I called up the office shortly after where the esteemed Lori G. Andreachuk issued the edict about the reverend clamming up forever and inquired how they intended to enforce it.

still waiting for a answer !!

It was shameful that Lynch had Langtry attend instead of her although most likely the end result may well have been the same.

The testimony of the next day with Prof. Martin is even more shocking (Video posted on BCF and Steyn's site).

Clearly, Lynch has had no public service nor real management experience for if she had after the damning testimony in the Lemire and subsequent case given the CHRT Chair Lustig's comments -she would have gone into Damage control - self- preservation mode, called for an investigation, dismissed a few, charged criminally others and so on.

Unfortunately, all the Chickens are coming home to roost and her atttempts now to appear on radio and TV shows (Without Ezra) is making her a subject of considerable ridicule.

The lack of open support from the PM is also telling as one gets the feeling that she is just swinging in the wind until the branch breaks.

Just a thought for those who throw out the race card whenever the barbaric religion is criticized; If I,a white guy,convert to islam,am I now considered bi-racial,of mixed race,a quadroon,or what?

They had me at "words". You mean an adult must cry to the government for mediation when he hears something he doesn't like?
Tell me: how is hate defined? Are the same penalties levelled against someone who considers a homosexual group "the biggest criminal oganization in the world" as someone blindly accused the Church of being?
Any thinking, feeling person can see what is going on here. It is naive to think that human rights commissions are truly looking out for the common man.

equality by any means, the mantra is, like liberalism with a raygun. Destroy discrimination! Destroy der prole..der will der verve..
Ilsa Lynch&Its horrible cretins still down and the ten count next.

I think you would be considered an idiot first and foremost.

LOL!

Good question, something like what you suggest would really send the HRC's into bobble-head mode.

Why do the HRC’s even exist when we have actual courts who could, and should, be making these decisions based on the actual law/constitution, and not some nebulous ‘hurt-feelings’ mantra.

Furthermore, the fact that 'the dog ate my homework' Langtry wasn't 'familiar' with the above mentioned legal tactics would result(in any sane organization) in an automatic dismissal for incompetence. He is, after all, in a senior position and should be familiar with the HRC’s operations, etc should he not?

Opps.

Above comment ment for Wallyj

I'm not sure if anyone at SDA has already linked to Lynch on CTV, but the same dissembling is practiced by Lynch and Langtry.

Don't forget to listen to Ezra and Lynch tomorrow (Sunday) on The Roy Green Show.

They have become fairly clear about where they would like to roost in the future. Their hopes seem to involve getting laws changed so the police get to do their dirty work while they "research" and "advise".

I think you've said it all perfectly, EBD.

The Rev. Boissoin case, where a pseudo-court orders him to never, even privately, express his religious views on homosexuality. But, Islam rejects homosexuality. Are all its religious leaders in Canada 'equally' forbidden to privately as well as publicly, express their views? After all, the HRCs insist on 'equality'.

Procedural fairness? What's fair about a situation where the complainant pays no legal fees while the defendant must pay all their own fees? How is that procedurally fair?

What's fair about a situation where no actual experience of 'being viewed with contempt' need never have occurred. Only the supposition, that it might? How is living in a virtual world a procedurally fair world?

There is no debate possible about freedom of expression. It's a fundamental right in the Charter. As fundamental, it's not debatable.

Freedom from hate? That's ridiculous. No government has the right to legislate emotions. None. If some individual wants to hate X-type of behaviour or X-ethnicity, that is their right. It's also a fundamental right - the Charter actually says 'freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression'. That means, if I believe that X is worthy of hatred, it's my fundamental right to feel that way.

Commitment to equality? Equality of what? Equality of justice? Then, the HRCs, which fund the complainant but not the defendant, are in violation of this. Equality of what? Beliefs aren't equal. My belief that the world is flat is not, empirically, equal to the belief that the world is a spherical ball.

And, as pointed out, there is no such thing as a 'right to be treated with respect'. Should we treat the HRCs with respect because, they insist that treating others with respect is a 'right'? Should we treat incompetence, lies, misinformation, postmodern relativism and sheer manipulative hypocrisy with respect?

The utter arrogance of this bunch of self-satisfied elitists, who consider that they have the 'right' and duty to control how we boorish peasants interact with each other - is mind boggling.

Once again, well done EBD.

Going to SDA 4 times a day is akin to going fishing on a regular basis. Sometimes the fish aren't there but stories like this represent whoppers. It's a perspective we wouldn't see without the rightosphere.

Thx EBD.

The hugh-man rights commissions are no more than Liberal attempts at playing court. Without a actual court. For any Conservative politician or their cronies who may be reading this blog and comments may I say "Get rid of them" is that clear enough for you? Tired of this commie money wasting life wrecking crap. Harper and Stelmack are you listening? And again Canada owes Ezra a few beers.

Re: "Words can isolate and marginalize our fellow citizens, not because of what people has said or done, but solely because of their personal characteristics, such as ethnicity, religion, race or sexual orientation."

Allow me to point out once again that this list of personal characteristics is targeted at alleged "right-wingers", while the leftists can go on their merry way spreading hate towards businessmen, doctors, landlords, Americans, and "the rich" with impunity.

"Islam rejects homosexuality. Are all its religious leaders in Canada 'equally' forbidden to privately as well as publicly, express their views?"

No, and as you note, this obviates the CHRC's loudly-announced claim that they are promoting "equality." Last year Marc Lebuis of Point de Bascule lodged a formal complaint with the CHRC after a Montreal Imam said gays and lesbians should be "exterminated," those who engage in sodomy must be beheaded, and that Hindus, Buddhists and atheists in Muslim lands must convert to Islam or be killed.

Commission officers said that they decided not to proceed with the case because "the Imam's words did not seem to promote 'hatred' or 'contempt' for an 'identifiable group.'"

http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/spip.php?article1129

After hearing Langtry use the Sgt.Schultz that he was clueless about what goes on uder him, I was reminded of the AdScam Enquiry where two P.M.'s told Justice Gomery that they were too stupid to be expected to be responsible for the stolen money as $50 million a year went out the back door and they signed-off on it too.

This guy looked like a complete bozo who helped prove that the CHRC has no controls to stop the self-appointed Gods who mete out their Justice with an amazing amoung of Contempt for the Charter Of Rights that presumes a innocence until real evidence shows otherwise.
Listening to him admit to being ignorant and stupid of the most famous CHRC cases just shows how trivial the complaints were from the career whiners that avoid the Income-tax Act by treating the CHRC financial redresses as job with tax-Free salaries .

The funniest part was when he asserted that the CHRC answers to Parlaiment and acts according to the powers given to them....So why didn't Lynch show up to be accountible and why did Langtry squirm and stutter to evade the tough question?

You can listen to Roy Green's interview of Ezra and Lynch here:

CHQR audio vault

Select June 20, 2009 12:00 PM and click 'Listen'

A player opens and starts to play. Use the slider to advance in time to 8:00 minutes in for Ezra, and to 18:30 for Lynch.

PMSH, needs to address this ..very swiftly and with deadly accuracy ...no long dragged out court hearing's just an explosive decisive deciosn made promtly with an accute point to be made that the hrc/hrt are simply there to make sure people are not denied employment based on race ,creed ,yadda yadda yadda ...not telling people to shut up permanently becasue other people think that those people might say something that might hurt there feeling's . think of the tax cuts ..or how happy people would be to see there tax dollars not going to waste .

there once was a commie called Lynch
who thought the PC racket a cinch
a traveler sublime
on the taxpayers dime
till Ezra whipped out the big 10 inch

This is basically Liberal Entitlement does Human Rights, but take notice ... the virus is jumping from the CHRC matrix to the regular court matrix as early as this summer and fall. Richard Warman is going after posters on FD just as the sluggish process of parliamentary review begins to turn its attention to his past actions.

What we all need to understand is that the strategy of gradual or incremental change being practiced by the current government is so incremental that it amounts to driving at the speed limit instead of in the fast lane as one could assume the Liberals would be doing.

This amounts to co-enabling, and it makes no sense at all, but at the risk of sounding a concept unfamiliar to the PMO, it is the wrong thing to do. Take the summer and look it up ("wrong thing to do") ... possibly this will help ... appeasement as per 1938.

glasnost @9:21 - Thanks for the link. I'd never seen La Lynch before. She really was everything I could have dreamed; the clenched perma-smile was creepy enough, but that smirk around 10:30-11:00 minutes in could drive a mormon to drink. I'm sure as hell not surprised she didn't want to appear with Ezra Levant.
I was reminded of Gerry Adams, back in the day. If you ever saw him interviewed in the nineties - and in the U.K., if I remember right, there was always a weird practice of having someone else read his words, because his voice couldn't be broadcast; strange, but beside the point - well, Gerry would always do his "IRA? Not that there's anything wrong with them, a fine organization; but I'm with Sinn Fein; not the same thing at all etc." routine. In response to being asked about how the HRC procedures can bankrupt the accused, Lynch responds by a)denying that that happens b)claiming it doesn't matter anyway and c)pointing out that she's the head of the Commission, not the Tribunal; so that's really nothing to do with her; doesn't occur "at our level".
This smirking stalinist needs to go down. They all do.

From the CHRC "report": " ... not because of what people has said or done ... "

Isn't that gramatically incorrect? Shouldn't that read "not because of what people have said or done"?

'Last time I looked "people" was (were?!) plural not singular. These bozos can't even speak English properly.

(NOTE: The error is entirely mine, and not in the report. It's fixed now. -- EBD)

'Am in agreement with those who are calling for the swift end to this Human Rights Commission racket. It's a money-maker for illiberal, jackboot, busybodies and a blind from which to pick off anyone whose politics they abhor. This HRC abomination is anything but a champion of human rights; it puts anyone whose politics don't line up with theirs in chains.

GET. RID. OF. THEM. ALL. NOW.

Are there laws against lying during parliamentary hearings? Langtry tells outright lies at least three times during his testimony; he lies about the hijacking of the internet ID of that woman in Ottawa; he lies about commission employees and hangers-on posting hate-speech online; he lies about not knowing whether and how much Lucy Warman has profited from expenses and rewards in bringing complaints.
I hate him. Is that legal?

We are a country governed by a parliamentary democracy and the rule of law and we have Trudeau's Charter to complicate and tinker with it.

Why we need a human rights jackboot tribunal for extremists to complain and take away our democratic freedoms is not explainable. Take a gander at the clientele who are trotting to the HRC's if any proof is needed.

That pudding faced parasite Langtry made me want to spit.... who pays for these trough hogs existance?

Yeah, Mom's watching. I didn't want to say it -- I might hurt Langtry's feelings, oh no! -- but he's taken on the looks of the public-trough-swilling oinker he is.

'Puts me in mind of The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde ... you know that story?

The discussion is reaching the mainstream though, and that's a good thing. I haven't seen one place, even the Star, where the comments are in favour of the HRCs in their current form.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/653912#Comments

godot @8:17 PM - "still waiting for an answer!!"
Ironic. About the waiting.

This is essentially how the Human Rights tribunals are run by Lynch & company ...

* Your accuser may never be identified
* You may never know exactly what you are charged with
* Truth is not a defence
* The process is the sentence , as you have no legal rights , your accuser pays no costs , but you must pay to defend yourself
* The HRC's make up the rules as they go

Here is a good example of how the HRC's are conducted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3r3r65xzIU

It's always fun to tune into what the idiots are saying and doing so I went to Warren Kan'tstandya's web site. He states that Lynch is a "Progressive Conservative" but he likes her anyway.

I didn't need any further confirmation that she and Canada's HRC's are out of control but if I did need that further confirmation, I got it from WK.

Brian - Great clip! I encourage everyone to view it. Is it just me or does the guy playing the role of "Q" not bear an uncanny resemblence to none other than WK?

Some (few) think they have a right not be offended. This contradicts free speech - everyone should have the right to offend anyone they want, but only with truthful words.

The HRC officials always have an excuse when their "balance" is questioned, but basically boil down to:

1. No identifiable groups targeted
2. Not enough people heard it
3. My personal favourite, not in an identifiable group.

Did you know that it's impossible for a white christian male to be "offended." Sorry, not on the list buddy, and while we have you here, get out your chequebook. You owe us big time for your oppression of us with plasma TVs, IPods and cars.

While jettisoning fundamental legal rights, the CHR admimnistrates some kind of moveable shit line, like our society was a trailer park full of miscreants, who need to be closely monitored so their quips don't turn into hate crimes.

We're more like Tim Horton's than Trailer Park Boys, but how would they know?

Let them eliminate themselves, I say to PMSH (maybe abrogate that idiotic Sect 13 part), and simply throw them some more rope.

Osumashi Kinyobe: "They had me at "words". You mean an adult must cry to the government for mediation when he hears something he doesn't like?"

Yes! You better believe it, that is exactly their purpose.

The fundamental principle of the CHRC is that you are unable to function without them to make SURE you do it properly. You, as a Canadian citizen, are a venal, stupid creature who without their benevolent guiding hand to calm your baser instincts will be killing, raping and pillaging almost immediately.

Freedom is not something to be granted lightly! It is a privilege that you must prove yourself worthy of, to those who wisely dispense it in penny packets. Quick change of outfit and a tan, Mr. Langtry is ideologically IDENTICAL to the mullahs of Iran.

And we wonder why they riot in Tehran.

When Ezra, Mark, BCF, etc,finish with the CHRC I respectfully request that they choose another den of hypocrisy to focus on.

In the Roy Green Interview Lynch says: "We would not post hate, we have not done it and we would not condone it". - She says the decision to no longer allow CHRC staff to sign up on hate sites was taken about a year ago.

Now recall the Owendyuk case where the tribunal called Lucy's posting on hate sites "disappointing and disturbing"

Has Jennifer Lynch just thrown Lucy under the bus?

After listening to the Roy Green interview, I'm astonished at her lack of knowledge about the inner workings of her own department. Given the criticism they have faced, surely it wouldn't be too much to expect her to know when Commission employees were directed to no longer log on to calumnious websites.

For somebody who has actively promoted a public discussion about the CHRC she certainly isn't assisting in that discussion. Other than describing why witnesses are paid, she added little information of interest. Her answers to more pointed questions were disappointing. Her lectures with respect to the connection between CHRC and various Parliamentary Committees were time-wasting. Her obvious snippiness distracting. Worse, various transcripts of CHRT hearings appear to be at odds with the information she provided.

Perhaps Ms. Lynch just doesn't know enough about what goes on in her department at the lower levels to be its spokesperson. Perhaps Ms. Lynch has been concentrating too much on the International Human Rights chair gig she holds to pay much attention to the Canadian version. Frankly her excuse for not appearing before the Parliamentary Committee was weak. Her primary duty is to her main gig - the CHRC in Canada. Better that she send her assistant to appear at the Montreal Human Rights festival in her stead.

In short I think, Ms. Lynch is more concerned about saving or promoting face in the International Human Rights community than in serving the people of Canada.

"I believe we're seeing the beginning of the end."

or the end of the beginning. What do my human rights as a white male christian mean to these yahoos anyway?