Jennifer Lynch's rage-filled speech in Montreal
On Monday, Jennifer Lynch, the chief commissar of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, gave a speech to her fellow censors at the human rights industry’s annual trade show in Montreal. It was such a grotesque speech, any self-respecting government ought to fire her for uttering it. It revealed Lynch’s complete misunderstanding of the nature of human rights, the right of citizens to question their government, and the government’s proper attitude towards peaceful criticism.
It was the speech of an angry bigot.
It showed Lynch to be temperamentally unsuitable for any public office, especially a prosecutorial office with powers similar to those of real police. She’s bitter, vindictive, paranoid and motivated by anger and vengeance. If she was a real cop, answerable to an internal affairs branch, she’d be put on leave and investigated for her rage-filled rant.
Lynch’s speech was that of a bureaucrat at war with Canadian citizens. It was a speech of a bully who seeks the power to destroy those who oppose her.
I’ve rarely seen such a speech uttered by someone in public life; Jacques Parizeau’s “money and the ethnic vote” comment wasn’t a speech – it was a five-word gaffe, but it showed his true colors, and it has discredited him ever since. Lynch’s speech was Parizeau’s vengeance stretched to 20 minutes – but done on purpose. Even Richard Nixon’s enemies list was a private document; Lynch’s speech, in which she catalogues her enemies and denounces them, was a formal, public utterance, vetted by the CHRC’s half-dozen PR staff. It was clearly written by Lynch herself – the personal venom of it just couldn’t be faked.
Lynch is what Orwell feared
There have been some excellent dissections of the speech; Mark Steyn has a round-up of many of them, and the National Post gave almost a full page to the subject on Thursday. I will try not to repeat their points. Rather, I would like to point out something superlative in Lynch’s speech: she has taken Orwellian inversions to a level that I have not seen before. She’s simply the best at what Orwell called newspeak and doublethink.
Every flaw and error in her own conduct and that of her CHRC henchmen, she attributes to her opponents. Every vicious tactic she uses herself as a matter of course, she blames on her victims.
It is classic Orwellian behaviour, and it shows Lynch is better suited to working in Iran than in Canada.
The censorship business attracts sociopaths
This isn’t a small point, and it’s not just a one-liner. It is the entire psychology of the CHRC – and it is why that corrupt organization attracts so many sociopaths as employees. Seriously: in the section 13 censorship squad, you’ve got Sandy Kozak, an ex-cop thrown off a police force for corruption; you’ve got Dean Steacy, a tyrant who declaims that free speech is not a Canadian concept and who laughs under oath that he didn’t break the CHRC’s rules, because there aren’t any rules to break; and you’ve got Richard Warman, who spends literally hundreds of hours online, posting anti-Semitic, anti-black and anti-gay venom on neo-Nazi websites. Sorry, that’s just not a normal, well-adjusted group of people. Hunting your fellow citizens using unethical means isn’t what normal people do. These people are off. And Jennifer Lynch is their perfect leader.
Let’s look at a few lines from her speech. Some are merely lies; others are perversions of the truth, where she accuses her victims of committing her own offences:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission welcomes improvements to the human rights system.
That’s simply a lie. Lynch paid $50,000 to Richard Moon to write a whitewash of the CHRC. To everyone’s surprise, he cashed his cheque and recommended scrapping section 13, the censorship provision. Lynch threw his report down Orwell’s memory hole, and pretended it never happened.
And, as many of you will recall, at last year’s conference I launched a comprehensive policy review of how to prevent the harm caused by hate messages on the Internet, while respecting freedom of expression... The Report also proposes improvements to our Act to address shortcomings that were identified during consultations.
Consultations? There were no consultations. When Lynch blew $50,000 on Moon’s report, she learned her lesson: don’t consult people – even one person like Moon – if you aren’t 100% sure they’re going to obediently parrot your views. So she didn’t this time. There were no hearings. That wouldn’t be the CHRC’s job anyways – representing the public will is Parliament’s job. Lynch didn’t consult anyone other than her fellow sociopaths in the censorship industry.
Further, the Commission makes observations with respect to improving the effectiveness of the Criminal Code.
Orwell would have loved that: “improving the effectiveness of the Criminal Code.” In her memo to Parliament, Lynch calls for the repeal of the truth defence to the hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code. As I wrote in the National Post, unlike human rights laws, the Criminal Code allows truth, and honest belief, and religious convictions as defences to “hate speech” charges. Lynch wants to remove those defences to get a higher conviction rate – maybe even the 100% conviction rate her CHRC has for censorship cases.
What is the purpose of a Criminal Code?
Now, even real police know that the purpose of the Criminal Code is not to convict everyone. Merely rigging the law to get more convictions is not “improving the effectiveness” of the Criminal Code, for the Criminal Code’s desired effect is not to convict everyone. It’s supposed to convict the guilty, acquit those who are not guilty, and provide a predictable set of rules for living in our liberal society – ordered freedom.
The purpose of a Criminal Code in a place like Iran or North Korea is to convict whomever the police charge. That’s it’s purpose there – to enable a totalitarian government to have its will done. That’s not the purpose of a Criminal Code in Canada. But it is to Lynch.
In addition, insofar as points about our processes were raised, we are addressing these internally:
We are clarifying and publishing our operating procedures;
Oh, that’s smooth. “Points about our processes were raised.” I love the passive tense and the bland meaninglessness of it.
CHRC internal procedures are a scandal
By “processes”, of course, Lynch means the standard operating procedure of her sociopathic staff: joining neo-Nazi groups and publishing hundreds (thousands?) of bigoted remarks on the Internet, in attempts to entrap “real” neo-Nazis. And that’s just the start of it. Her staff hacked into a private citizen’s Internet account to cover their tracks while they went online in Nazi drag. Her staff routinely refuse to disclose documents to their targets, despite their legal obligation to do so. There’s the spying on political websites, like the conservative Free Dominion, by commission staff. They even admit to illegally acquiring the fruits of criminal search warrants, for use in their own HRC prosecutions.
And then there’s the CHRC’s most basic “process”: having investigators like corrupt ex-cop Sandy Kozak harass citizens for months or even years for political offensiveness. Kozak’s harassment of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, the Catholic priest who publishes a small magazine in Toronto, cost him more than $20,000, before Kozak spat him out. Lynch’s mob just loves bullying Christians for holding conservative views – an illegal application of the “hate speech” law. They’ve also gone after the Christian Heritage Party and Rev. Stephen Boissoin, just to name a couple of others.
Imagine if Kozak the corrupt ex-cop tried to bully Jews the way she bullies Christians.
Emphasis on whitewash, not reform
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;
Ah, yes. We must educate the “layperson” that section 13 censorship only applies to “the most extreme hate”. Note that Lynch’s own staff are not the targets of this reeducation – they’ll continue to harass Christians, conservatives and anyone else who gets in their way. Merely offending Lynch’s sensibilities will be enough to prosecute them. But the public must be told that only evil people are being censored.
Right – like evil Fr. Alphonse de Valk and his “extreme hate” newsletter talking about the Bible.
The Commission has a responsibility to better inform the public about its role and processes and we are already engaging in an expanded outreach strategy.
“An expanded outreach strategy” – that could mean so many things. Does it mean the CHRC’s continued publications on neo-Nazi websites? Or is it their new brownshirt approach to news media like CTV, telling them to blackball me from appearing “anywhere” on their programs?
Now, let me also state that this debate is a positive and important democratic exercise.
Really? Is that why the CHRC threw out Moon’s report? Is that why Lynch tried to blackball me from TV? Is that why Lynch herself refuses to testify before Parliament, sending her lackeys instead?
Does Lynch really value freedom of speech?
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.
Really? Well that’s not what the CHRC says under oath, when prosecuting their victims. Two years ago, in the case Warman v. Lemire, Lynch’s employee Dean Steacy testified that "freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”. You can read that for yourself right here, at page 4793.
Lynch has never corrected Steacy’s statement. Steacy has not been ordered to correct his testimony in that case. It is being used as evidence to prosecute Marc Lemire – a case whose judgment is still pending.
Freedom of expression is important because words and ideas have power.
No, that is not why freedom of expression is important. That doesn’t even make sense. Not all words and ideas have power; most don’t. We believe in freedom of expression because we believe that the essence of being human is to have a conscience and beliefs and dreams, and for the state to censor our speech is for the state to attack our very essence as human beings. That is why freedom of speech is a human right – because to destroy that freedom is to destroy our identity as people.
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.
What an illiterate, ahistorical lie. Mere words cannot destroy democracy or freedom or equality. Because mere words cannot trump other human rights, such as property rights, the right to self-defence, the right to life, etc. This is what Hitler discovered after he took office: all the fiery speeches in the world couldn’t kill a single Jew, let alone millions – he had to change real laws that protected Jews from what he really wanted to do to them. An even starker example is that of antebellum United States. Blacks in the north had to live with pervasive racism, just like blacks in the south did. But mere racism couldn’t turn a black man into a slave. Only state laws that destroyed real human rights could do that – laws that turned men into mere property. All the insults in the worlds can’t stop democracy, freedom or equality. It takes a tyrannical government to do that.
The major concern is one that I know that most of us share: the need to strengthen the overall human rights system and ensure the public understands what we do.
As Mark Steyn points out, Lynch cares more about her human rights “system” than about any real human rights – such as freedom of speech.
But look at the emphasis on propaganda. Lynch doesn’t really want the public to know what the CHRC does. She desperately tries to have the media shut out of her secret trials. She stonewalls access to information requests, violating the law in doing so.
Pretending that Warman's private playground is for the public interest
Fundamental to the administration of justice is access to justice – entry points for the most vulnerable to have their voices heard.
All but two section 13 censorship cases prosecuted by the CHRC since 2001 have been filed by Richard Warman. He’s a former CHRC investigator himself, who now works in the Department of Defence’s own internal human rights commission. Uh, is he really Canada’s “most vulnerable” voice?
Over time, access to administrative tribunals has been deemed to be an effective vehicle for the disenfranchised minorities, among others. Certainly all of us here who work at Commissions and Tribunals provide that vital access.
I wouldn’t think that white male lawyer like Richard Warman is a disenfranchised minority. But maybe I’m just looking at him wrong – I’m being racist. In some ways, he’s such a minority, he’s probably unique. How many members of EGALE also post anti-gay bigotry on the Internet, as Warman does? How many recipients of awards from the Canadian Jewish Congress are also members of neo-Nazi groups on the Internet, and call Jews “scum”? Indeed, he is a minority!
$200-million/year HRCs vs. amateur bloggers
The debate is now the larger debate – beyond balancing rights – and it has become about the human rights system itself.
We are in a time when a mounting campaign suggests that equality has been achieved in Canada. Certain detractors seek to caricature the human rights system, and undermine its legacy and ability to ensure equality for all Canadians.
That’s gorgeous. A “mounting campaign”. Lynch was speaking at the annual five-star luxury retreat of the human rights industry. Last year it was in gorgeous Niagara on the Lake. This year it’s in historic Montreal. I’m sure it won’t be long before it’s scheduled to be somewhere overseas, perhaps in one of Lynch’s favourite spots, like Vienna or Sydney. (I love the acronym for the HRC industry: CASHRA. You bet – the 14 HRCs get about $200-million a year amongst them from taxpayers, much of it blown on “hospitality” like the CASHRA getaways.
So, against a $200-million industry, whose 14 HRCs probably have 50 full time PR professionals and spin doctors, Lynch cowers before a “mounting campaign” of... amateur bloggers and hobbyists. Not one of us is paid to counter the HRCs; not one of us has a budget for lobbyists and pollsters, like the CHRC does; not one of us can drop $50,000 to commission a self-serving report. A mounting campaign? Too bad Lynch’s scofflaw approach to access to information requests means we’ll never see just how much time and money she’s spending on PR damage control. Oh well – better that than persecuting some Catholic priest.
This began with a complaint brought against Rogers Communications by the Canadian Islamic Congress, in three jurisdictions: Federal, Ontario, and British Columbia. All three dismissed the complaint.
Look at how cavalierly Lynch dismisses the triple jeopardy here – Maclean’s was sued in three jurisdictions simultaneously, for the express purpose of harassing them. No problem for Lynch – and a quarter of the CASHRA room probably nodded their heads, thankful for the busy-work.
Even before the three complaints were dismissed, many commissions and tribunals experienced a cacophony of protest – by those who felt that exposing mainstream media organizations to formal complaints is inconsistent with Canada’s commitment to freedom of expression.
Ah, the “cacophony” of freedom. So much less acceptable than the harmony of the official government view. That’s the sound Lynch likes – her own voice. She doesn’t much like critics, especially those who would dare to complain about a lack of freedom of speech!
Lynch can't name a single factual error
The debate moved to one of discrediting Commissions’ processes, professionalism and staff.
No. Lynch and her fellow HRCs discredited those. The blogging Army of Davids merely exposed them to the light of public scrutiny.
Much of what was written was inaccurate, unfair, and at times scary:
Articles described human rights commissions and their employees in this way:
“human rights racket”
“welcome to the whacky world of Canadian human rights.”
“...(i)t sounds like a fetish club for servants of the Crown”
“a secretive and decadent institution”
Inaccurate, eh? But Lynch provides no examples of such inaccuracies. Unfair? That’s more Lynch’s kind of talk – something vague and personal and emotional. Scary? I guess it depends on your definition of the word. I’m not really scared about the criticism I receive on the blogosphere. I am scared about a government that spies on its own people, entraps them, and then prosecutes them.
Gestapo? That was the Nazi domestic secret police. At least I think that’s what Lynch was referring to. Or maybe she’s talking about one of her staff’s codenames on the Stormfront neo-Nazi website.
Human rights racket? What else would you call it when a former investigator for the CHRC is also the biggest complainant at the CHRC, where he has a 100% conviction rate, wins tens of thousands of dollars in tax-free awards for same – and has his expenses paid for, to this day, by the CHRC itself?
Wacky world? Is she serious? Mark Steyn called her wacky, and it hurt her so badly she felt the need to unburden herself of that in a speech to a conference? Is this woman an emotional five-year-old?
Secretive? See above, re: attempts to ban the media from hearings.
In addition to this mounting discredit for our institution:
blogs worked to destroy our investigators and litigators’ reputations and credibility with untrue accusations;
groundless complaints were lodged with the law societies; and
a Commission employee’s life was threatened.
This is by far my favourite part.
First, it admits that in fact, the Army of Davids who have been blogging about the CHRC have in fact succeeded in discrediting it. I find that concession enormously satisfying: the denormalization is happening. Not through the terrible calumny of calling her “wacky”. But through the incessant publication of real and odious facts about the CHRC – and Lynch herself.
“Destroy our investigators and litigators’ reputations and credibility with untrue accusations”. Really? So is it untrue that investigator Sandy Kozak is a corrupt ex-cop? Is it untrue that investigator Dean Steacy has a membership in a neo-Nazi organization – and that litigator Giacomo Vigna has it, too? What exactly is untrue?
But could any whine from Lynch be less sympathetic than “groundless complaints were lodged with the law societies”. Wow. This from the queen of groundless complaints, such as the groundless complaint against Fr. Alphonse de Valk, which cost him $20,000 before he was let go –or, hell, the $100,000 I had to spend in the two groundless complaints against me.
But the extra irony there is that Lynch’s own staff have filed more than a dozen law society complaints against me – including a complaint that I used the term “kangaroo court” to describe the CHRC. It is unthinkable that Lynch did not know about or approve these complaints against me – or the defamation suit filed against me by her staff lawyer, Giacomo Vigna, for ridiculing his bizarre and embarrassing performance before a tribunal. (Litigation update: I recently had a pre-trial conference on this file in Ottawa – the last step before a trial date is set. I undertook to the judge to keep the content of that conference confidential, and I will. But let’s just say this: after that conference, Vigna decided he’d better not represent himself anymore, and he hired a real lawyer. I’m looking forward to the trial, and I think Vigna will be quite surprised to learn that in some real courts in Canada, truth and fair comment are actual defences.)
Some human rights experts tried to respond and correct this misinformation. 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?”
This is a damnable lie by Lynch. Again, Mark Steyn wrote that comment about Pearl Eliadis, an HRC hack from Montreal. But for propaganda purposes, Lynch strips out so many words to invert its meaning. Steyn was mocking Eliadis’s own unfair accusations. Here’s what he really wrote:
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.
What he wrote had the 180-degree opposite meaning of what Lynch said he wrote. That’s a lie. That’s how Lynch operates. In fact, her lie hides that it as Eliadis herself who made the baseless accusation against Steyn (and me).
Public embarrassment doesn't equal "chill"
As personal attacks were made against anyone who tried to correct the record, the number of people willing to make the effort dwindled. There is tangible proof of this: 50% of interviewees for an upcoming book on human rights have stated that they feel “chilled” about speaking up.
I know what “chill” means. Chill means that if you are a publisher and print some Danish cartoons of Mohammed, some HRC will prosecute you for 900 days, with fifteen government bureaucrats and lawyers, and you’ll spend $100,000 in legal fees even if you eventually win. That’s chill.
Chill is not a critical letter to the editor, or someone cancelling their subscription, or someone calling you an idiot. That’s part of the fun of being in the public square – and part of democracy.
Lynch dares to equate the real chill or prosecution, fines, legal fees and the stigma of a government agency deeming you to be a “hatemonger” with the “chill” of having your foolish ideas criticized in some far corner of the Internet.
Can’t you see how these people despise freedom?
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.
The reverse chill! I love it!
Critics of the human rights system are manipulating and misrepresenting information to further a new agenda: one that posits that human rights commissions and tribunals no longer serve a useful purpose.
Lynch has shown in this speech that she’s no slouch when it comes to manipulating and misrepresenting the facts. But that’s the thing about liars like her – they’re easy to rebut and discredit.
Why won't Lynch debate her critics?
If, as Lynch claims, people like me and Steyn are such liars, why doesn’t she just tear us to pieces? If we’re making it up, why not point out a single inaccuracy?
Why not debate us?
The answer is easy. Because we aren’t making up the facts – we’re uncovering the facts that Lynch doesn’t want uncovered.
And, on a deeper level, for Lynch to debate us would be an acknowledgement that there is a debate – that there are two or more points of view that are legitimately held. That’s not part of Lynch’s business model – or her psychology. She believes there’s her point of view – and the rest is hate speech. That’s why she wants to remove truth as a defence from the Criminal Code. Doesn’t she have a monopoly on the truth?
Because the Maclean’s case was about a journalist, it naturally attracted the attention of many other journalists, who quite rightly see their role as a bulwark against incursions on freedom of expression.
I do believe that some are unwitting accomplices in a gross oversimplification of the issue, who flame the controversy by repeating inaccuracies.
Again, I’d pay someone a dollar to hear just one single inaccuracy that this nag is referring to.
It seems that fundamentally detractors do not believe that access to administrative tribunals in search of equality is something that our country should ensure.
Is that what I’ve been railing against for 18 months? I don’t want people to have access to legal help as they search for equality?
What a damned liar. Of course, there is no equality at the CHRC – for example, they refuse to accept complaints against anyone other than white Christians. Last year, when a radical Muslim imam was caught calling for the death of gays, Jews, women, liberal Muslims, etc., the CHRC refused to even take the case. Access to justice, eh?
No, I’m not against access to justice. It’s that I don’t think the CHRC is anything remotely like justice. It’s a kangaroo court, a political court, a rogue court. It prosecutes fake crimes, like thought crimes, word crimes and emotion crimes. And it destroys natural justice and the rule of law. That’s what I’m against.
But maybe that’s why Lynch won’t debate me – she’d rather fight against a straw man argument, than my real arguments.
As I provide examples, I ask you to listen for a thread that is causing many of us a larger concern.
Here are some examples, all from mainstream media:
“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.”
True. They have police powers – and then some. They have the right to warrantless search and seizures. They have no internal affairs oversight (even judges have a judicial committee overseeing them). HRCs allow hearsay evidence; HRCs aren’t run by judges, often not even by lawyers. I say again: where’s the inaccuracy?
“…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.”
True. And it was that anonymity that allowed them to persist. How they wish they could turn the clock back.
Is Lynch investigating Monte Solberg?
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.”
Watch out, Monte – they’re prosecuting a former MP, Jim Pankiw, for letters he mailed to his constituents. You’re on their watch list now, too.
These comments clearly show misunderstanding about the separate roles of Commissions and Tribunals and our processes.
Legislatures and Parliament have begun to pay attention:
Federally, the Justice and Human Rights Committee has a motion before it to examine the Canadian Commission’s mandate over hate on the Internet – a forum we welcome for this dialogue.
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.
Not all HRCs have separate commissions and tribunals – in Alberta they don’t, for example. But it’s irrelevant. If the kangaroo prosecutors and the kangaroo judges work in different buildings, does that really make the process so much more legitimate?
Lynch is not above a little name-calling herself -- or is that hatemongering?
But my favourite part here is how Lynch calls the opponents to Bill 44 – the law in Alberta that failed to repeal the censorship provision – “the far right”.
Now, first off, that’s just not factually accurate. The chief opponent to Bill 44 was the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics. Chumir was a Liberal and a liberal – in the best sense of the word. The Chumir Foundation is run by true liberals, like Janet Keeping – a deeply thoughtful woman who truly cares about real human rights. I spent part of a day with her at a conference in Halifax, and she told me of how she always visits the Magna Carta when she’s in London.
And the idea to repeal the censorship provision first came from Lindsay Blackett, a moderate Tory – who also happens to be black.
But to Lynch, Keeping and Blackett are the “far right”. Because it’s easier to denounce your opponents with name calling than to actually engage them – especially if they’re true liberals who care about human rights, like Keeping does and Blackett did.
But note also how Lynch uses “far right”. It’s a name she calls her political opponents. But it’s also the phrase that the CHRC uses to describe neo-Nazis they prosecute. She’s trying to anathematize her opponents using the same legal language she uses against her legal targets.
That shows you what this is all about: criminalizing dissent. If she could, she’d probably prosecute Blackett and Keeping, too.
Blackett and Keeping aren’t far right. They’re centre-left. But if Lynch thinks they’re far right, that tells you just how far off centre she herself is. Because if you’re a Marxist, even liberals look far right to you.
I bet Lynch didn’t use the phrase “far right” as an insult when she was begging Stephen Harper for her appointment to the CHRC.
In Ontario, the abolition of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Tribunal has become a platform issue in a current leadership campaign.
So now the CHRC is monitoring political campaigns and weighing in on them.
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.
Again, Steyn nailed it: they care more about the “system” that gives them all jobs, than about real rights themselves.
Today, many Canadians’ perception of our human rights system has been, in large part, informed by the misinformation and spin of our critics. Many no longer see the connection between the societal values that they cherish and the organizations that are there to promote and protect those values.
But the CHRC isn’t promoting or protecting values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and property rights – the things we went to war over. They’re actually eroding those rights. But, as always, the blame is on others, never Lynch and her mob.
By "balanced debate", Lynch means: she talks, we listen
I’m at 5,000 words, so let me skip to Lynch’s last line:
I encourage you, members of the human rights community, to speak out when you can on these issues. I also encourage you to use your skills and expertise to ensure that informed discussion takes place, and the manner in which it takes place is respectful of our human rights system.
When rights must be balanced, so too debate about these rights should be balanced, but it is not.
Lynch wants an informed discussion – but to bar critics who actually have concrete information to be banned from that discussion. She wants a discussion that is respectful not of human rights, but of the human rights system – translation: her job. And she wants the debate “balanced”. That’s code for predetermining the outcome of the debate.
This isn’t a balanced issue. Canadians aren’t split on freedom – we’re for it. A real debate wouldn’t result in a tie. Only a rigged debate would, which is why Lynch is trying to rig her debate, from garbaging Moon’s inconvenient report, to trying to ban me from talk shows.
This is a debate about censorship, and Lynch is losing badly. The fact that she’s now trying to rig the debate by censoring her opponents only makes the case against her more damning.