Jennifer Lynch's testimony to the Justice Committee: a study in evasion

If I were an MP on Parliament's Justice Committee, I would be deeply insulted by Jennifer Lynch's testimony. The bulk of it was about matters other than section 13; her comments on section 13 were self-serving cliches. And she said it all in an extremely condescending manner.

Brian Murphy, the Liberal MP, asked a thoughtful question to Lynch, about whether there are better ways to tackle "hate" in Canada. Instead of answering him, she simply re-read her bland pap from her opening statement -- but dragged it out to use up all of his time. Surely Murphy is sharp enough to see that stonewalling as a disrespectful rebuff, rather than a thoughtful reply.

Serge Menard of the Bloc Quebecois, frankly, is my favourite member of this committee, at least in terms of his surgical approach to questions and answers. I do not know where he stands on freedom of speech, nor where he will end up. But his questions -- both for Steyn and me earlier this month, and to Lynch today -- actually move the debate forward. Watching Lynch try to evade him was hilarious and embarrassing at the same time, circling back to her bland cliches, saying nothing, as slowly as possible, all with that rictus grin of hers. I doubt that Menard was impressed.

Lynch did, surely by accident, give Menard a clear answer on one point. She admitted that Richard Moon, her hand-picked, handsomely paid consultant, recommended that the definition of "hate" be limited to hate that incites violence. Hard to disagree with that -- it's already in the Criminal Code.

Joe Comartin was up next. He put a crystal clear question to Lynch: had she done an investigation or analysis into my accusations against Dean Steacy or Richard Warman?

Lynch's reply: she went back to re-reading her opening statement. How embarrassing.

After eating up a couple of minutes of Comartin's time, Lynch finally just called my and Steyn's accusations "misinformation". She claims that she had personally "looked into the matter", and reassured Comartin that he can have "pride" in their conduct.

Comartin interrupted her evasion, and asked again: "did you conduct a detailed investigation into those allegations?" Lynch says she has -- and that there has been no "breach of any law or ethic". Really? I look forward to seeing the result of those detailed investigations. I haven't filed an access to information request in a while -- this one sounds ripe. What are the odds that Lynch just made up that internal "detailed investigation"?

Lynch says that the RCMP has closed their files -- really? That's not what the police report says.

I'll post this blog entry now, and continue with a new one for the next questioner.