Well, it’s that time again, for me to talk about all the people who’ve been talking about Jennifer Lynch and her wondrous technicolour commission, with gratuitous mention of the various other commissions and commissioners currently mucking about in Canada.
First off, the Ontario Human Rights Commission releases its latest annual report, 2008/09:
Under Section 31.6 (2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is required to submit a report on the Commission’s activities for the previous fiscal period by June 30th of each year, to be tabled in the Legislature.
You can read the report here.
Meanwhile, Blazing Cat Fur has this to say so far: The OHRC is looking for a new “Brand” … Oh and Barbara Hall is a liar:
The OHRC is looking for a new “Brand” according to their newly released annual report, see pg. 7:
…The students’ mission — to help the OHRC achieve a new “brand” that represented its transformed operations. Student teams made recommendations on all facets of the branding process, including work to define the OHRC’s core business and core audiences, creating ideas for a new logo and tagline, …
Gee, a pity they weren’t accepting public submissions, lot’s of Nanny State Nonsense in the report.
Babs opens with “The Human Rights Code does not give the Ontario Human Rights Commission the power to, for example, censor the media and, in my opinion, it never should.” Really? So why are you recommending a mandatory National Press Council, just forgetful Bab’s?
Babs like J-Ly wants power and lot’s of it – “Key points in this submission included the OHRC’s belief that it is in the public interest that hate expression remains under the purview of both human rights and criminal law systems, and that legal enforcement alone is not sufficient. pg. 13”
Second, the human right to in vitro fertilization. From the Globe and Mail:
Six months ago, Ana Ilha knew her biological clock was ticking. She just didn’t know it was ticking so fast.
But when the Ontario Health Insurance Plan would not cover fertility treatments because of the source of her problems – at 37, her eggs were running out abnormally fast, a condition called a low ovarian reserve – she decided to take action.
She and her husband, University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran, filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on Monday. They argue OHIP’s policy is discriminatory, since it covers in vitro fertilization only in limited circumstances.
You know, mes amis (as Celine likes to coo to her audience), life ain’t fair. I can’t afford to live as lavish a lifestyle as the Angelils, nor, I’m sure, can Ana and Amir. Nor can they afford the same lavish fertility expertise. Nor do they have the resources to run off to Africa to find an adorable orphan to adopt a la Madonna and Brad and Angie.It sucks, doesn’t it? Even so, there’s no way–no way!–that I the taxpayer should be on the hook for your fertility/adoption bills. Not even in the “rights”-besotted Trudeaupia of Canada.
Enemies In Our Midst
Link– The radical is ‘not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer‘
“The sort of “progress” that is implied in the name Progressivism is actually a very un-American elitist fantasy in which The Progressive imagines that all people are equally ethical, trustworthy and basically good and that all cultures are likewise equally good and moral and that given the right information and presentation would agree with and submit to the Progressive agenda. As we have seen, this is opposed to and incompatible with the founding assumptions of the American republic.”
~ Yaacov Ben Moshe ~
~ THE HIDDEN HISTORY of the 20th century & radicalism is being written by former communists such as Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz. Much of what ordinary people experience in politics, culture, church-life, and government power in their lives arises from the activities and commitments of communists, leftists, and those committed to the overthrow and remaking of Western Civilization in general, and America in particular.
Go read Radosh & Horowitz, and read the FrontPage site and related sites. David Horowitz in particular has detailed how the radicals have gone mainstream, and makes the connections between extremist groups and causes that is hard for the outsider to make. The fruit of 70 years of Anti-American radicalism has been bearing fruit in the U.S. in the last generation, and now in the government and presidency itself.
The pro-Soviet radicalism of the 1930s and onwards has morphed into Obamunism, speech-codes, academic & media goodthink, environmentalism and other secular religions, and the European soft-fascism of bureaucrats making endless rules for their citizens to pay for and follow. The USSR died, but the dream of a perfect and inhuman society lives on.
So even if she is a card-carrying Tory, my cyber-stalker J. Lynch QC™ falls into a long line of petty-tyrants enabling the crushing of all that has been good and true about Western Civilization, in contrast with the great tide of wreckers since the French Revolution, dreaming of utopia while up to their armpits in blood and failure and the ruin of so many good things and people.
Why pick on Lynch and her kind? Well, after all, Stalin may have given the orders, but it was the army of bureaucrats that organized and rubber-stamped the living hell that was the Soviet Union, as it is even in 2009 China and North Korea. ~
Read it here.
Sixth, Lee Duigon, via The Chalcedon Foundation: “Human Rights” Commissars Want More Power!
“If people could be made moral by law, it would be a simple matter … for Congress to pass a law making all Americans moral. This would be salvation by law. Men and nations have often resorted to salvation by law, but the only consequence has been greater problems and social chaos.”—R.J. Rushdoony
“Morality always serves as a restraint on human desire … When you remove the morality, therefore, you remove the restraint. And it is this, not any new scientific or moral enlightenment, that accounts for our revision of attitude. The rules inhibited us, so we got rid of the rules. No longer must women bear the children conceived within them. No longer need men or women heed vows of sexual exclusivity. No longer need the ancient curbs against sodomy, bestiality, pederasty, and other assorted sexual delights confine and restrict us. So we steadily rid ourselves of the laws, and then make it illegal for anyone to oppose or criticize what we have done.”—Ted Byfield
Whether it’s about setting up a hate-free utopia, or simply silencing all criticism of what has always, until now, been viewed as immorality, Canada’s human rights commissions have lately found their mission called into question. Critics in the Canadian and American media have been pouring on the heat, and at least some Canadian politicians have begun to listen.
Faced with mounting criticism and scrutiny, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has submitted an official report to Parliament. A full text of the report is available at http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/srp_rsp_eng.pdf.
In order “to create a society free from racism” (p. 44 of the online edition of the report, cited above: all quotes from this source), the CHRC has asked Parliament for more power to censor Canadians’ speech. Particularly, the commission has recommended changing the Criminal Code to remove “truth” as a defense against a charge of hate propaganda—“on the basis that a hate message [against “a given race, sex, or religion”] can never be true and therefore the justice system should not give hate-mongers a platform to make this argument in a criminal trial”(p. 40).
For a person accused of the crime of “hate propaganda” and facing heavy fines or imprisonment if found guilty, it’s hard to see how disallowing truth as a defense would leave him able to mount any kind of defense at all. But the CHRC’s report didn’t stop there.
The commission would also like to see more police involvement in “hate speech” cases, “as to the manner in which provincial police and Crown prosecutors could coordinate their efforts to protect Canadians from hate propaganda” (p. 40). Special “police hate crime units” should be organized, the report recommends.
Parliament is currently considering legislation “narrowing the definition of hate” to include only those expressions obviously aimed at inciting real violence. But that, says the CHRC report, “would unduly limit the possibility of prosecuting very extreme forms of expression” (p. 39). Is there such a thing as “only mildly extreme”?
Finally, the commission cites a need for more “voluntary self-regulation by the media” (p. 43), including internet service providers (p. 43), who should be encouraged to set up an “internet hate hot line” (p. 43).
Read it here.
More to come, I’m sure.