So, what is it exactly that drives Jennifer Lynch to do what she does?
Ezra Levant had an interesting post up on his blog today, replying to Jennifer Lynch’s submission to the National Post in rebuttal of Russ Hiebert’s rather thourough dressing-down of not only her, but her commission as well. Ezra seems to think that Jennifer is and out-and-out liar; he says so right in his post title: Jennifer Lynch is a damned liar
The mother of all lies
But all of this pales in comparison to the mother of all lies told by Lynch, that:
Nor did commission investigators post hateful messages on the Internet.
She sort of sneaks that in there, doesn’t she? Almost tries to blend it in with her other lies about false exonerations.
That’s the biggest, most damning lie of all.
It’s the lie that will, in the end, cost Lynch her job.
Because the Canadian public — and even this risk-averse minority Conservative government — cannot tolerate the truth about Lynch’s activities: her staff are members of neo-Nazi organizations, and conduct themselves as if they are Nazis, including by writing hundreds, if not thousands, of bigoted comments on the Internet.
And that truth is starting to come out.
This March, the truth came out with a trumpet blast: the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal — the rubber-stamp kangaroo court that has given the CHRC a 100% conviction rate — issued a rare and damning opinion of Lynch’s staff’s Nazi memberships. The Tribunal said that the conduct of Richard Warman — the former CHRC investigator who has since been the complainant in all but two censorship prosecutions by the CHRC, and whose expenses are paid for by the CHRC to this day — were “disappointing”, “disturbing” and inexcusable.
What conduct was that? Publishing bigoted hate speech online — precisely what Lynch denies.
I do not see any acceptable reason for Mr. Warman to have participated on the Stormfront or Vanguard sites, since there appears to be ample easily obtained messages on these sites available without his involvement. Moreover, it is possible that his activity in this regard, could have precipitated further hate messages in response. His explanation for including other hate messages in his postings by mistake seems very weak to me.
Warman was a CHRC investigator, and he is the CHRC’s essential partner in their ongoing prosecutions. Without Warman, there would have been only two censorship prosecutions in the past decade.
Now, pathological liars like Lynch look for technicalities, hairs to split, any mental reservation by which they can pretend the lies they tell are the truth. Lynch, for example, might think, “well, Warman is the center of our censorship prosecutions, and we pay his expenses, and he still has a hand in CHRC investigations even though he no longer works here, but he isn’t technically a CHRC investigator, so his Nazi activities aren’t on our head.”
She could say that.
But it wouldn’t save her from being a damned liar.
Because Warman’s Nazi antics started before he left the CHRC in July of 2004. He was on staff while he spread his hate.
Jennifer Lynch is a damned liar.
Jennifer Lynch is a liar.
She lies about many things — more all the time.
Politics tolerates a lot of lies.
But her lie denying her staff’s bigoted comments on Nazi websites?
That’s the lie that is going to get her fired.
Personally, I think there are two options here. The first option is that, as Ezra and Jay Currie and undoubtedly many others would say, Jennifer is simply a liar, a coward, a bully, and a petty tyrant ready, willing, and able to spend taxpayers’ dollars on a ridiculous and narcissistic campaign, potentially fueled by revolutionary politics ( in the bad sense ). This option seems to be the favorite.
But I think there’s a second option: Jennifer Lynch is honestly just that misguided. She honestly thinks that she is doing good; that her mandate is the mandate of real human rights; that her critics really are the demons that she makes them out to be. Perhaps the reason for her seeming incomprehension of the criticisms being leveled at her is that she honestly doesn’t understand why somebody would be upset with her. And perhaps she is naive enough to employ a corrupt ex-cop, blinded enough by ideals to have a serial complainant on her payroll ( since Richard Warman is basically an employee of the CHRC/CHRT – he’s filed most of the complaints that have gone to tribunal in the past ten years ), and even race-baiting hate-trawlers – all while thinking them redeemable people, who are fighting for good, rather than merely expanding a corrupt form of bureaucratism.
I know, I know, it’s a bit of a stretch. Perhaps even a psychosis. But really, the first option also requires something of a stretch of the imagination: that someone would be so arrogant, so, well, I hesitate to say evil, but wrong, as to do what Jennifer has done, especially in the past few months. Could someone be so cowardly, so sneering, so cold? Whereas, a misguided person, a person driven by an ideology, albeit a flawed one, could make the same mistakes, commit the same crimes, but with an undercurrent of at least understandable reasoning – no less flawed and wrong for its lofty goals.
For instance, let’s look at one of Mark Steyn’s recent articles for Macleans, in which he talks a little about Jennifer Lynch and her response to some rather dastardly bloggers: The fat cats vs. Blazing Cat Fur. Here’s an excerpt:
Meanwhile, in Montreal, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Canada’s Chief Censor, gave a speech to CASHRA. Do you know what CASHRA is? You should. You pay for it. It’s the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies. That’s right; they have a club they all belong to. Alas, the conga lines were more muted this year. Like professor Martin, Commissar Lynch worries about the threat to free speech in Canada. But, in her case, the Chief Censor is now complaining that I’m suppressing the free speech of her massive government bureaucracy. Seriously. As the National Post put it:
“She also claimed that those who accused the CHRC and its provincial counterparts of ‘chilling’ free expression with the prosecutions of writers such as Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were themselves guilty of ‘reverse chill.’ Harsh criticism of the commissions in the media had discouraged many of their supporters from coming forward to defend their missions, she said. Others who were brave enough to speak out had been subjected to withering personal criticism in opinion pieces and letters to the editor.”
Oh, dear, what’s the country coming to? Defenders of state censorship are too cowed to speak out in favour of not letting people speak out? You could hardly ask for a better snapshot of the degradation of “human rights” in contemporary Canada than the chief censor whining to a banqueting suite full of government apparatchiks that the ingrate citizenry are insufficiently respectful of them. The bureaucrats at the top table control hundreds of millions of public dollars. Jennifer Lynch represents state power; Ezra and I represent a bunch of impecunious bloggers. Yet the Dominion of Canada has been reduced to complaining that Blazing Cat Fur is out to get it.
Again, which seems more reasonable: that someone like Jennifer Lynch would be so arrogant as to do such things on a whim or because of her own agenda, or that she does indeed suffer from a sort of neurosis – nothing medical, but just the result of a runaway ideology? I wonder if perhaps the second option is the real one driving Mrs. Lynch; driving the woman behind the bureaucrat.
Of course, this does not mean that Jennifer should go un-opposed. Of course she should; her and the rest of her commission-folk. They have become somewhat of a cancer on the Canadian quasi-judicial land-scape, and they should be removed at the earliest available opportunity, barring some sort of hemorrhaging as a result. I just think that perhaps this cause would be better served by seeking to face her ideology, rather than simply her tactics, because if one is driven by ideology – particularly so statist and ambitous an ideology as seems to be driving Jennifer – well, they’re far less likely to take a little thing like criticism of their actions reasonably.
Jay Currie has come under a bit of fire for his use of the word coward to describe Mrs. Lynch. Far be it from me to tell Jay how to run his blogging affairs, and I certainly don’t think that a little bit of name-calling is out of the question, but I can’t help but wonder if we’re missing the forest for the trees on this one. Again, it’s all about ideology, not particular actions. We can criticise the actions, we can make fun of the person doing the actions ( hell, that’s practically one reason why this blog even exists at all ), but we’re far better served in the long run to combat the ideology itself. Unfortunately for us, it’s deeply rooted, and so I think we find ourselves pushing a two-pronged assault: one against the actions, the other against the ideology. The first seems to be going fine; I’m not so sure about the fate of the second.
Let’s bolster that second offence, shall we?