Today’s Lynch List

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, Jay Currie isn’t being sued yet, which means

Talk about libel chill.

A couple of days ago I posted about Lucy being investigated at DND. I took the information from Free Dominion. As many of you know, Free Dominion is one of the victims defendants in Lucy’s stalled libel litigation and, in the circumstances, thought it more prudent not to publish the following, entirely innocuous, correspondence. As I said in my original post, “I rather doubt that Lucy will be found to be in conflict of interest. But the report will be interesting and the push back is important.”

So here is the correspondence:

 

RE: Richard Warman, DND employee?
Monday, August 17, 2009 3:55 PM
From: “dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca”
Add sender to Contacts
To: [Redacted]@[Redact-it].ca
 

Dear [Redacted]:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning a potential conflict of interest
involving Mr. Richard Warman, an employee of the Department of National
Defence.

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
forthcoming.

I trust this information is of assistance, and thank you again for
writing.

Sincerely,

Peter G. MacKay
Minister of National Defence

MCU2009-03804

__________________________

From: MacKay, Peter – M.P. [mailto:MackaP@parl.gc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, 9, June, 2009 09:59 AM
To: +MCU@MCU@Ottawa-Hull
Subject: FW: Richard Warman, DND employee?

Quote:

From: [Redacted] [mailto: [Redacted]@ [Redact-it].ca]
Sent: June 8, 2009 3:51 PM
To: MacKay, Peter – M.P.
Subject: Richard Warman, DND employee?

June 8/09

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.

—[Redacted],
—[Redacted]

 

Meanwhile, you have to wonder how long Lucy can postpone his own document production before the Canada 5 move for dismissal. This is getting more than a little ridiculous.

Read it here. And meanwhile, Jay writes: Interesting:

My wonderful commentor Rose has come with an interesting bit of material from 2003:

“If you google JAG annual Prefeormance Report-FY 2003, go to page 9 and near the bottom of the page labeled Client Objectives funding etc you will find the following statement: a legal section to provide LITIGATION SUPPORT for the CHRA tribunals and courts.”

You can read it here.

Those following along at home will remember that our old pal Lucy left the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2004 (exactly why or how is a matter of some conjecture). And they will remember that Lucy is now working at DND.

Now here is a puzzle: a) why would the CHRC which seems to have an unlimited supply of lawyers need litigation support? b) why would the Department of National Defence be in the business of supplying “litigation support for the CHRA tribunals and the courts”? c) what is “litigation support” and why would adjudicative bodies such as a Tribunal or a court need such support?

Finally, to rephrase Rose, since when did the JAG at DND have a mandate to provide “litigation support” to civilian branches of the Federal Government?

Or is this simply a rather odd way of phrasing the provision of litigation support services to the DND as respondent in CHRT matters?

Read it here.

Second, from Toronto Real Estate Blog: Discrimination In The Rental Market?

Last week’s story about “blatant discrimination” in the rental market is the second report in as many months to surface in the Toronto media, thanks to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

But I’m here to provide a devil’s advocate type of response, while trying to watch where I step, and what I step in…

Surely there is some sort of “middle-ground” between being racist, and being a savvy investor, no?

When I first read the press coverage back in July about “rental discrimination” in the Toronto real estate market, I figured that this is a story that could gather some steam and eventually result in public outcry.

But I have to be honest and say that when I read the first sentence of this article in last week’s Toronto Star, I kinda paused for a moment and questioned my own approach to renting.

Here is that sentence, verbatim:

If you are a student, senior, disabled person, or a single person and looking to rent, good luck.

The article goes on to say,

There’s obvious discrimination in rental housing, says the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s annual report released yesterday, identifying the problem as a key area that needs immediate intervention.”

I gotta tell ‘ya, this one was a bit of a head-scratcher for me!

I own a couple of investment properties, and I’ll be honest and say that my screening process for potential tenants is exceptionally thorough.

During my last search for a tenant in the Summer of 2008, I posted ads on Craigslist and Kijiji, and was forced to sort through about 200 inquiries in the first three days.

The results were rather disturbing, since about 95% of the people whom I had correspondence with were people that I would never consider renting to for a variety of different reasons.

From my perspective, I stuck my neck out and purchased a condo for investment purposes.  I sunk my own hard-earned dollars into the venture, and leveraged myself while taking on a huge amount of risk.

Shouldn’t I be able to screen my prospective tenants according to ANY criteria I see fit?

Now obviously I’m not going to screen my prospective tenants according to the most extreme of criteria, such as race.

But if I don’t want to rent to students because they are immature, messy, disrespectful, drunk, haphazard, and careless, then who is the Ontario Human Rights Commission to tell me any differently?

I wrote about my experiences in searching for a prospective tenant in this post and that was only a fraction of the real story!  I had one person email me who essentially said, “Dear Kind Sir, I am without a place to live in September and because I am currently unemployed, most Landlords refuse to consider me for tenancy.  If you would be willing to meet with me, I think you’d find that I am an honorable a person as any, and that I will service the rent to the best of my ability.”

Oh, sure…

If it were up to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I’d open my door as wide as it could go, and invite this gentleman in for coffee!  This unemployed gentleman who admits he might be able to pay rent to the best of his ability.

I mean, what’s the big deal if he pays his rent or not, right?

It’s not like I bought this condo for investment and to acquire a good return on my capital.

Really, I’m just a philanthropist who is looking to help out an unfortunate soul.

I’m not going to put up a sign that says “(RACE) need not apply,” but I sure as hell am going to carefully screen my prospective tenants, and not only will I search for the best one, but I will weed out the ones who don’t fit the bill.

And what’s wrong with this?

What’s wrong with trying to find a tenant who will pay their rent on time, keep quiet, and live in a clean, orderly fashion?

I find it comical that the OHRC’s report mentioned “students” as part of the group that is being “discriminated” against.

In my opinion, not renting to students is called “smart business.”

I’ve seen how students live, and it’s not pretty.  So why the hell would I want one or two of them living in my $300,000 investment?

How is this “discrimination?”

Bleeding-hearts, please don’t answer that question…

You know what else?  I don’t rent to guys either.  Boys, males, men, or gentlemen.  Even the most gentlemanly of gentlemen!  Women are cleaner, quieter, and less likely to have ten friends over for UFC 101 and have a spontaneous ten-man tag-team match and put holes in the wall.  I only rent to women, no questions asked.

Is this discrimination?  Well, before you answer that, first you should ask me if I really care…

I also aim to rent to white-collar people who have jobs downtown.  These people are more intelligent, educated, and organized, and things like paying rent are first on their list of priorities since they keep tabs on their finances and update their bank-books regularly.

I’m looking for somebody that takes a proactive approach to paying rent and factors that into their monthly living expenses.  Not somebody who fears the 1st of the month when their cheque may or may not bounce.

So as for these “discrimination” charges being played-up in the media, I have to turn a blind-eye.

There may be some extreme cases out there, but isn’t their a line to be drawn….somewhere?

Is there a watchdog that’s really going to tell me I have to rent to this person, that person, or the guy with the thing in the place?

I have a question – if I am forced to rent to somebody that I deem to not meet my criteria, just because I’m afraid of being accused of discrimination, will the Ontario Human Rights Commission reimburse me if this person stiffs me for the rent?  Will they pay my court costs when I try to get this deadbeat evicted in front of the Landlord & Tenant Board of Ontario?

No?  They won’t?

Hmmm….

Read it all here. H/t to Blazing Cat Fur. More on said rental discrimination from Diana Mehta via Yahoo News.

Third, Jesse Ferreras debates the finer points of Warren Kinsella: Warren Kinsella: not such a hack?

Like every other free speechie out there, I’m very tough on Warren Kinsella. Though I’m aware he played some role in assuring Jean Chretien’s victory in a few elections, I know very little of the man outside the following:

1) that he once wrote columns for both the Ottawa Citizen and the National Post, the latter of which fired him
2) that he’s a callous, pompous, litigious boor who levels expansive (expensive?)
lawsuits against his enemies for $5 million
3) that his achievements as a backroom campaigner for Chretien are
vastly overstated
4) that he has curious choices for friends – among them a registered online Nazi and Canada’s Censor-in-Chief
5) that he makes poor choices of words and actions, whether in public, on his blog or otherwise

I’ve read much of Jean Chretien’s time in office and never once did Warren Kinsella’s name jump out at me as his chief strategist or as the head of any “war room” for the party.

Well tonight I picked up Lawrence Martin’s “Iron Man” again and discovered that Warren played a much bigger role than I ever gave him credit for.

He was a lapdog for Jean Chretien – the kind of guy I would have admired in my younger days when I considered myself a Liberal. He was fiercely loyal and, according to the book, was among the first who saw Paul Martin coming around the corner. He was a pit bull for the Prime Minister, in charge of gathering up dirt on his opponents. In Lawrence Martin’s estimation he didn’t seem half-bad at it.

Paramount among his actions, of course, is his invoking of Barney the Dinosaur on Canada AM, lampooning Stockwell Day’s creationist beliefs. It’s the crowning moment of his career, and something he still reminds us about.

I’m no political expert – I’ve seen nothing close to the experience that Warren has. I’m willing to grant that he had something of a significant role in Chretien’s time but I still think he’s a censorious, self-aggrandizing shmuck who refuses to open his eyes to the abuses that human rights commissions are meting out on Canadians. Neither I nor any other free speechie would be so hard on him if he’d just open his eyes to some of the real issues that the human rights commission controversy has raised.

Read it here. Over on my personal blog, the Blog of Walker, I take a somewhat less charitable view:

Personally I’d say that he’s got all the style, but the substance underneath – well, let’s just say ew.

Yeah, I’m mean.

Third, Dorothy Cummings McLean writes in the Catholic Register: A scandal worthy of Stalinist Russia:

Discovering that phone calls to Canada are only five pence a minute, I finally called a dear friend back in Toronto.  

“How are you?” she demanded. “What have you been doing?”

“Great,” I said. “I’ve been doing married lady stuff. Shopping for food and cooking and washing the dishes and doing the laundry. I write a lot. And, of course, I am totally obsessed with the Corcoran scandal.”

“What’s that?” she said, and I felt annoyed that my friends don’t all read The Catholic Register, eager for the latest column by their absent pal.

“The Corcoran scandal,” I began. “Oh dear. Mark has stuck his fingers in his ears. I’ve talked too much about it. Night and day, Corcoran, Corcoran!”

“What happened?” asked my uninformed friend.

“It’s all very sad,” I said. “I’m not sure which is sadder: that you can be sued for writing to your bishop or that some unelected government official might force that bishop to give a homily.”

“What?” asked my friend. “How can you force a bishop to give a homily? Hello! Freedom of religion?”

“Where to begin?” I groaned. “Well, there once was a priest named Ed Cachia. He was the pastor of a parish in Cobourg. His parish loved him. But he had such a bee in his bonnet about women’s ordination that he praised it in print and then concelebrated Mass with some riverboat ordination ‘womenpriests’ in 2005. Being suspended for this, Fr. Ed started his own breakaway church called Christ the Servant. So Fr. Ed got excommunicated. In 2007 he quit his new church and went to work for a Grafton spa owner named Jim Corcoran.

“In 2008 the Catholic parish got a pastor called Allan Hood. He is a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre. Sounds posh, eh? Anyway, he applied his more traditional style to his new parish, and not all of the parishioners like it. Apparently some complained about the money Fr. Hood pays to a children’s choir, and about his vestments, and about his organist, and about his liturgical style in general.”

I broke off to ponder liturgical styles.

“Actually, I would probably like Fr. Hood’s liturgical style.  But some parishioners didn’t like how Fr. Hood implemented his changes. They said he threw his weight around. And when they wrote a letter to their bishop to complain, they cited two new parishioners in this all-male adult altar guild Fr. Hood had started.”

“What do you mean all-male?” demanded my feminist friend.

“I mean, having no women in it,” I said. “Its MC. Did you know altar servers had MCs? I didn’t. Its MC was Ed Cachia’s new boss, the spa owner Jim Corcoran. Corcoran says Fr. Hood asked him and his same-sex partner to be in this new…”

“His what?”

“His same-sex partner. That’s what Corcoran calls his housemate. He says he lives a chaste and devoutly Catholic life, but there it is all over his human rights complaint: same-sex partner. To me ‘partner’ implies a sexual relationship, but let that go. I am not interested in other people’s sex lives. What bothers me is that Corcoran claims to be a devout Catholic while suing 12 parishioners and his bishop over a privilege usually given to children.

“The parishioners are being sued because they alluded to Corcoran in a letter complaining about their pastor. The bishop is being sued because Corcoran holds him responsible for his subsequent dismissal from altar service by Fr. Hood. The ex-altar server visited the bishop, who asked him to consider 1 Corinthians 8, which is to say, the weak consciences of Corcoran’s fellow parishioners. Ignoring the Epistles on this and other matters, Corcoran made his human rights complaint, claiming discrimination in employment due to sexual orientation.”

“Unreal,” said my friend.

Read it here. H/t to Blazing Cat Fur.

Fourth, a post I missed on Jennifer Lynch’s Dublin Whine Tour. From Stand Your Ground: The Freedom-Lynching Jennifer Went To Dublin To Complain…:

J-Ly is begging Canada’s layers for help. (Apparently, hinting that they may lose business if the freedom-snatching commissions are abolished.) Here’s a great comment from the Blazing Cat Fur:

Jennifer Lynch went to Dublin on your dime to complain that you, the Canadian public hates the Thought Control Stasi she runs – the CHRC. Here we are in a middle of recession and Canada’s own Marie Antoinette is off galivanting at huge public expense to complain that we – the ignorant masses, have gone all uppity on her.

Public outrage at Jennifer Lynch’s stunt is palpable. This latest outburst isn’t the first time J-Ly has displayed her distaste for the Canadians of all political stripes who have expressed their disgust at her efforts to undermine our fundamental rights. Jennifer Lynch is a woman so desperate to retain her position as Canada’s Thought Control Czarina, a woman so contemptuous of her critics that she ignored the recommendations of Richard Moon – the man she hand picked to provide her with an expected whitewash report of the odious Section 13(1). Ah but J-Ly’s anticipated whitewash didn’t go according to plan – Richard Moon did the unexpected, he told the truth – Section 13 (1) is bad law and recommended that the CHRC get out of the thought crime business. J-Ly is now clearly spinning out of control and has become a public embarassment to Canada, her open contempt for her critics reveals her to be an out of touch power mad bureaucrat on a Kamikaze Mission to protect her cushy sinecure.

The freedom-lynching Jennifer wants Canada’s academic experts, law school deans, and senior lawyers to speak up in defense of Canada’s star chambers. She believes that as “Canada’s most trusted sources of information”, it will be easier for them to convince Canadians that Orwellian tribunals with “human rights” in their name, actually have something to do with protecting human rights. Well, if those lawyers and academics listen to her pleas and start praising the tribunals that trample our freedom of speech and our right to a fair trial (to say the least) – they’ll soon cease to be the “most trusted sources of information”, that’s for sure.

Ana Ilha and Amir Attaran want to have a baby, but it has not been easy. At 37 years old, Ms. Ilha suffers from a medical condition that results in a low egg count. Her doctor advised in vitro fertilization, a treatment that is funded in Ontario for some conditions, but not all — and not for Ms. Ilha.

One course of IVF and $6,300 later, Ms. Ilha and her husband have filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging the provincial policy is discriminatory, and should be changed. “It’s not cancer, but it is a disability,” Ms. Ilha says about her trouble conceiving. “And if it is funded for a particular group, it should be funded for other groups that have the same diagnosis.”

Their legal battle centres around equitable access to a treatment that has already been deemed necessary by Ontario’s Ministry of Health — but it also touches on the ethical debate surrounding what should and shouldn’t be paid for by provincial governments.

Experts say this is about societal choices, and funding fertility treatment raises issues of afford-ability, an ageing population and family promotion. The central question, however, appears to be: What role should society play in helping people conceive children?

“It is definitely a philosophical issue as to what is medically necessary and what is not,” says Dr. Gordon Guyatt, a professor at McMaster University’s clinical epidemiology and biostatistics department. Under provisions of the Canada Health Act, the federal government funds all medically necessary health services but provinces and territories decide what that covers.

Read it here. H/t to the Blogging Canadians site.

Fifth, Natalie Alcoba writes, via Canada.com: The right to bear children:

Ana Ilha and Amir Attaran want to have a baby, but it has not been easy. At 37 years old, Ms. Ilha suffers from a medical condition that results in a low egg count. Her doctor advised in vitro fertilization, a treatment that is funded in Ontario for some conditions, but not all — and not for Ms. Ilha.

One course of IVF and $6,300 later, Ms. Ilha and her husband have filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging the provincial policy is discriminatory, and should be changed. “It’s not cancer, but it is a disability,” Ms. Ilha says about her trouble conceiving. “And if it is funded for a particular group, it should be funded for other groups that have the same diagnosis.”

Their legal battle centres around equitable access to a treatment that has already been deemed necessary by Ontario’s Ministry of Health — but it also touches on the ethical debate surrounding what should and shouldn’t be paid for by provincial governments.

Experts say this is about societal choices, and funding fertility treatment raises issues of afford-ability, an ageing population and family promotion. The central question, however, appears to be: What role should society play in helping people conceive children?

“It is definitely a philosophical issue as to what is medically necessary and what is not,” says Dr. Gordon Guyatt, a professor at McMaster University’s clinical epidemiology and biostatistics department. Under provisions of the Canada Health Act, the federal government funds all medically necessary health services but provinces and territories decide what that covers.

Read it here.

Finally, angling for a hate crime charge; “inflammatory and tasteless“; reverse ‘maximum disruption’; similarities;

Advertisements

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

%d bloggers like this: