactly right. That sort of language informs the entire report, post-to-post.
Yes, well when Frau Lynch calls for the removal of truth as a defence in the criminal code the moniker of “Obersturmbannfuhrer Lynch” has a certain accuracy.
The reason that Gestapo member “Obersturmbannfuhrer Lynch” is ‘exposed to hatred and contempt’ is that it is self inflicted.
Allowing Richard Warman to run his neo-Nazi campaign willy nilly under the HRC noses doesn’t even come close to engendering confidence in ‘the HRC system’.
When you behave like a monumentally stupid moron, and ostensibly know better, then you reap all the scorn you so richly deserve.
Frau Lynch is in the same assinine category as the CRA who needed to know what happens when insulin is withdrawn from the patient — DEATH.
When you remove TRUTH as a DEFENCE the result is the DEATH of FREE SPEECH.
In short, the HRCs would prefer to rely on LIES as a defence for their ridiculous behaviour.
National Socialists, Communists, jihad artists, mob/gang members don’t think too deeply about killing/threatening those that disagree with them.
Perhaps “Obersturmbannfuhrer Lynch” would like to extol the virtues of the Hell’s Angels because one wouldn’t want to expose them to hatred or contempt, even when they bumped off 26 other players over the years in Quebec.
The reason HRCs are held in ‘hatred and contempt’ is because they have earned it.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I got a feeling Lynch is about ready to file a human rights complaint against the people of Canada
for disagreeing with her and making her feel uncomfortable.
“Ve haff vays uff making you obey, you know. Some uff dem are not very pleasant…”
“Ironically, those who are claiming that human rights commission’s jurisdiction over hate speech is “chilling” to freedom of expression, have successfully created their own reverse chill.”
That statement tells me that Ezra and others are having a lot of success in denormalizing this chamber of horrors.
What I got from Lynch’s speech is that we Canadians simply don’t understand the wonderfulness of the CHRC and it’s affiliates.
David Letterman said much the same thing in his latest apology about the ‘joke’ he told about Sarah Palin and her daughter. That we didn’t understand the joke.
Well Dave and Jennifer, we know a joke when we year one and both your jokes are not funny.
Lynch’s Last line was as follows.
“When rights must be balanced, so too debate about these rights should be balanced, but it is not.”
Well Jen, that’s because you don’t want an opponent when you debate. Do you think debating yourself is going to fly?
What a fool … fire them all!
DaninVan ~ Anyone have any idea when it’s[the parliamentary hearing] being broadcast?
Sub-committee on Int. Human Rights
Alan Borovoy is great. The bloviating NDP MP from Hamilton is a fool.
Andrea picked on another very important phrase!
In HRC point of view the ‘far right’ is not just illegitimate, but laughable and harmful. All those who consider themselves far right should immediately file a complaint with her for communication a message likely… You know the rest.
[quote]Our strategic focus this year is the rights of Aboriginals.[/quote] Lynch
Well.. well finally the Target has been identified. The First Nations Chiefs are in for a fight over tribal customs.
What can’t these Social engineering freaks change in a nanosec when no Indian Act or legal president stands in the way of CHRC.
The first CHRC ruling will be the women rights on reserves, who would guess?
If Lynch disagrees with the “far right”, she is stating her position to the left of many Canadians – just who gets to decide what is “far”? That she, as an appointed bureaucrat, has staked out a political position should be grounds for immediate dismissal.
Ironically, those who are claiming that human rights commission’s jurisdiction over hate speech is “chilling” to freedom of expression, have successfully created their own reverse chill.
Oh dear, must we approve a bigger budget so that they may regain their voices?
Hey Jen, here’s an idea. Start blogging. It’s virtually free and you could inform us daily about all the good work that you do. Not that many would be interested in reading it, but what the heck. Go for it – given budget restraints and all.
For evil to succeed good people just need to sit back and do nothing…
Where was the HRC spawned from and what is there real purpose… looking at them in reverse cause effect…If we didn’t have a Canadian HRC who would it hurt and what would the funding costs be to maintain and monitor it…
A very, very, very stupid women.
Jen, nobody ever said being a placeholder at a presently useless patronage sop would be easy.
I find it curious that Jennifer Lynch took Mark Steyn’s response to Pearl Eliadis literary backhand remark “Are Levant and Steyn hatemongerers? Maybe not. But no one has decided that.” as actually being a serious accusation of being a pedophile.
So then is Ms. Lynch saying that in her view the Eliadis’ remark is a serious accusation of Levant and Steyn actually being guilty of hatemongerering (don’chya luv propper engwish) and therefore worthy of investigation (a.k.a. inquistion)? Ms. Eliadis’ standing as a human rights expert, of course, must convey to her words special credibility.
If it hadn’t of been for the media attention, I fear that Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn would have been “Lynched” with a wayward stroke of a self-righteous angry pen.
This kangaroo court has got to be permanently adjourned…FIRE…THEM…ALL!!!
Sorry, Kate, I couldn’t read all the way through that speech. I got caught up in “This year’s emphasis is on aboriginals…”. SO, next year, is it going to emphasize “white males”?
Jennifer Lynch is perhaps one of the most dangerous bureaucrats that has ever to be given an appointment… and the sad thing is she doesn’t even know why. Now what do her neighbors think? Does anyone even dare to say good morning to this tyrant?
I thought she was heading out on another junket?
Professor Glenn Reynolds gets it right:
“That’s nice, but I think the law should also allow the tarring and feathering of government officials who behave as Canada’s “Human Rights” Commissars have. Failing that, I’d rather it not pass.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/80207/
“and stops being so mean.”
Well, we wouldn’t want Jen to feel not serene, now would we?
Read that whole thing.
A litany of self serving lies and misrepresentations.
Are we supposed to be swayed or convinced by that??
It is nothing but offensive posturing of a self important martinet.
Lynch NEEDS to be fired from public service immediately and to never ever be given a position of authority anywhere.
Heres to hoping the indians really put the boots to them
shes complaining about an unfair debate and yet she refused to go toe to toe with ezra levant when the debate could have been aired for all to see. she really must be hearing the footsteps from the government axeman comin down the halls. this is job justification at its most desperate.
oh yeah and as far as her feeling victimized by the media and others, take it to the human rights commission please. calling ezra levant to the stand….again.
She’s taking all the bows for de-stigmatizing the mentally ill community.
“Protecting the rights of persons who experience mental illness – a disability that is finally becoming de-stigmatized – requires continued leadership from Commissions”
How mental is that?
She fills all the categories
apparatchik>
2 : a blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization (as a corporation or political party)
Merriam Webster
Actually, she’s quite a logical gal, viewed from her perspective…
Much remains to be done if we are to ensure that individuals can make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have without discrimination.
Individuals such as Richard Warman and Jennifer Lynch?
Protecting the rights of persons who experience mental illness – a disability that is finally becoming de-stigmatized – requires continued leadership from Commissions
Persons such as Richard Warman and Jennifer Lynch?
The Lynch Mob Chieftain is beyond reprehensible! But she’s counting on two things that the majority of Canadians really excel at:
1. Apathy
2. Not reading beyond the headlines
And sadly, she just may win at that game.
Goodness knows we’ll never see her freely debate Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn or even Rex Murphy or Charles Adler. It ain’t gonna happen because she knows that ALL of the facts are against her.
My secret dream would be for someone to take her and the HRC to court. Hey, a fella’s entitled to his fantasies!
Lynch: “The purpose section of the Canada Human Rights Act written in 1977, states:”
“‘The Purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, …to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have’ … without discrimination.”
That is not a principle, it is a wish. It might well be a fairer world if that wish came true, but it is not the function of government to make wishes come true. It is the function of government to protect the rights of individuals by enforcing the fundamental moral principle of a free society, namely that no person has the right to initiate the use of force on any other person. Note: a FREE society.
Lynch: “Like all administrative bodies, we adhere to the rules of procedural fairness.”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Read “Shakedown” to find numerous counter-examples.
Lynch: “The Commission has concluded that both the Criminal Code and section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, each with its own purpose, are effective in dealing with hate messages on the Internet.”
One, or none (I prefer the latter). Not two (or even more).
And if the answer has to be “one”, make it a real court please, not a commission based on a phony premise and which is populated by political hacks, professional malcontents and malevolent, extremist activists.
Lynch: “We will be issuing a policy or a Guideline that will define hatred and contempt, as per the jurisprudence, so that the layperson understands that only the most extreme hate messages on the Internet fall under section 13”
Out of curiosity, what gives the HRC the power to make up the definitions for this? If it actually were legitimate, wouldn’t it be up to Parliament?
Lynch: “Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canada. As all of you will know it is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Because no right is absolute, the modern concept of rights is that of a matrix with different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system.”
Well, with the abolition of capital punishment, the right to life is now “absolute”, isn’t it? I agree that freedom of expression is not “absolute”, but the problem is that the powers that be have not figured out how rights “mutually reinforce each other” — in part because they refuse to recognize the proper hierarchy of rights.
Lynch: “Freedom of expression is important because words and ideas have power. That power, while overwhelmingly positive, can also be used to undermine democracy, freedom and equality. It is for this reason that Canada, and many other nations, have enacted laws to limit forms of extreme hateful expression that have very minimal value in the free exchange of ideas, but do great harm to our fellow citizens.”
The communists and various extreme left-wingers undermine democracy and freedom, and believe they are “more equal than others”. Has anyone hauled them before the CHRC lately? Would the commission hear the complaint if someone did?
And it should never be up to the government to decide which forms of expression have “minimal value in the free exchange of ideas”.
Lynch: “… blogs worked to destroy our investigators and litigators’ reputations and credibility with untrue accusations”
Most if not all of the accusations were true.
Lynch: “Ironically, those who are claiming that human rights commission’s jurisdiction over hate speech is ‘chilling’ to freedom of expression, have successfully created their own reverse chill.”
Bullfeathers! No one has been silenced.
Lynch: “It seems that fundamentally detractors do not believe that access to administrative tribunals in search of equality is something that our country should ensure.”
The commission and its advocates purposely mix up several different concepts of “equality” within their depredations (not unlike the way the Marxists purposely confuse political freedom and freedom from the nature of reality). The law should not discriminate on the usual grounds and government officials should not discriminate on those grounds. But a person’s rights are not violated by a private individual’s refusal to deal with him. And I laugh every time I see the ridiculous term “equality-seeking groups” (which is an anti-concept).
Lynch: “The human rights community has a responsibility to inform Canadians of the importance of our human rights system and the work yet to be done.”
Bring it on. The bloggers have been showing what a sham it is, and how “human rights” is an anti-concept that does not mean individual rights, and is in fact antithetical to them.
Lynch: “Many groups are still the targets of egregious acts of discrimination – anti-Semitism, our Aboriginal peoples, minority groups.”
There were marches in Toronto in January that featured anti-Semitic slogans. Were there any complaints to the Commission? If so, was anything done about them?
All in all: the usual hypocrisy.