Well, it’s that time again, for me to talk about all the people who have been talking about Jennifer Lynch and her fantastic technicolour commission, with gratuitous mention of the various other commissions and commissioners currently mucking about in the Dominion.
First off, Scaramouche expounds on Jennifer Lynch’s moonlighting occupation:
When she isn’t busy jetting off to Dublin for Canadian Bar Association conventions, our gal Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., SWMBO (Queen Censor, She Who Must Be Obeyed) is heading off to stay in swanky digs at lots more international destinations. That’s because–who knew?–our Jen wears two hats. Not only does she head up the pre-eminent cog in Canada’s totalitarian machinery, the CHRC, she’s the chair of the Wahhabi-ish sounding International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, er, sorry, make that for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (the ICC, for short, ‘cause had it used all its first letters, the acronym would have been way too long). Jen’s other outfit, you may not be shocked to learn, has close ties to the Israel-bashing/sharia-boosting UNHRC.
Read it here.
Second, the Ontario Human Rights Commission can now focus on the kind of education that the, eh…OHRC would engage in. By Jonathan Jenkins, via the Peterborough Examiner: Human rights commission freed up to take on education, inquiry roles:
No longer tied down investigating complaints, Ontario’s Human Rights Commission is now better able to build “a culture of human rights” through targeted inquiries and public education, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall said yesterday.
“We knew what our new role would be because we’d done bits of it before and wanted to do much more,” Hall said as she released the commission’s first annual report since legislative changes came into effect last year.
“Now that we’re not involved with the individual complaints, we have the focus on the more substantive issues,” she said.
Complaints are now being handled by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Hall said an example of the kind of work the Commission will be more involved in now is the wide-ranging inquiry made last year into a series of attacks on Asian anglers.
The Commission is also working on forcing transit systems in Thunder Bay, Sudbury and Hamilton to call out all stops for visually impaired passengers and is keeping a close eye on Oshawa and other municipalities who have tried to restrict the growth of student housing through zoning by-laws.
The public education role will also be beefed up, she said.
“In the past we had one staff person for the whole of Ontario that did public education,” Hall said. “Now we will have more and we’ll have the capacity to work with communities on the education that is the best for them.”
Read it here.
Meanwhile, the OHRC is going to be releasing a new policy come this fall on rental housing discrimination. From All Headline News:
Toronto, Ontario (AHN) – As a result of a study made by the Ontario Human Rights Commission on discrimination in rental housing in the province, the commission will issue by fall a new housing policy, OHRC Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall said Wednesday upon release of the agency’s 2008-09 annual report.
Hall said the commission worked with students, psychiatric survivors and other vulnerable groups as part of its study, which will serve as the basis of the commission’s new policy. Hall explained in a statement, “Hard economic times make life for Ontario’s most vulnerable people even harder…. Nothing is more central to someone’s well-being and health than adequate affordable housing.”
According to the report aboriginal and black communities are often at the receiving end of discriminatory practices when looking for rental unit. Aside from ethnicity, other forms of rental discrimination include a preference for adult tenants only, charging illegal rental deposits and asking for guarantors.
The annual report looked at the various ways human rights of Ontario residents are violated in the areas of education, religion, transportation, healthcare and shelter.
Second, the Canadian Human Rights Commission hands out a ruling in what is probably its first autism-related case. From the Regina Leader-Post: Autistic woman wins human rights complaint against Canada Post:
OTTAWA – In what’s believed to be its first autism-related case, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has upheld a complaint against Canada Post by a former Montreal mail carrier.
In a ruling released Monday, the tribunal said Canada Post violated the Canadian Human Rights Act by failing to accommodate Michelle Dawson’s disability and by allowing management staff to harass her.
The decision requires Canada Post to work with the Canadian Human Rights Commission to modify its harassment, discrimination and accommodation policies to conform with the Human Rights Act. It also directs Canada Post to conduct “workplace equity, accommodation and sensitivity training” for managers and staff, with a particular focus on autism.
But because Dawson didn’t seek remedial measures, the tribunal did not order Canada Post to reinstate her in her job or pay any fines or compensation.
Dawson, 47, who has been receiving disability benefits since 2003, has become an internationally known researcher and writer on autism issues. She was diagnosed with autism in the early 1990s.
She couldn’t be reached for comment Monday. But on her blog, autismcrisis.blogspot.com, she wrote that the decision “is entirely good for autistics in Canada.
“It is unprecedented in establishing under a human rights law in Canada that autistics . . . are human beings with human rights.”
Dawson started working at Canada Post in 1988 and was widely seen as an exemplary employee. But everything went downhill after she disclosed her diagnosis to Canada Post in April 1999, she testified.
After she appeared at work in July 1999 with self-inflicted wounds – a behaviour often seen among those with autism – some employees felt threatened and sent a letter of concern to management.
Dawson testified that Canada Post treated her as a non-person and acted as if autistic people were bizarre, difficult and unable to speak for themselves.
She also accused specific employees of making discriminatory and harassing comments to her, including one who asserted she had mutilated herself in front of her co-workers.
The tribunal found those remarks to be discriminatory because they “brand Dawson as a violent person in relation to her disability, a perception which is totally, given the evidence, gratuitous.”
Third, Tim Challies gives Ezra Levant’s Shakedown a brief review:
Here is (yet) another list of books I read that will not be receiving extensive reviews.
Shakedown by Ezra Levant. Unless you are Canadian, you have probably not heard of Ezra Levant. Let me fill you in. Several years ago he was publisher of Western Standard magazine and made the decision to print the infamous Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. He did so because they were newsworthy and he wanted to use them to illustrate a story. He soon found himself before his province’s Human Rights and Citizenship Commission where he was charged with the offense of “discrimination.” It was only after a long, embittered and expensive fight that he managed to avoid charges becoming, I believe, the first person to be cleared of such crimes. He wrote Shakedown to record his experience and to draw attention to these Human Rights tribunals that happen all over Canada and which have taken for themselves outrageous powers that circumvent all manner of justice. In fact, they get awfully close to charging Canadians for “thoughtcrime,” that Orwellian phrase that looks beyond what a person has actually done to what he may have intended to do. His story is shocking and, we hope, marks the beginning of the end for the Human Rights Commissions’ most intrusive and outrageous powers. (Do note, that those these commissions exist and exist all over the country, the vast majority of Canadians, even ones who are outspoken about their faith, have never been noticed or charged by them).
Fourth, Deborah Gyapong writes of the Catholic Women’s League, via the Western Catholic Reporter: CWL calls for end to anti-free speech provision:
ST. JOHN’S, NL – The Catholic Women’s League will ask Parliament to cut the controversial censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).
At its national convention Aug. 8-12 in St. John’s, CWL delegates voted to urge the government to rescind the CHRA’s Section 13 and restrict hate speech proceedings to the Criminal Code.
The CWL also passed a resolution to urge all levels of government to provide sustained funding to help people trying to exit prostitution. Another resolution calls for legislation to protect and support foreign human trafficking victims.
The three resolutions, which came from the grassroots initiatives, become the focus of CWL lobbying efforts for the next year.
Section 13 allows the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate and prosecute expression that is deemed “likely to expose” enumerated vulnerable groups to “hatred or contempt.” Under this section, truth is no defence, nor is one’s motive or intent.
The complainant’s costs are government-funded, but the respondent must pay their own legal expenses. Provincial human rights commissions have similar rules.
The CWL’s brief on the resolution argued that the words “likely to” and “contempt” are too broad, allowing for “frivolous and harassing complaints.”
Read it here.
Fifth, Jonathan Rosenblum touches on an HRC double-standard in Canada, for the Jerusalem Post:
Human rights commissions in Canada and elsewhere have taken on the mandate of censoring anything any Muslim finds to be offensive. Author Mark Steyn and his publisher MacCleans were dragged before the Ontario Human Rights Commission and found to be “racist Islamophobes” for an article by Steyn detailing the Muslim demographic takeover of Europe. Yet no Muslim cleric in Canada has been convicted by the same commissions for calling for the murder and subjugation of Jews and other infidels.
Read it here.
Sixth, Denyse O’Leary asks the question: how worse could the Liberals be? From Post-Darwinist: Okay, I did it again … Blew my stack …:
I confess, I blew my stack again, and hung up on someone.
It was a Conservative party organizer who wanted my vote (and a donation, I expect).
I started by politely pointing out that I’d had to petition to find out if I was on Lynch’s List of supposed enemies of the state who are citizens of Canada – a list totally supported by the Conservative party’s government, so far.
At least, what have they ever really done to rein these people in?
Having dealt with that, I just was not in any mood to hear a spiel for money from the government’s Party.
Okay, so go ahead and tell me that the Liberals would be worse. Well, how worse is worse?
Sure, the Liberals, when they come to power, could give every single one of the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s self-styled Nazis the Order of Canada. I would think that a very bad idea, but how would it directly affect me?
When the Prime Minister’s Office fails to act in the face of rampant abuse, while claiming to support traditional Canadian values like due process – values that date back to Magna Carta – that does directly affect me.
A friend writes to advise me about the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s new ramped-up powers. I wonder if they will develop an enemies list too? If so, I sure hope no Ontario political party tries phoning me for support or donations.
Seventh, our pal Richard Warman comes under investigation. From Free Dominion:
RE: Richard Warman, DND employee?
Monday, August 17, 2009 3:55 PM
From: “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Add sender to Contacts
Thank you for your e-mail concerning a potential conflict of interest
involving Mr. Richard Warman, an employee of the Department of National
I am advised that Chief Review Services, the authority responsible for
conflict of interest issues for the Department of National Defence and
the Canadian Forces, is currently investigating and that a report is
I trust this information is of assistance, and thank you again for
Peter G. MacKay
Minister of National Defence
From: MacKay, Peter – M.P. [mailto:MackaP@parl.gc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, 9, June, 2009 09:59 AM
Subject: FW: Richard Warman, DND employee?
From: [Redacted] [mailto: [Redacted]@ [Redact-it].ca]
Sent: June 8, 2009 3:51 PM
To: MacKay, Peter – M.P.
Subject: Richard Warman, DND employee?
Dear Mr. Mackay,
As Minister of Defence, perhaps you could look into the situation
regarding one Richard Warman who I believe is a counsellor employed at
DND in Ottawa.
Mr Warman has been running a legal and political campaign in which he
targets people who do not agree with his political views (which are
Liberal) with expensive lawsuits and other harassment. In my case, he
reported my name and address to so-called anti-racist groups, who are in
fact communist street gangs.
My question is this — does Richard Warman spend working time on these
projects, and has he been using the computer facilities at DND to gain
information on his targets?
This situation should have been addressed by the Prime Minister and the
Justice Minister at an earlier stage, but now it has reached the level
of a sort of Stalinist political operation in plain sight, operating out
of the DND and the offices of [Redacted]
Essentially, what we have here is a case of a powerful civil servant,
quite possibly using the surveillance capabililty of the DND, harassing
political opponents with the full support of the Government of Canada. I
am not sure if you were aware of this situation, and I would hope that
you would want to reverse it.
An extensive investigation is required to satisfy natural concerns that
the power of the state is being used against the citizens of Canada, and
in particular, of western Canada, because Warman seems to prefer
residents of the western provinces (it is more expensive for us to fight
his charges in court down in Ontario).
Thanks for your co-operation.
—————- (end of copy) —————————
Far more interesting would be to know which – if any – of the three stories in the press of Lucy’s departure from the CHRC are true. I suspect it will all come out in the cross examination in the Canada Five trial which seems to be hung up at the moment. Could it be that Lucy’s lawyer has not met the disclosure requirements which exist under even the Simplified Procedure of the Ontario Courts? Or that the CHRC is stonewalling document requests from the defence? Difficult to say but the Lucy litigation seems to have ground to a halt.
And, while we’re looking at press release by writ, I wonder how the Jackal’s gajillion dollar suit against Ezra is coming along? Or how “Serenity Now” Vigna’s suit against Ez is doing? And what about all those Alberta Law Society complaints? Could they have been dismissed? ‘Cause knowing the Jackal, if he won even a booby prize it would be front page news.
Meanwhile, Jay wonders how long it’s going to be before we see a decision on Warman v. Lemire. From his blog: Tick Tock:
Is it just me or does the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal seem to be taking a rather long time to render a decision in Warman v. Lemire?
Ok, there are constitutional issues. And huge abuse of process issues. And the serenity challenge of Mr. Vigna. And the, as yet unsolved, theft of telecommunications issue. And Jadewarr. And the apparent Commission underbussing of Canada’s most famous s. 13 complainant, Lucy. And the lying under oath. And the little matter that this was a pretty stupid complaint to begin with. But, hey, justice delayed is justice denied and all.
Now, as a matter of pure speculation, the Labour Day weekend looms. Reading transcript it is pretty clear the Member Hadjis has grown more than a little disenchanted with the cowboy tactics and sheer idiocy of the Commission and its assorted counsel. He seems to have actually noticed that the case the Commission presented on behalf of evidence swapping Lucy and his trainees is a bit short on substance.
Which might mean, contrary to all expectations, that the Member might be inclined to rule that Lemire did not, in fact, promulgate hatred and, if he did, the procedural abuses of the Commission, its lawyers and its staff are so egregious that no legitimate authority could countenance a finding of guilt in this case.
Speculatively, he may have confided his doubts to the coward Lynch and her PR henchmen who are barely bright enough to realize that a damning verdict by Hadjis might well be the final nail in the s. 13.1 coffin. Poor Jenny is fighting, as we know ‘cause she told us, for the Commissions very existence so it is reasonable to assume she does not want the Commission’s shame, its Stasi tactics, its contempt for the rule of law, to get much coverage. You can picture the woman on her knees (figuratively, Skippy, figuratively – the alternative is too revolting to consider) pleading with the Member not to release his findings until 4:30 EST Friday the 4th…the slowest news day of the year.
My sense, reading transcript, is that Hadjis will, on due consideration, tell the woman to “Piss off” and release his findings in his own good time.
Read it here.
Eighth, Scaramouche finds a hole in the Human Rights Code:
A hole in the Human Rights Code: I found this under the heading “Human Rights Basics” on the Canadian Human Rights Reporter site:It should be kept in mind that not all types of discrimination, nor all acts of discrimination are illegal. For example, refusing to hire a person who has an earring through their eyebrow is unlikely to be an illegal discriminatory act, no matter how unfair it may seem.Excuse me? You mean you’re allowed to discriminate against someone–deny him employment and a place to live–because of a piercing? Isn’t that as grossly unfair as, say, discriminating against those who are LGBT’d? And say a pierced person happens to self-identify as one of those letters–isn’t it unfair that that person can lodge a complaint about discrimination (even should the discrimination he experienced be due to his piercing, not his sexuality) while a pieced heterosexual experiencing the same discrimination hasn’t the same recourse? Isn’t that, you know, discriminatory?Time for the Pierced, Tattooed, Grometted and Differently-Decorated (PTGDD) community to rise up and demand its rights!
I’m having a chat with Harry Abrams over at Free Dominion. It is a good chance to see how the mind of the censor works.
And, hey, how often do we actual talk to the other side in the free speech debate. The Lying Jackal can’t take contradiction, Lucy is hiding under his dining room table from the dreaded basement nazis, or zombies or such like and the coward Lynch refuses to debate anyone. Harry at least has the balls to fight his corner.
And, bonus, you can make fun of Arthur Topham.
You can read their exchange on the Free Dominion forums here.