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.
She weighs the same as a duck! She’s a WITCH! Burn her! Burn her!
“Like all administrative bodies, we adhere to the rules of procedural fairness. ”
stopped reading there, couldn’t force myself to read total and utter garbage. I guess fairness means if it’s fair in their eyes. This has got to be made a huge priority and Canadians need to fight this vigorously.
Reaction to the delusions of grandeur and misanthropic paranoia displayed by bureaucratic manderins:
“In Canada, “protecting human rights” now means insulating the “human rights” bureaucracy from criticism.” – Mark Steyn
Amen brother Steyn!
Glasnost; Thanks for the video link!!
grok:”She weighs the same as a duck! She’s a WITCH! Burn her! Burn her!”
Doesn’t that describe how the HRC determines guilt? It’s amazing when the HRC is capable of only one verdict – GUILTY!!! Methinks she’s still hungry for a bowl of boiled Steyn-Levant soup.
J. Lynch said: “When rights must be balanced, so too debate about these rights should be balanced, but it is not.”
gotta have it both ways, eh? an opportunity to confront your detractors is offerred up via ctv (ezra was pesent, willing and able) and you, yes you, J. Lynch – send in a sock puppet. perfect.
wonder where the credibility went? the chrc and the bad law they have willingly and purposefully pursued has brought you to this point. no sympathy – shut it down and mark it up as a good idea gone bad in practice. enough.
The hits keep coming folks.
Slowly it implodes.
When Dean Steacy called Freedom of Speech an American Concept with a straight face in testimony in the Lemire Case, and Simon Fothergill put feelings as more important than the truth, you just had to believe that the end was coming.
When the people of Canada realise that the HRCs are not working for the best interests of the people of Canada, but for their own power, maybe they will revolt.
We can only hope.
I am okay with you preserving my rights, but not at the expense of the rights of 10 of my country men at the same time. Something does not add up.
The hits keep coming folks.
Slowly it implodes.
When Dean Steacy called Freedom of Speech an American Concept with a straight face in testimony in the Lemire Case, and Simon Fothergill put feelings as more important than the truth, you just had to believe that the end was coming.
When the people of Canada realise that the HRCs are not working for the best interests of the people of Canada, but for their own power, maybe they will revolt.
We can only hope.
I am okay with you preserving my rights, but not at the expense of the rights of 10 of my country men at the same time. Something does not add up.
The hits keep coming folks.
Slowly it implodes.
When Dean Steacy called Freedom of Speech an American Concept with a straight face in testimony in the Lemire Case, and Simon Fothergill put feelings as more important than the truth, you just had to believe that the end was coming.
When the people of Canada realise that the HRCs are not working for the best interests of the people of Canada, but for their own power, maybe they will revolt.
We can only hope.
I am okay with you preserving my rights, but not at the expense of the rights of 10 of my country men at the same time. Something does not add up.
” what is freedom of expression? without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” salman rushdie.