Is Jennifer Lynch a Nazi sympathizer?
I don't know. But she certainly has gone to great lengths to defend the Nazi members who work for her at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
After my detailed description of those Nazi members in the National Post this week -- wherein I list their names, and cite examples of the bigotry that those Nazi members have published online -- Lynch replied with this laughable letter:
Both the RCMP and the Privacy Commissioner have conducted a thorough investigation into the alleged "hacking of a private citizen's account" and have both determined that no further proceedings are warranted. The Canadian Human Rights Commission considers this matter closed.
In investigating hate messages complaints, the commission has logged on to websites to view their contents and to obtain evidence. In some investigations, postings were made, but this has never included the posting of hateful or derogatory messages, nor would the commission condone such a practice if it occurred. The suggestion that the commission's investigation of neo-Nazi websites equates to "active" membership in neo-Nazi organizations is simply irresponsible.
I regret that this important discussion has degenerated into unwarranted personal attacks on the employees of the Canadian Human Rights Commission carrying out their legislated mandate.
Jennifer Lynch, Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa.
There are a lot of outright lies there, which is why I suppose Lynch is engaging in this debate through the pages of a newspaper, rather than attending at a Parliamentary Committee, as MP Russ Hiebert asked her to do. It's one thing to lie to the public; it's quite another for Lynch to lie to Parliament. It's still unethical, but it won't likely get her charged with an offence.
Let's look at just a few of those lies, line by line:
Both the RCMP and the Privacy Commissioner have conducted a thorough investigation into the alleged "hacking of a private citizen's account" and have both determined that no further proceedings are warranted. The Canadian Human Rights Commission considers this matter closed.
That's a lie.
The Privacy Commissioner did not conduct a thorough investigation at all -- they didn't even interview the hacking victim. But in any event, they did not investigate the hacking -- that's outside their jurisdiction. They merely investigated whether or not the CHRC captured and kept private information about Nelly Hechme, the hacking victim. Of course the CHRC didn't -- they were merely using her Internet site to hide their tracks as they signed into their Nazi memberships online. They didn't care about Hechme, other than to get her Internet access.
The RCMP, by their own acknowledgement, did not complete their investigations. They were stymied, their official reoprt says, because they lacked the ability to pursue the case to the U.S. server in question.
In investigating hate messages complaints, the commission has logged on to websites to view their contents and to obtain evidence.
Lynch is using the phrase "logged on" to deliberately confuse readers. You don't need to "log on" to Stormfront to "investigate" its anti-Semitism. There is no logging-on necessary to read it. Just click here, and you'll be reading away.
What Lynch's staff did was join Stormfront as members. So when they go to the site, they log in with their membership names and passwords. They do that for one reason alone: so they can participate in the site, not merely be passive observers. Her use of the phrase "log on" is designed to blur the fact that they were in fact logging in as signed-up Nazi members.
It was as active participants that they wrote their hundreds of bigoted remarks.
In some investigations, postings were made, but this has never included the posting of hateful or derogatory messages, nor would the commission condone such a practice if it occurred.
This is simply a falsehood. A lie. Calling Jews "scum", calling gays a "cancer", etc. are derogatory, and they were made with the knowledge and complicity of the CHRC hierarchy. To this day Lynch herself condones it.
I don't know if one can call such a woman a Nazi sympathizer, but she is certainly a defender of her seven in-house Nazis.
The suggestion that the commission's investigation of neo-Nazi websites equates to "active" membership in neo-Nazi organizations is simply irresponsible.
She's right: an investigation of Stormfront does not equate with active membership of Stormfront. They are two different things. And Lynch's seven Nazi members chose the second option: to be active, hate-spewing members. They had the choice; they could have merely observed, as you and I can. But instead they joined, and dove right in.
Jewish scum! Gay cancer!
That's what they wrote. That's not investigation. That's bigotry. That's entrapment. And that's standard operating procedure in Lynch's little Nazi nest.
I regret that this important discussion has degenerated into unwarranted personal attacks on the employees of the Canadian Human Rights Commission carrying out their legislated mandate.
That's my favourite line. It's apparently not "unwarranted" and "personal" and "attacking" for Lynch's seven Nazi members to call Jews scum or gays cancer. That's not unacceptable to her. That's not outside the limits of fair play.
What's unacceptable is anyone -- especially a mere citizen -- calling her to account for it.
She's a bigoted censor. To her, any debate is unacceptable. She's about gagging dissent, not engaging with it. And she's so vain, she'd rather side with the seven Nazis in her organization than admit that she runs a rotten, corrupt operation.
Jennifer Lynch did not create section 13. She was not the CHRC's chief commissar when the seven Nazis in her employ joined Stormfront. She could have, upon discovering the rot, disowned it -- by identifying it as a problem and fixing it. Cauterizing the wound. She could have shown leadership -- improving, reforming, fixing.
Instead of disowning the Nazis, she's owning them and their foul deeds. She would rather protect her seven little bigots than admit that anything is wrong in her fiefdom.
What an odious woman. When she accosted me on Parliament Hill back ni May, I didn't recognize her -- she is much more haggard and old than her ancient publicity picture. In other words, she surpised me. I think I shook her hand, because I had no idea who that old woman was who approached me. I dearly wish I had known who she was, for I would never have shaken the hand that shakes the hands of so many Nazis.
Here's my letter in today's Post:
Jennifer Lynch of the Canadian Human Rights Commission says the matter of the hacking of Nelly Hechme's Internet account is "closed." The RCMP doesn't think so -- its report indicates that the CHRC is its only suspect, and the case is "unsolved." And the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is still considering damning testimony from Bell Canada about the hacking. For Ms. Lynch to publicly prejudge a case before the tribunal is highly inappropriate.
But the most amazing thing is her statement that CHRC staff have never written "hateful or derogatory" comments. CHRC investigators have admitted under oath to writing on Nazi websites that Jews are "scum," gays are a "cancer" and white police should be loyal to "their race," to list just a sample. Is she saying those comments are not derogatory? And does she really think that such bigotry is part of her "legislated mandate"?
Fire. Them. All.
Ezra Levant, Calgary.
and here are three more that ran yesterday. The first:
Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), was not present on March 25, 2008, when the evidence of her own investigator revealed the gross chicanery of the commission's investigative procedures. If she had been, she would have heard first-hand the disgraceful admissions which she is now playing down.
Those of us who were there heard of the hacking into the personal computer of an Ottawa resident so that investigators could then connect with a target website under the guise of an innocent and unknowing citizen. The audience was appalled to hear that, once inside the targeted website, investigators deliberately planted misleading messages designed to goad the accused into making an inculpatory reply, thereby founding a charge of "hate speech" against him.
We also heard the investigator confirm that freedom of speech was an "American concept" to be disregarded in his investigations.
Despite her protestations, Ms. Lynch cannot state that the attacks upon her investigators are unwarranted. It is beyond sound administrative principles that no steps have been taken by the argumentative commissioner to clean house of the rot that is pervading her fiefdom.
Gerald Langlois, Hawkesbury, Ont.
and this one:
I'm so glad Jennifer Lynch, the CHRC's chief censor -- oops, I mean commissioner -- was able to clear up that little misunderstanding about her investigators being Nazis. I guess if you only pretend to be a Nazi for the sake of "obtaining evidence" against Nazis -- for the greater good of society, of course--it doesn't make you an actual, dyed-in-the-wool Hitler aficionado.
To ensure that no one ever again mistakes CHRC investigators for real-life Nazis, might I suggest her sleuths wear T-shirts emblazoned with the following message: "I'm not a Nazi, I just play one on the Internet"?
Mindy G. Alter, Toronto
and this one:
Jennifer Lynch just doesn't get it. When she tells us the CHRC engaged in gathering evidence, is she not saying that the commission is engaging in investigative work that should only be done by trained professionals, such as the police. That Ms. Lynch obviously believes her body is above the law tells us something about her commission.
David Woolley, Langley, B. C.
