Posted on 11/23/2007 3:43:25 AM PST by backhoe
Edited on 11/23/2007 1:22:32 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I'm still shaking my head over the Canadian Human Rights Commission's grotesque memo to Parliament. It's a political stunt -- designed to save Jennifer Lynch's job as chief commissar, and to protect the CHRC's North Korea-style powers of political censorship. It's an attempt to mau-mau Parliament into forgetting the CHRC's abusive and corrupt conduct.
Jennifer Lynch, the Chief Commissioner of the CHRC, gave a speech yesterday in which she said the "cacophony of protest" over the complaint against Macleans had "moved to one of discrediting Commissions' processes, professionalism and staff" -- as if the latter was some unreasonable and out-of-bounds development not congruent with the first. In each instance where she noted criticisms of the HRCs' mandate and processes she dismissed the legitimacy of those concerns without addressing their substance. To the insular, bureaucratically-cloistered Lynch, it's self-evident that reasonable people understand that such criticisms are ridiculous and need not be addressed.
Lynch complains in her speech that the HRCs have in effect been a victim of an "unbalanced" debate. After saying "Much of what was written was inaccurate, unfair, and at times scary", she provides examples of such outrages:
Articles described human rights commissions and their employees in this way: "Gestapo" "human rights racket" "welcome to the whacky world of Canadian human rights "a secret and decadent institution"
Apparently it's a self-evident outrage for Canadians to comment in their own terms on the behavior of the HRCs and their employees. Watch in this next bit how she creates a false "threat" by comprehensively and mindfully eliding the actual context:
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?'
Here's the actual passage in question, from a letter written by Mark Steyn in response to a published letter by human rights lawyer Pearl Eliadis:
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 whats wrong with it.
Despite Jennifer Lynch's repeated spin that she welcomes and wishes to encourage a broad and reasonable debate, she in effect portrays the HRCs as being victimized by the existence of any debate that isn't undertaken on the HRC-types' own chosen terms. One needn't look deeply between the lines to see that, in her view, a reasonable and fair debate about free speech can only begin when the opposing side finally acknowledges the legitimacy of the HRCs and their mandate, and stops being so mean.
If you haven't already done so, please read Lynch's speech before commenting.
From the report:
-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.
-
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.
A former Cabinet Minister recently wrote about an authors 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 commissions) crosshairs, because if it investigates you, the ordinary rules of justice dont apply, including the normal legal protections for the accused.
Speaking to the House of Commons committee hearings on Canada's "human rights" commissions, Professor Martin of the University of Western Ontario gave a remarkable presentation on what he calls their "horrifying record". You can listen to the audio here - it's apparently too strong meat to let the citizenry see the video. You won't want to miss it.
Among its other notable features, it marks the latest stage in the denormalization of Richard Warman, former Canadian "Human Rights" Commission employee, victorious plaintiff on every Section 13 prosecution since 2002 and the country's most prominent Internet Nazi. Professor Martin calls him "the utterly odious Richard Warman" - and even brings up the Anne Cools post, as Senator Cools happens to be a friend of the professor.
Section 13, the CHRC and its Chief Commissar shame Canada, and they will not endure. In his previous incarnation as BBC late-night host twittering with leftie novelists into the small hours about freedom of expression, Michael Ignatieff would have been the first to say so. I'm confident his old pals Rushdie, Hitchens and Amis will eventually remind him of what he knows to be true.
[UPDATE: I like this line in response to a Liberal questioner: "Life in a democracy requires robust citizens." The Grit questions are as one might expect: tendentious, emotive, and boasting of their PC bona fides.]
[UPDATE 2: Gotta love this question from Mr Hiebert: "In the example of Senator Cools, I have to ask: Do you believe that she should have access to some form of legislation or prosecutorial avenue to prevent people like Mr Warman from making the comments that he did about her on the Internet?"
And there it is, folks: In Hansard, in the official Parliamentary record, for all eternity.
Professor Martin's response: "She does not want to soil herself by getting into a tussle with vermin like this [Mr Warman]." On the other hand, he is in favour of "a public hanging of Richard Warman".]
[UPDATE 3: The committee chairman: "I assume it's a reference to her race that begins with the letter 'n'." Mr Warman came this close to getting it read into the record.]
[IN SUMMARY: I yield to no one in my contempt for Richard Warman, and I'm all for getting his activities into Hansard, but I think the Professor's friendship with Senator Cools led him slightly off-track at times. It was a good presentation on overall philosophy and the law and in response to Liberal questions, but he got muddled up on some of the specifics of the HRC cases. Very good on the "odious" Taylor - the first Canadian to be imprisoned for his opinions since the 1930s.]
Quote: |
From my chair it looks like Connie's misapprehensions and re-parroting of other peoples' misapprehensions/expressed distortions have already cost her plenty. And I see no reason for that not to continue based upon her above posted remarks and the stuff she continues to allow/encourage to be posted on her own blog. Posted by: Harry | 2008-10-23 10:23:50 AM |
Quote: |
You can publish, post, host, whatever you want. But let those who have been damaged by hurtful expressions and wilfull (especially multiple and ongoing ones) have the means to respond, clear their names and/or seek justice. But Connie, you've heard this many times before. And disregarded it many times. That's why you're where you are. If I was you, I would attempt to make amends with Mr. Warman. But I'm not. So this now has to play out, and the piper still must be paid at the end of the party. Posted by: Harry | 2008-10-23 12:28:00 PM |
Oh, Harry Abrams! LOL! (Brian_Esker's penis) It looks like Free Dominion wasn't the only place Harry Abrams used his brian_esker Yahoo account! Geez, Louise... some things, you just don't want to know... somehow, reminds me of this graphic... |
I think it will be impossible to improve upon Blazing Cat Fur's own original T-shirt...
However, BCF has now challenged his readers to come up with new t-shirt slogans mocking Canada's censor in chief, Jennifer Lynch.
PS: if you're new to all this and don't understand why we're mad at the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, well, there's this...
This pretense, that the HRCs and HRTs are interested in equality, is put to the lie by the fact that no Muslim, no matter how radical, hateful or extreme his views, has ever been hauled in front of a HRT for voicing his religious views on homosexuality, women, or any other subject.
We're all familiar by now with the case of the Christian minister who was not only ordered to publish an apology in a local newspaper for giving his expressed interpretation of the biblical view of homosexuality, but also ordered to refrain in perpetuity from ever restating such views again, even in private emails. It's beyond dispute at this point that the CHRC proscribes certain political views in the interests of strengthening those they support.
And you can read all about it in my book The Tyranny of Nice.
(Mark Steyn wrote the intro and will sign your copy and everything...)
Full whining by Lynch here at the National Post.
Harry Abrams - Spying on Free Dominion since 2007 [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ] |
Were one out of 1200.
Jennifer Lynch just so happens to be the head of one of the most corrupt bureaucracies in Canada. She also happens to be keeping an enemies list, of twelve hundred people, who have criticised said corrupt bureaucracy. And from thence was born this blog; a gathering place of opinion and information on not only Jennys Nixon list, but on Jennifer Lynch herself. Jenny Lynch doesnt like having people criticizing her?
Well, lets up the ante, shall we?
Good idea.
Our coverage of Human Rights Commission issues and related free speech issues is here, and our recent comment on Lynchs appalling reverse chill whine is here.
Well, the morning after has come, and I am really heartened to see that there is some interest in this blog. Many thanks to Blazing Cat Fur, Shooting Star, Five Feet of Fury, and Jay Currie for the links, and to all the people going at it in the comments. You make this worthwhile.
And dont worry it isnt all self-affirmed crap. Ill be working on some content, too, in the near future.
[ UPDATE: I'm very happy to say that Eowyn ( under another pseudonym ) from Shooting Star is going to be joining this blog as a contributor. Does anyone else want to be a contributor? That's partially what this site is for, after all.
Also, under the advice of the almighty Binks, I've added some graphics to my header.
J.B. Stone wrote: | ||||
My answer to THAT is that when all speech is "state mandated".....all you will GET is lies....!!!
|
TOPHAM VIEWS UNDER ATTACK: Bnai Brith claims anti-Jewish writings
By Autumn MacDonald
Quesnel Cariboo Observer
January 13, 2008
Arthur Topham, owner, publisher and editor of The Radical Press, has received a complaint from the Canadian Human Rights Commission stating hes promoting hatred towards Jews and citizens of Israel.
B.C. representative for the League of Human Rights of Bnai Brith Canada Harry Abrams filed the complaint with the CHRC after articles were published by Topham on the Radical Press website, which Abrams felt were discriminatory against individuals of the Jewish faith.
Topham, who has been publishing both a hard copy and online site since 1998, said he received the complaint Nov. 20, 2007.
Since then, Topham has been working on a response to the commission he sent the 13-page document to the CHRC anti-hate team investigator Sandy Kozak Jan. 3.
He has not removed the articles in question from his website.
Harry Abrams and his partner in this complaint, the League for Human Rights of Bnai Brith Canada are exploiting and abusing the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act for their own narrow, partisan, ideological purposes, Topham said Wednesday.
They are not designed to promote and ensure the freedom of expression that the vast majority of Canadians demand and expect but rather are meant to buttress and support the political aims of a foreign state (Israel) of which these organizations are but political extensions.
Topham further explained its his criticism of Zionism and Zionist policies that have the CHRC worried.
They dont want the people of Canada knowing whats going on in Israel, he said.
Topham stated theres been an increase in these types of complaints to the CHRC by both the Bnai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress since Sept. 11, 2001.
In the aftermath of 9/11 Canada brought in its new Anti-terrorism Act, c.41 on Dec. 18, 2001 and along with it came changes to Sec. 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act which specifically deals with hate messages.
It is Tophams contention that both the Bnai Brith and the CJC played a significant role in defining the new interpretation of Sec. 13 (1) one that he feels now allows both of these partisan groups to lay hate crimes complaints against any Internet user or website owner who criticizes Israels Zionist ideology and its racist policies toward the Palestinian people.
And its Tophams belief that charges are designed to silence debate on issues vital to both national and global peace.
If we cannot express our thoughts and ideas openly and freely, he said, then the democratic principles upon which Canada was founded become meaningless and dead and we might as well accept the fact that we are living in a communist dictatorship rather than a true democracy.
For now, Topham waits to hear back from the CHRC, but hes pretty sure he already knows their answer.
My response wont make any difference, he said. It doesnt matter whether Im writing the truth.
Topham explained the CHRC will present his response and Abrams complaint to a tribunal who will review the evidence. A decision will then be made.
In the past, writers have been ordered to remove the articles in questions, or take their site down. Some have resisted this has resulted in jail time.
The irony of it is, Topham said, the person I love most in the world, my wife of 30 years, is Jewish.
But there is also much more that Abrams is not telling readers when it comes to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
For example the latest revelations coming out of the recent federal court case involving Marc Lemire and a former lawyer for the CHRC Richard Warman who, as Macleans Magazine writer Mark Steyn recently stated, has been carrying on his own personal inquisition of Internet sites and making obscene profits from it as well.
It is now evident that Warman, funded by this same Bnai Brith organization, was caught posting disgusting, hate-filled, racist comments to the website of Lemire and then afterwards charging Lemire with the same type of complaint that I received. Go figure.
And if that isnt shocking enough, not only Warman, but even the head hate-crime investigator for the CHRC Dean Steacy, has been found guilty of posting similar racist comments on sites that he wished to censor.
Mr. David Black
Black Press
Victoria, B.C.
Dear Mr. Black,
I am writing to thank you for having had removed a rather unfortunate letter-to-the-editor that appeared in the Quesnel Observer yesterday.
Though the alleged libel matter at hand concerned a friend and colleague, I feel that I should express my concerns to you directly before we see too many more editorial blunders around the legal matter of Abrams & The League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada V. Arthur Topham ( of Quesnel B.C.)
Whereas it is indeed in the public interest to bring this story to the attention of your readers, and public opinion deserves to be served, I would caution you and your publications against reproducing statements that may go to harm against the reputations of individuals or organizations especially before the final disposition of this matter.
A retaliation complaint naming Mr. Topham has now already been filed, substantially because of intemperate comments presented as news already having appeared in your Quesnel Observer and the Prince George Free Press.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/quesnelobserver/news/13717397.html
Sincerely Yours,
etc. etc.
>From: Harry Abrams <habrams@pacificcoast.net>
Date: February 18, 2008 3:49:37 PM PST (CA)
To: lwilliston@blackpress.ca
Cc: editor@quesnelobserver.com, Anita Bromberg <abromberg@bnaibrith.ca>, Richard Warman <richardwarman@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Attention: Lorie Williston, Manager, Black Press, Northern BC Re: Abrams & BBC V. Topham
>Lorrie Williston
General Manager
Black Press
Northern BC Division
Dear Lorie,
Thank you for your attention in the matter of Abrams & BBC V. Topham as it has so far concerned Black Press. This is to bring you up-to-date as quickly as possible, so that the Black Publications are at least aware of the issues at play and to "head off" the potential for legal problems down the road.
A quick synopsis of this issue is that I, Harry Abrams and the National Jewish service organization of B'nai Brith Canada have filed as co-complainants, a federal human rights action naming Arthur Topham, who lives in Quesnel, BC.
I attach two files. The July 07 file initiated the action. The August 07 file is the "formal" 3 - page complaint. Essentially, we allege that Mr. Topham posts a lot of extreme material that incites hatred against Jews and Israel, over and above reasonable criticism or fair comment.
Mr. Topham was served in late November and was asked to respond to the Commission. As we now know, his response was pretty voluminous, and not limited to the Human Rights Commission either.
Mr. Topham cobbled together a press release and a bizarre story about "Killing Monkeys" that he and his friends posted far and wide on the internet, and sent to every publishing or news outlet that they could think of.
The Quesnel Observer obliged him a story http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/quesnelobserver/news/13717397.html which also was printed in the Prince George Free Press.
Neither I nor B'nai Brith Canada were contacted for "our side" before this went to press.
Letters from Topham supporters deluged the Quesnel paper. I believe 4 letters from Mr. Topham's supporters were printed, and one of my own appeared as well.
We ran into a bit of a problem when the Observer posted Mr. Topham's following response to my letter verbatim.
The contents of that may be seen here: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=684
It was removed promptly after Black Publications was threatened with legal action by Mr. Richard Warman.
As I'm sure you appreciate, it would not be a good thing for Black Publications to appear to take sides in a legal complaint between two other parties. Also, I further suggest that before anything more concerning this action is given any publicity, you and your editors make themselves familiar with the contents and likely intent of Mr. Topham's website, with an eye to the possibility that he would very much appreciate your cooperation to spread his "gospel."
This was my letter to Mr. Black of Feb. 4, and I also attach a copy of my retaliation complaint.
(editorial note: the rest of this email is a reproduction of the February 4, 2008 letter from Harry Abrams to David Black posted above and is indeed our source of that letter.)
These people must be stopped and the system that allows them to operate needs to be fixed so that others can't come along and fill their shoes.
My name is Harry Abrams., I am a Canadian citizen of Jewish faith and in 2007, I filed a Section 13 complaint naming Mr. Arthur Topham of Quesnel, B.C. as respondent; seeking relief for discriminatory publication under prohibited grounds caught by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The premise of complaint # 20071016 is a contention that Arthur Topham and Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.
I now allege that my seeking relief from discriminatory publication has in this instance, prompted Mr. Topham to engage in a sustained and worldwide campaign of retaliation, much of it at the moment taking the form of a press release dated January 7, 2008 as well as an article titled: Killing the 100th Monkey the Battle for Control and Censorship of Canadas Internet.
Here is a screen shot of his press release as re-published on a website illustrated with an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon:
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/01/08/b%E2%80%99nai-brith-vs-arthur-topham-publisher-ghost-troop/print/
Every day now, internet searches turn up new re-postings of Mr. Topham's press release and 100 Monkeys article, but none are as troubling as this article which appeared January 13th in the Quesnel Cariboo Observer Newspaper and distributed online, titled:
Topham Views Under Attack: Bnai Brith Claims Anti-Jewish Writings
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/quesnelobserver/news/13717397.html
Also syndicated here in the Prince George Free Pree Press:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/pgfreepress/news/13774742.html
100 Monkeys and the press release have been posted to thesewebsites often accompanied by abusive commentary. This list is by no means exhaustive:
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20080103172731565
http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog/?p=234
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=5000764
http://loopyloo350.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/life-experiences-140/
http://antwerpen.indymedia.org/news/2008/01/14264.php
http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node/28914
http://ottawa.indymedia.ca/en/2008/01/6543.shtml
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message485339/pg1
http://groups.google.com/group/can.politics/browse_thread/thread/b9b09f4adb355cf6
http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/arthur-topham-radical-press-another-452141.html
http://worcester.indymedia.org/node/19238
http://groups.google.fr/group/qc.politique/browse_thread/thread/25a28d651d472d47
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-KillingTheHundredthMonkey-NewFrontAgainstTheCHRC-RadicalPress.htm
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/74761/index.php
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?10054S
<a href="https://us.indymedia.org/us/servlet/OpenMir?do=opensession&sessiontype=translation&to_content=29376" target="_blank">https://us.indymedia.org/us/servlet/OpenMir?do=opensession&sessiontype=translation&to_content=29376
http://atlanta.indymedia.org/comment/reply/257
http://www.nogw.com/download2/%5E8_battle_for_canada_internet_control.pdf
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=295984302&t=0
I must suggest that I find that the following elements of this now widely posted material retaliatory, defamatory and abusive in the following ways:
1) I am described as "... exploiting and abusing the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act..."
2) It is said of me that "...the actual and true agenda of Harry Abrams is, in fact, one of seditious, purposeful design meant to undermine ... the sovereignty of the legally elected Canadian government,..."
3) It is said of me that I am silencing and suppressing debate on issues related to either the policies of the state of Israel toward the Palestinian people or to the (Jewish) stranglehold over western mainstream media and international finance.."
4) It is said of me that I conduct .... unscrupulous manipulation of organizations such as the CHRC.."
5) It is said of me that I "... overtly or tacitly support the Israeli governments domestic policies which are based upon a set of principles fundamentally in violation of Canadian provincial and national laws as well as international law..."
6) It is said of me that "...the spurious charge... is nothing less... than rank bigotry and a disingenuous and vexatious attempt to both slander and libel Mr. Topham and his website while at the same time attempting to censor and suppress valuable, responsible coverage of the truth about the actual conditions which exist in Israel proper and in the surrounding areas of Palestine..."
7) It is said of me that I "... squelch any and all criticism I deem anti-Zionist. And that Working with a complicit Zionist-controlled media I used its power and influence to vilify whomever I felt was deserving of my smear campaigns..."
8 ) It is said that I am .. rampaging about cyberspace like some renegade vigilante..."
9) It is said that I am ... placing the interests of a foreign nation (Israel) above those of Canadians as a form of treason
I should add that on the Free Dominion site, Mr. Topham also retaliates against me for having launched my complaint:
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1122334
Posted: 01/ 06/ 08 4:47 am Post subject: Re: (CHRC) Killing the Hundreth Monkey
. Being a Zionist himself he must do whatever he can to silence critics of his homeland. Who wants the people of Canada to realize that in Israel you have an apartheid system where Jewish citizens have full rights and non-Jewish citizens have a marked degree of lesser rights in a number of crucial areas of civil life . Of course what Abrams really means is "Jewish" citizens of Israel. Not the Arab citizens or anyone else who the state hasn't deemed to be Jewish .
FD, Warman and the CHRC - The whole sordid story... [ 1, 2 ]
Two years ago, Athanasios Hadjis was a human rights hack, sitting on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal full of other hacks. He mindlessly rubber-stamped the censorship litigation oozing from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its complainant of fortune, Stormfront member Richard Warman.
Heres a section 13 censorship case, less than two years ago, where Hadjis happily condemned a young woman to a lifetime publication ban, ordered her to pay Warman $3,000 for his hurt feelings (tax free to him), and then fined her another $1,500. Thats a heavy punishment for a woman earning just above minimum wage, and too poor to hire a lawyer.
(Its been a while since I practiced any criminal law. Id be curious to know what kind of criminal conviction these days would yield a $4,500 fine and no time in custody. Would a first offence for an assault with a weapon get that heavy a penalty? If youre a criminal lawyer who knows, tell me in the comments section.)
Hadjis didnt mind his lifestyle one bit. He was part of the human rights industry near the top of the food chain, actually and it was easy work. No-one really cared about the people he sentenced for thought crimes. 90% of such victims were too poor to have lawyers there, and only murderers and rapists get legal aid not people who write rude things on the Internet. The news media sure didnt give a damn about the petty racists Hadjis bravely brought to, uh, justice.
What a difference a couple of years makes.
Today, Athanasios Hadjis issued a 40,000-word ruling thats almost as long as my book, Shakedown! denouncing the Canadian Human Rights Commission, its aggressive style and its punitive powers. He rejected almost all of their evidence that Marc Lemire published hate, pointing out the curious fact that their five-year prosecution of him involved nothing that Lemire himself wrote, and nothing that was actually on Lemires website at the time the complaint was filed.
Hadjis called some of the comments that others wrote on Lemires website offensive, some of them xenophobic and some of them merely pessimistic. In other words, almost all were political views, not hate speech. What more proof is needed that the CHRC is a political vengeance machine, with Jennifer Lynch and Richard Warman deciding who is allowed to speak and who isn't?
I laughed out loud when I read that one of the things that the Canadian Human Rights Commission spent millions of dollars prosecuting was the comment that French Canadians were cheese sniffers. Im not even kidding, the CHRC thinks that it should be against the law to call someone a cheese sniffer. Gentle reader, I swear I am not making that up read the ruling yourself; just search for the word cheese. Or sniffer.
So two years after being a censor himself, Hadjis now calls censorship un-Canadian, un-constitutional and illegal. He says he will have nothing more to do with it, and he will refuse to implement it.
Wow.
Hadjis isnt the first tribunal member to put down the Kool Aid and slowly walk away from the human rights cult. This March, Hadjiss colleague, Edward Lustig, issued an equally stunning ruling, when he refused to punish the target of Warmans last inquisition, and instead condemned Warman and his tactics as disturbing and disappointing.
Lustig was appointed by Stephen Harper. But Hadjis was appointed by Jean Chretien. And before Hadjis was a censor, he was the head of Montreals Greek lobby a master practitioner of multicultural ethno-politics. His conversion from fascism to freedom has been a long journey indeed.
First Richard Moon, the professor who was paid $52,000 to whitewash the CHRCs censorship, turned against them. Then Lustig. Now Hadjis. Pretty soon the last dozen supporters of censorship will be Jennifer Lynch, Richard Warman, and ten of Richard Warmans anti-Semitic personas on the Internet.
Last December I wrote that Lynch was a jet-setting lawbreaker. It was not an exercise in hyperbole, but rather a legal analysis of her corrupt behavior: it was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights, and contrary to the express ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada when they last considered censorship laws in 1990.
Lynch was a scofflaw, but she didnt give a damn, because nobody was going to stop her.
As I wrote in December:
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.
Nineteen years ago, the Supreme Court said section 13 was constitutional, but only to be used against evil seriously, they used that word. Today, the CHRC is prosecuting people for calling each other cheese-sniffers, and theyve added the power to fine people $30,000. Hadjis made the point today that I made back in December: even under the Supreme Courts old rules, the CHRC is acting illegally. Imagine if todays much more pro-free speech court got its hands on the CHRC.
Which brings us to what happens next: will there be an appeal of Hajdiss decision?
It was one thing for the Conservative government to defend the Canadian Human Rights Act from Lemires constitutional challenge. Thats pretty much the default state for any Justice Department: uphold their laws. But now that we know their laws were unconstitutional, to positively send in lawyers to appeal Hadjiss ruling would be an elective, willful demonstration of support for illegal censorship. It would make the Conservatives own this illiberal beast in a way they havent before.
If you look at the bottom of the ruling, youll see the disgusting fact that there were eleven lawyers prosecuting the case: two from the Justice Ministers office; four from the CHRC; and five from the tax-subsidized Official Jews Bnai Brith, Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Who knows how many millions of dollars it took to investigate and prosecute this matter and, again, Lemire had to fund his five-year defence on his own.
Will Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, send his lawyers to appeal? If he does so, he risks a backlash within his own partys base, on the eve of an election. But it is not acceptable for him to stand back, while his lackey, Jennifer Lynch, sends her CHRC lawyers in for the appeal. Its essential that Nicholson or the PMO, if Nicholson lacks the political judgment orders Jennifer Lynch to stand down. (Frankly, its staggering that she hasnt yet been ordered to just shut up and get on with her job as a bureaucrat. Seriously, as Peter ONeil reported the other day, Lynch flew all the way to Dublin, Ireland, to beg for political help, admitting that her campaign to demonize her opponents, collect names on her enemies list and save her censorship powers monopolizes our energy. Why is she not fired yet?)
Oh and its not enough for both Nicholson and Lynch to not appeal. Lynch has been paying Warmans expenses in all of his complaints before the tribunal. She must be ordered not to pay his expenses to appeal. Let him pay his own costs for once, rather than soaking taxpayers for his private vendettas.
There are a lot more little items in the 107-page ruling that I might dig into in the next few days if I have time.
Today is definitely a day to celebrate. The celebration should be tinged with the reality that this battle is far from over though; the book-burners at the Canadian Jewish Congress have already announced that they will simply ignore Hadjiss ruling, and act as if the law is still legal. I really dont care that Bernie Burny Farber is a foolish buffoon; I just care that hes doing it in the name of all Canadian Jewry, and that Nicholson might actually listen to such soft fascism, and think that we Jews are all thin-skinned, hypocritical whiners who can dish it out but can't take it, and want the state to bully our political enemies for us.
What a loser.
Burny was momentarily put on a leash earlier this year, when the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, the CJCs funder, ordered him to shut up about censorship, and focus on issues that actually reflected the communitys political agenda, such as Iran, Hamas, Jewish schools, etc. Burnys obedience lasted for a few weeks. It was awesome while it lasted, actually I couldnt believe my eyes when I saw Burny on CTV Newsnet actually saying that David Ahenakews acquittal for hate propaganda should not be appealed. But.you cant ask an old book-burner to give up his pyromania for long, can you? If an election is indeed afoot, look for CIJAs election guide to have censorship as one of the top community issues, as it did last year, when they made the mistake of letting Burny write it, without any grown-up supervision.
But let me close how I opened: with a reflection on how far things have come in two short years.
Two years ago, Athanasios Hadjis was sentencing girls to lifetime publication bans and huge fines. Now hes calling that conduct illegal and unconstitutional.
Two years ago, Richard Warman had a private little racket going, where the CHRC funded his complaints, and he got to keep the tax-free cash awards. Now hes publicly disgraced, condemned by the very tribunal that used to fill his bank account.
Two years ago, Warmans neo-Nazi antics were known to only a few dozen people his CHRC bosses, his victims, and the Official Jews, who knew about it and abided it. Now Warmans Nazi activities and those of half a dozen other CHRC staffers are widely known. (The Official Jews still abide it.)
Two years ago, Jennifer Lynch was an absentee manager, jetting off to five-star galas in the third world, on taxpayer expense, learning third world-style approaches to human rights.
Today oh well. We still have some work to do!
But seriously, kudos to everyone who has helped to shine a light of scrutiny and accountability on these corrupt, abusive HRCs. I credit the blogosphere, and talk radio, and some of the more open-minded reporters in the mainstream media, for turning HRC into a four-letter word. And, of course, theres Marc Lemire himself who has labored in the face of a relentless, tax-funded inquisition for nearly six years, as the state prosecuted him with an illegal law, using abusive tactics. He and everyone else ever charged under this illegal law deserves compensation for the abuses theyve suffered.
Sacking Jennifer Lynch would free up $300,000 or so for reparations. Thats probably a good place to start.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. Joseph Goebbels Nazi Minister of Propaganda
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.