So what’s this blog all about?

We’re 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 Jenny’s Nixon list, but on Jennifer Lynch herself. Jenny Lynch doesn’t like having people criticizing her?

Well, let’s up the ante, shall we?

About these ads

55 Responses to So what’s this blog all about?

  1. Jay Currie says:

    First!

    A grand idea. Let’s record the coward Lynch.

    Meanwhile, just the instant the CHRC finds you…you’re on the list. And how great is that???

    • Oh – totally! I could even get a t-shirt with a cool slogan about it, too.

      By the way, would you like to become a contributor? I know you write about Jenny Lynch all the time on your blog – if you just wanted to cross-post from your site to this one.

      Anyway, the offer’s always open.

  2. Kevin says:

    OK, of all the half-baked criticisms this woman has received lately, this has to be the stupidest.

    “Gee, Public Official, I’m going to take the time to criticize you in a public forum. But don’t you go reading my entirely-public comments about you! It’s irresponsible for you to know what people are saying about you!

    And for the love of Christ, you better not print off the public comments and put them in a folder! That’s fascism!”

    We better make sure public servants never learn how to use Google, or else the terrorists have already won.

  3. I’m with Jay — great idea! I’ve got no idea what Kevin is on about. I think the point is we absolutely want her to read these criticisms and keep filing away — and we’ll return the “favour”.

  4. Kevin, it isn’t a question of simply gathering selected quotes from anyone’s published criticisms – no one takes issue with that. However if you knew anything of how the CHRC has operated then you would be concerned about their possible collection and misuse of “personal data”. That concern is genuine.

  5. old whiteguy says:

    i wonder what she would say about this quote from salman rushdie. “what is freedom of expression? without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” another quote which is valid by frederick douglass, a slave born in 1817. ” find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”

  6. Ken says:

    Good idea.

    Our coverage of Human Rights Commission issues and related free speech issues is here, and our recent comment on Lynch’s appalling “reverse chill” whine is here.

  7. Kevin says:

    “We have experienced 16 months of invective hurled at us, and at any time when anybody has tried to speak up and correct misinformation, gross distortions, caricaturizations, then the very next day theres been some full-frontal assault through the blogs, through mainstream media. I have a file. Im sure I have 1,200, certainly several hundred of these things …”

    I don’t see anything there that even remotely suggests the collection (let alone misuse) of “personal data”. She has a press clippings file. As with most criticisms of the CHRC, here we have an innocent quote which the blogosphere has twisted beyond recognition. (Which is exactly what she’s talking about in her quote, ironically.)

    I do know a little bit about “how the CHRC has operated”. But I don’t just take every criticism Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn cook up at face value. For the most part, the CHRC is a functioning bureaucracy, with the regular mix of competence and incompetence that any bureaucracy exhibits. You can disagree with their mandate–I do, in part–but these petty personal attacks on the Commission’s integrity are just clouding the real argument.

  8. Kevin says:

    (PS to Walker Morrow–thanks for allowing real debate in the comments! I disagree with a lot of your points but I promise to be respectful.)

  9. Well Kevin, we do and with good reason.

  10. Kevin says:

    I am! But I much preferred “Bitchy Flamer” to “Scary Gay Guy”. :)

  11. Dave in Guelph says:

    So basically what Kevin is saying is you can’t expose the CHRC to ridicule and contempt in his shiny utopia. He hates Levant and Steyn in a personal way because of their politics etc. that’s ok but don’t dare criticize him, Lynch or the CHRC in a personal way. Leftist logic at it’s finest.

  12. Hehe Hi Kevin, nothin personal you understand, headlines mean everything in the blog world;).

  13. Kevin says:

    I totally understand! I updated my facebook status to “Bitchy Flamer” as soon as I read it! :)

  14. Athammaus says:

    Kevin,

    Ezra Levant appears to have unearthed a very serious problem here, which would seem to impact directly on the gay rights issue. On June 19 in a letter to the National Post, Pearl Eliadis wrote “And after that, a much-publicized stunt complaint from Quebec by a blogger was also dismissed — without even an investigation.”

    http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/chrc-its-ok-to-say-gays-should.html

    She appears to be referring to the above case.

    Why did they not investigate it?

    Check out Bruce Bawer’s book While Europe Slept,

    To paraphrase Pearl Eliadis herself, are she and Jennifer Lynch useful idiots for the jihadists, as they probably would have been for the Communists during the Cold War? Perhaps. But noone has decided that yet.

    • Kevin says:

      Given that I don’t think they should have the mandate to investigate hate speech complaints, it’s tough to make any distinctions about what they did and didn’t investigate. There’s no good way to investigate a complaint that they should have the power to investigate in the first place.

      That said, it seems better to me that they dismiss more of these complaints without investigation, so that they can use their time and resources on more important issues.

      • dcardno says:

        That said, it seems better to me that they dismiss more of these complaints without investigation, so that they can use their time and resources on more important issues.

        It seems that someone who claims that gays should be killed (see the first link) should be one of those “more important issues,” no? I also have a problem with HRCs in general, but the double standard is even more troubling, since it evidences the real goal (the nefarious “hidden agenda” that always scares progressives so) of the “Human Rights” industry.

      • Kevin says:

        Almost everyone I know owns a book claiming that gays should be killed. It’s called the Bible. Mine’s on my nightstand (morbid curiosity, more than anything.) Show me someone actually taking steps to get gays killed, that’s when I’ll start to ask for some state help.

        • dcardno says:

          Almost everyone I know owns a book claiming that gays should be killed.

          Right. How many people you know have a book written in the last 200 years that makes the same claim? How about the last decade? I just find the whole idea that Muslim homophobia and calls to violence are ‘no big deal’ to be a little bizarre, when a lifetime speech ban on Boissoin was an acceptable outcome.

          I’m all for the idea that we don’t need the state to intrude until we see action (although some would set the bar lower, at a seriously-intended call for violence, and it seems on the face of it that the material linked qualifies), but again, it is the double-standard that bothers me, and which I think gives away the game.

  15. Eowyn says:

    I’m in!

    So, how does one find out if one’s on the hit list?

  16. Wow – awesome discussion guys!

    Kevin – I can understand where you’re coming from, but I disagree, and here’s why: I don’t necessarily have a problem with a bureaucrat or politician gathering together quotes and the like for a portfolio of criticism. Especially in the name of furthering some debate.

    But Jennifer Lynch, if anything, has repeatedly shown that she actually doesn’t want a debate – or a fair one, anyway – by refusing to debate hard sells like Ezra Levant at every opportunity afforded to her, and by either commissioning or producing every report on the CHRC’s internal affairs and mandate, to date.

    Furthermore, since one of the CHRC’s jobs, in so far as it has a job, is to in effect police the web for ‘hate’ speech. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a conflict of interest to have a commission with such a mandate also collecting a list of critics’ names? Especially since this commission has been known to employ known corrupt officials? What if the police said that they had a list of 1200 people who had been talking about the Dziekansky case – without specifying what purpose that list was for? Jennifer Lynch has not clarified what her list is for at all – just that she has one.

    And finally, the question arises of whether this list was compiled on company time – in which case, it becomes a matter of whether we should be paying this woman to Google her own name – or in her own/her personnels’ own off-hours.

    By the way – happy to allow your comments Kevin.

    • Kevin says:

      I agree on one aspect of this. The CHRC hasn’t done a great job with its PR here. I think they need to send someone to go head-to-head with Levant, as odious a task as that is. He is obnoxious, loud, and has a casual relationship with the truth–absolutely the worst kind of person to debate head-to-head. But if they want to defend their mandate, they’ve got to get a lot better at it.

      (I think I better plan for them, though, would be to stop defending their censorship mandate. I’d have more respect for them if they were saying “Look, we have this in the legislation, so we can’t not act on it. But if Parliament wants to take it away from us, we have no problem with that. Let the politicians figure out what they want us to do, and we’ll do it.”)

      I have to differ with your view of the facts, though. I don’t see any indication that she’s collecting “a list of critics’ names”. If that were the case, it would actually make me a little uncomfortable … why would you want a list like that? But what she said was there are a lot of blogs saying critical things about the Commission–true–and she has a file with (what she estimates to be) 1200 examples of that criticism.

      I work for a corporation, and I can tell you that our PR department has a record of every time we’ve been mentioned in the news or in social media. I’ve also been chair of an activist group and I had a similar file. Not only do I think that’s not nefarious, I actually think it’s the only responsible way to run an organization. (And yes, on company time.)

      I disagree, by the way, with the characterization that “this commission has been known to employ known corrupt officials,” but that could be a whole topic of its own.

      This is what I think is going on. People–rightly–feel a huge amount of passion about the free speech issues at play here. A few interested parties aren’t shy about whipping that passion into vitriol, and feeding insults and misinformation into the mix. Then we get an echo chamber, with blogs picking up on each other’s comments and solidifying them until they look and feel like they must be true. Then it becomes easier and easier to believe the next criticism that gets leveled. So within 24 hours, a reference to a press clippings file becomes a McCarthy-esque list of enemies of the state. This is unfortunate, but it’s also very natural given the nature of the internet.

      I don’t think commissions are perfect, and I’m not opposed to legitimate criticism. I just encourage everyone to maintain a critical eye when it comes to these kinds of allegations against commissions. If I can help that to happen by jumping into these debates, I’ll see what I can do.

      • I think I agree with you to an extent – it’s perfecly normal, and even a good thing, for organizations to collect mentions in the press, criticisms, etc., and to file them away.

        But I don’t think that is what Jennifer Lynch is doing. I think the root of our disagreement on this issue is the element of trust that we are willing to place in Jennifer Lynch, and in her staff. I place little to no trust in them; and I don’t want to put words in your mouth ( so correct me if I’m wrong ) but you probably place a moderate amount of trust in them. That difference in trust is what makes Jennifer’s statement about a collection of press clippings, or an enemies list.

        And yes – by all means, we shouldn’t just engage in hyperbole for hyperbole’s sake. But in following the decisions and the rulings of not only the federal but the provincial commissions, I don’t know that there’s much else we can engage in sometimes. Reason doesn’t seem to work anymore – not that we should abandon it – and so we’re forced to ratchet up the level of intensity of our discontent. And to be fair, both sides of the Free Speech debate are guilty of going too far – you can’t tell me that someone like Warren Kinsella hasn’t said some regrettable things for the pro-CHRC side.

      • Kevin says:

        Walker: It looks like I can’t reply to your reply to my reply to yours? :)

        Just wanted to say, yes, I don’t disagree with your characterization that I have a moderate amount of trust in the CHRC (and the other commissions.) I have worked in the system somewhat, and I know a lot of the staff and administrators of the various commissions. That doesn’t make my perspective automatically more valid than yours, of course, but that is part of the experience on which I base that judgment.

        I agree about Warren Kinsella. For good measure, I’d add Richard Warman to the “with friends like these who needs enemies” list. :)

        • There we go – changed the comments settings.

          Yes – I think that Richard Warman is really a non-partisan figure; we can all agree that he’s not somebody that we want to associate ourselves with :)

  17. Blaze – thanks for the link! It’s much appreciated; I loved the 300 graphic.

  18. John West says:

    Walker,

    Best wishes with this new blog. It’s a great idea to answer the old question “Who is watching the watchers”.

    I trust this place will be a great stop for a good laugh and an occasional outrage. Who needs a TV?

    I have one question. Does Jennifer Lynch’s husband know what she does for a living? :0)

  19. Eowyn – I guess we’ll just have to wait until someone gets their hands on the list. I think Kathy Shaidle and Jay Currie are trying, currently, and Blazing Cat Fur. This weekend I think I’ll send in a Freedom of Information request too.

    Part of it is pure vanity, of course. I just want to see if my own name is on the list :)

  20. John – I wonder how Jennifer would describe her days, you know? “What I day I had. Neo-nazis, Ezra Levant, and to top it all off, Blazing Cat Fur is holding a mean t-shirt contest about me.”

  21. DaninVan says:

    I’ve said this before…too many times, most likely…Lynch and her acolytes are in fact the pointy end of the stick held by radical Lawyers and their political machine. The HRCs and the Lynches didn’t just pop up from nowhere. When was the last time you saw or heard a peep from the various Law Societies criticizing the threat to basic freedoms? How many retired Judges have joined the fray?

    Oh, and Kevin, she (Lynch)doesn’t have ONE file, she has 1,200+/-…ie, one for each of us!
    “…I have a file. Im sure I have 1,200, certainly several hundred of these things…”
    Hardly a “press clippings” collection.
    The way this works, kevin, is that one agency shares with others and suddenly,!BINGO!, you’re refused entry to the US, no reason given.

    • Kevin says:

      OK, well let’s parse her words again. (Probably the most analysis that’s been given to an off-the-cuff media quote in a long time.)

      “We have experienced 16 months of invective hurled at us, and at any time when anybody has tried to speak up and correct misinformation, gross distortions, caricaturizations, then the very next day theres been some full-frontal assault through the blogs, through mainstream media. I have a file. Im sure I have 1,200, certainly several hundred of these things …”

      So you interpret that to mean “I have a file on each and every person who has publicly criticized the commission, in which I compile their personal information and perhaps my thoughts about each of them.” Really? As opposed to “I have a file full of the kinds of commentary that I just mentioned one sentence ago”? I guess I’m just not flexible enough for the kind of interpretive gymnastics you have to do in order to wring that meaning out of the statement.

      Look, the woman googles herself. Poke fun at that if you like. But seriously, you have people filing ATIPP requests and talking about getting refused entry to the US. Take a breath, re-read what she said, calm down, and focus your energy on the legitimate freedom of speech issues you’ve all brought to the table.

      • Ken says:

        Though I abhor Lynch and Warman and their ilk, revile the censorious Human Rights Commissions, and have written many times to criticize them — and think that Kevin is dramatically minimizing their problems — I have to agree with Kevin that the “Lynch is compiling a dossier on dissenters, like Nixon” is not the only possible interpretation, and probably not even the most plausible one. At least equally plausible is the interpretation that she’s simply keeping a file of her negative press clippings.

      • Kevin says:

        I would love to talk more about the problems that you think I’m “dramatically minimalizing”. I honestly believe that there are a handful of example of poor management–like you’d find in any organization–and a lot of baseless allegations. But seriously, prove me wrong. I’d love the chance to explore it further.

        • Ken says:

          OK. Let’s give a specific.

          Basement-dwelling twit with hardcore racist boyfriend posts racist drivel on internet. She is pursued through HRC process for hate speech. Seemingly actually repentant for being a bigoted ass (and accepting, apparently, that it is right for the government to police that), she drafts letter of apology. HRC agent — a former HRC employee, who profits from vast number of anti-speech cases he now brings as purportedly “private” party — has a habit of hanging out on racist sites and posting racist things to troll for people he can then sue. He takes the young woman’s apology letter and posts it on a racist site, using one of his racist personae, saying “with friends like these . . . ” He thus exposes young woman to actual danger and retaliation.

          HRC refuses to investigate or acknowledge.

          Minor management issue?

          • Kevin says:

            Well, based solely on your description of it (I don’t know this case), I don’t see any CHRC mismanagement issue, minor or otherwise.

            The problems I see are the following:
            1. Someone being investigated by the CHRC for hate speech. As I’ve said before, I don’t think that should be part of the CHRC’s mandate, so I have a problem with any investigation. That said, I don’t consider it mismanagement that they investigate a complaint that fits within their mandate. Parliament did give them that mandate, they can’t very well refuse to act on it.

            2.Richard Warman (I presume from the context) being a jerk. I’m not particularly fond of him, and I’m not inclined to defend any action he takes. But he’s a former employee, not a current employee. I fail to see why the Commission should wear his jerk-ness.

            I don’t know what “HRC refuses to investigate or acknowledge” means. I’m not sure what they could have investigated–even if you accepted that they should investigate “hate speech”, posting someone’s letter of apology online doesn’t seem to fit that mandate.

            Was he under some kind of confidentiality order that he violated? Maybe that would be an issue.

  22. Ken – I agree that it’s entirely possible that she’s just got a file of negative press clippings ( although 1200 such clippings seems a bit…thorough for an amateur project like that ), but as I said above, the level of distrust that I have for her leads me to assume the worst, really.

    • Ken says:

      Fair enough. I can see how some of the tactics of the HRCs and their agents (participating in internet racist speech in order to draw it out and then sue based on it; subornation of perjury about the same; placing repentant individuals in physical danger by reposting their apology letters on racist sites to spur comments; etc.) would make some people fear the worst.

      My contempt for Lynch exists independent of whether she is preparing a Nixonesque enemies list. It’s based on her annoyance of dissent, her sob-sister promotion of the idea that criticism of censors is “reverse chill,” and her metaphorical-structure-justifying-censorship view that rights are a “matrix.” (Blue pill, please).

      • Yeah – I think if there’s one thing that we can all agree on, it’s that we disagree, at least to some extent, with Jennifer Lynch and her view of ‘human rights’. The rest is just a difference in degrees – which is really a good place to be.

  23. John says:

    I think Harper and Lynch have a thing going, otherwise he would have dumped her after she stomped her nazi jackboots all over the war memoral. Maybe his wife should keep an eye on him,especially after she refused to show up in front of that commission. If I had done that when I was working my boss would have fired my arse out of the company so fast.

  24. Freedom investigator says:

    Get the financial accounts of the CHRC and they will fall. How do they spend $200,000,000 a year? Lynch needs to be investigated and audited.

  25. DaninVan says:

    Kevin; I’m not going to spend a lot of time or effort on defending my stated position, in this particular argy bargy. Suffice to say that I’ve witnessed enough situations where Gov’t. bureaucrats have made someone I know life’s a perfect hell. Full stop.

    • Kevin says:

      OK, if you don’t think a public exploration of the basis for your views would be helpful, I certainly can’t force you into it. You’ll recognize, I assume, that I’m not likely to change my mind based on your assurances that you’ve witnessed something that you don’t want to talk about. Full stop it is.

  26. mbrandon8026 says:

    On my own blog, I have been trying to find the truth. I am quite certain that I do not have it all figured out about this HRC thing in Canada (maybe not even much), and appreciate Kevin having the guts to express opinions that differ from the group here as clearly as he has (even if Kevin might really be Jennifer Lynch posing as a gay Kevin – kidding I hope).

    As a Catholic Christian, I was curious at an early comment of Kevin’s about a scripture from the Bible. It is true that there is a particular verse in the Old Testament about killing men who lie with men(LV 20:13). Kevin, if you really are Jennifer Lynch, or if she is listening, we can expect prosecution of the Christians and Jews soon for hate speech. that particular verse taken out of context surely qualifies. Thanks for bringing it up.

    Kevin, I first got involved in blogging because a friend of mine has gone through now almost 4 years of kangaroo court hell in Ontario because as a school principal she disciplined a student who took money from her desk when she was out of her room. She did not punish the white student who was in the room at the time with the black student who took the money and confessed to taking it in writing. The penitent student had a very loud, foul mouthed, controlling and very intrusive mother. The school board lost a principal who had to retire due to the stress of this on top of the stresses of her life already, as I reported in my blog.

    So, for me this is not just about free speech, but about a system that is malfunctioning at best, because it is out of control.

  27. Oh, Hello to the guys at Popehat – great blog!

  28. Jay Currie says:

    Kevin, good to have you here and do drop by my blog as well.

    Seeing what is in Ms. Lynch’s file is a matter of some interest. If it is simply a collection of clippings and blog posts with respect to the CHRC my $5.00 FOI money will have been wasted. However, if it contains that plus, for example, other posts not related to the CHRC or personal information which I have not published or annotations and such like then we have two concerns. First whether a governmental organization should be spending our money on such things, second, where such a collection of information violates the Privacy Act.

    Now, to the end of determining both questions I have mailed or will be mailing an FOI request to the CHRC and a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

    You are quite right on the amount of pixels spilt on a throw away comment by Lynch. But in the 18 months I have really been engaged in looking at the CHRC it has become clear that you have to pay close attention to what they are saying. Until Lynch let this out we had no idea that the CHRC had such a file or how large that file was. Now we do.

  29. Kevin if you ever have a rant you want published let myself Jay or Walker know. We will be happy to post.

  30. Athammaus says:

    “Almost everyone I know owns a book claiming that gays should be killed. It’s called the Bible. Mine’s on my nightstand (morbid curiosity, more than anything.) Show me someone actually taking steps to get gays killed, that’s when I’ll start to ask for some state help.”

    Kevin,

    I don’t actually have my copy of Bruce Bawer’s book to hand, but he points out that radical imams are calling for gays to be murdered NOW (quoting from memory “Jerry Falwell may be a creep, but he doesn’t want to kill me. James Dobson wants to deny me marriage, Imam Muhammad wants to drop a wall on me” , etc., etc.). Find me a non-certifiable (therefore ruling out the Phelpses) Christian who is calling for that.

    And what about Pim Fortuyn?

    Pearl Eliadis’ excuse for not investigating the stunt does not hold water unless she is a useful idiot for the jihadists. Do check out Ezra’s posting on that one.

  31. mbrandon8026 says:

    Kevin:

    I was just kidding with the Jennifer Lynch in drag thing. I do know who you are and respect your background, and your opinions.

    The system still malfunctions very seriously. It might be helping gay people. It certainly hurts white anglo saxon straight Christian people. It is hierarchical, not by decree, but by action in fact. I can prove it.

    I am in favour of improving the system, so I have rights too. If you have input that you can give me for my blog where gays have been helped by the system I will report it. If you have information where they have been hurt I will report that as well. I desire to be an equal opportunity blogger.

    http://freethroughtruth.blogspot.com/

  32. Kevin says:

    A snapshot version of how gays have been helped by the human rights system would include at least two broad areas: extension of benefits to same-sex couples, and protection from harassment. I could probably go off on a long tangent about each of those, but that’s a snapshot.

    I disagree with your idea that the human rights system does not protect Christians. Some examples would be: the duty to accommodate the demands of religious practice in the workplace (such as shift changes for Seventh Day Adventists) and equal participation in the public sphere (an example would be the right to produce Christian-themed plays in venues open to the public.) Both of those are real examples of human rights law protecting Christians.

    I won’t presume to know everything you mean when you say the system “hurts white anglo saxon straight Christian people.” But I certainly don’t see it that way. I was writing a longer comment, but I realized that I was putting words into your mouth in order to rebut them, and I don’t want to make a straw man argument. If you’d like to explain more specifically what you mean by that, I may have some thoughts in response.

  33. [...] to the end and then seeing his comments over on Walker Morrow’s new blog and particularly to this piece I developed at first a grudging respect, a brief flirtation with Grrrrr, and then concluded that I [...]

  34. [...] Lynch Mob was actually started up with, really, one goal in mind: to look into the possibily that the CHRC’s Chief [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: