Jennifer Lynch, jet-setting lawbreaker
I read Mark Steyn's views on Lynch's attempt to cleanse the Internet of conservative voices, and I thought: this isn't just a political scandal. It's a legal scandal. Lynch is breaking the law.
Section 13 -- the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act -- has been before the Supreme Court of Canada already. In 1990, John Ross Taylor, then 80 years old, appealed his section 13 conviction all the way to the SCC. The seven judges split, four saying the law was constitutional, three (including Beverly McLachlin, now the Chief Justice of the SCC) saying it was unconstitutional.
But the four who let section 13 slide were strict about its application. Here's what they wrote in their judgment (I've bolded a few key words):
In sum, the language employed in s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act extends only to that expression giving rise to the evil sought to be eradicated and provides a standard of conduct sufficiently precise to prevent the unacceptable chilling of expressive activity. Moreover, as long as the Human Rights Tribunal continues to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pays heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in the phrase "hatred or contempt", there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section.
Take a look a that just for a moment.
Three judges said the law was illegal. Four said it was legal, but only if it remained focused on truly evil hatred, that was ardent and extreme. Subjective opinions about offensiveness weren't permitted -- and, said those four judges confidently, there was little danger of that happening.
Well, those four judges hadn't met Jennifer Lynch and her corrupt crew of political inquisitors.
Section 13 would be found unconstitutional by today's Supreme Court of Canada, which has been strengthening Canada's freedom of speech, as it did in this summer's decision to greatly expand the defence of fair comment in defamation cases.
But I believe that even the less liberal Supreme Court of 1990 would strike down Lynch's abusive conduct. Lynch and her censors clearly violate the red lines laid down by the four judges who approved of section 13. Her persecutions of Christian clergy, mainstream conservatives, and others who merely have a different political opinion from hers, is not only politically scandalous and morally odious, but it's unconstitutional. It's exactly what those four judges said would not and should not happen.
She's a law-breaker, but she doesn't give a damn, because she knows none of the victims she targets has had the energy or money to appeal her bullying all the way to the Supreme Court. But her? She's got money to burn. Seriously, look at this woman's five-star junkets. In early June, she dropped a cool $9,000 of taxpayers' money flying to some very important meetings in Ireland. She came back to Canada, took three days to get over her jet-lag, and then she dropped another $2,400 going to lovely Niagara-on-the-Lake. How do you even manage to spend that much, when you live in Ottawa? Did she travel by private jet? Did she tip her chauffeur $1,000? Then to take the edge off, the next month Lynch flew to Kuala Lumpur, for $6,400. Perhaps she was there to pick up some tips on censorship. According to Freedom House, Malaysia is full of little Lynchs:
...publications and printers must obtain annual operating permits from the
government, causing most print media outlets to practice
self-censorship and limit investigative journalism. The law also gives
the prime minister—as the minister of internal security—the authority
to revoke licenses at any time without judicial review. The PPPA was
invoked in early 2006 to indefinitely suspend the Sarawak Tribune and temporarily suspend the Guang Ming Daily
for reproducing infamous Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
Abdullah invoked the act in mid-February to prohibit the publication,
distribution, or possession of any materials relating to the Danish
caricatures. Fearing a selective crackdown after the government’s
handling of the cartoon issue, the media self-censored their coverage
of major fuel price hike protests in April, some of which were brutally
suppressed by the police.
In July 2006, the prime minister banned public discussion of the
status of Islam, religious freedom, and interfaith issues, as well as
all reporting on the issues of race and religion. The information
minister then issued a sharp warning that the government would take
action against all media outlets that did not comply.
Sounds like CHRC heaven!
But I digress. (I'll digress again when Lynch is required to publish her travel for the last three months.)
Back to Canadian law. How long will Lynch be permitted to abuse the law? In other words, who'll strike her down first -- Canada's Supreme Court, or Canada's Parliament?
Fire. Them. All.
Blogrolls
