Rules include;
“no CHRC employee ever posted a hate message” sip + plus wipe your screen
What do we have to look forward to? Jennifer Lynch of the CHRC, Mark Freiman and Bernie Farber of the CJC will present their justifications for the continued circumvention and erosion of Canadians fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and established criminal justice principles, notably due process. Richard Moon will hopefully expand on his expressed distaste for the “tone” of the public debate, otherwise known as democracy.
So expect the worst from them and even less of the Liberal and NDP committee members, after all Section 13 (1) was cynically born of the brokerage politics that hides behind the decayed mask of official multiculturalism and the need by politicians to be seen as “taking action” – otherwise known as vote buying. Section 13 (1) is legislation that brings visions of votes dancing through the heads of short sighted politicians giddy with the belief that minorities are homogeneous voting blocs. This will likely remain the case for our out of touch politicos who imagine advocacy groups are always representative of their alleged constituencies best interests and despite the fact that the campaign to rid Canada of Section 13 (1) has proven to be as non-partisan and grassroots an effort as any I have witnessed, garnering overwhelming public and institutional support.
You can watch the live broadcast here, 3:30 – 5:30 eastern.
The only way I could listen to their propaganda and lies is to be drunk, it’s to early in the day for me to hit the bottle thus I’ll read about their acting ability tomorrow.
Ought to be interesting to see and hear those who would decide what we are to say, see, hear and how we must live, appointed by unknown persons to do their dirty business.
The real question is will I be offended enough listening to her testimony that I can file a human rights complaint about her?
I probably can’t watch it today, but I’m hoping some public-spirited, selfless, tech-savvy soul (say, Mississauga Matt, to pick a name at random) might be putting it up on Youtube.
(BTW – notice how Kate keeps encouraging us to drink? I think my junior high-school Social Sciences teacher warned me about her.)
correction mamba….
the role you ascribe to Kate as “mephistopheles” is played by jay currie..
if’n I wanted hear something akin to those fools make noise I would get a pet bull
and I’m curious about the “threats” that Jennifer received, as it is just so convenient be be a “victim” in her case
Begley – check out the FDIC video post below. They’re both in it together.
(On the other hand, if I’m reading him right on that same thread, Me No Dhimmi implies that he was driven to sobriety by SDA. So go know.)
(“Social Studies teacher”, that would be.)
mamba…
MR begley or john begley or plain old john would be nice….
but begley alone sounds so military…so subordinating if you follow..
be governed accordingly
Wow Rathgebar has blown his chance, very poor performance, Comartin was better and he’s NDP.
Too bad about Rathgebar. Woodworth was much better. I suppose it doesn’t matter much though because Lynch simply dissembles or outright lies. I’m very surprised Russ Hiebert didn’t have questions, perhaps that’s because he has inside knowledge as to where this is going.
Lynch would make a great poll dancer, spin sister spin. At best she answered very few direct question and the MPs said nothing.
White wash, utter bull shite on a stick.
Rose, is “poll dancer” a pun or a typo? Either way, you’re correct.
Prof Moon’s input was quite different than I expected. I believe that if he’s treated like a grown-up (and shown some respect by Ezra) he will not be the enemy.
Glasnost:
Your silly speculation about Russ Hiebert is way off the mark – first, he did ask two good questions at the end of the meeting of CHRC apologist Richard Moon – he wasn’t able to ask more because he is not a member of the justice committee and was only there because of his concern over the issue. (Any MP can sit in on a committee meeting but has no right to ask questions or vote – another member has to give up his or her time to allow a ‘sit-in MP’ to speak.)
If you think Hiebert was somehow holding back, you haven’t read the testimony of the subcommittee on international human rights from this spring, where Hiebert leads the questioning of CHRC Deputy Hack David Langtry.
If you think Hiebert was somehow holding back, you haven’t read the testimony of the subcommittee on international human rights from this spring, where Hiebert leads the questioning of CHRC Deputy Hack David Langtry ~ Hillinsider
Actually I viewed that event which is exactly why I was surprised that Mr. Hiebert declined the chair’s explicit offer to question Lynch. As well, I enunciated my silly speculation immediately after Lynch’s show and before Hiebert asked any questions. Nonetheless I’m interested in hearing a more astute analysis by a bona fide “insider” as you apparently claim to be.
Waited for the coverage on CPAC and got stuck with QP in the HoC. Apparently 120 green weinies dirupted QP, so the Speaker shut down the house and asked the brats to leave. They didn’t go happily …3 broken noses and 6 arrests later, QP resumed and but the scheduled vent was delayed. I missed it.
Not very many comments or analysis here. Does that mean everyone got drunk watching it?