Well, it’s that time again, for me to talk about all the people who’ve 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, The Role-Playing Jew does a review of Ezra Levant’s Shakedown:
Shake Down: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, by Ezra Levant, has way too long a title for too short a book. But the content is very important, and more than a little frightening.Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, says that no one is allowed to publish “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” based on their race, color, gender, etc. This is of course subject to extreme interpretation – how do you decide what bits of speech might cause someone to hate someone else?
The various Canadian Human Rights Commisions (HRCs) are a pseudo-legal system created in the 1960’s. Their original purpose was to help stop real discrimination – people denied jobs, housing, or harassed because they were black or Jewish or gay. However, as Canada has become more multicultural and more tolerant, the HRCs have found themselves with less and less to do – until they came up with the brilliant idea of policing “hate speech”.
Hate speech, as defined in
The HRCs themselves lack any sort of oversight, due process, or rule of law:
- The “judges” often have no training in law whatsoever.
- The complainant will always have all their fees paid by the government. The defendant has to pay all their legal fees themselves, even if they win. This means that merely creating a complaint can cost any innocent person tens of thousands of dollars.
- HRCs can demand private trials.
- HRCs can search business places without a warrant.
- HRCs can pronounce sentences that would be insane in a regular court.
That last point is particularly ridiculous. One case centred around a Christian pastor who published an anti-gay article in a newspaper. Someone took him to an HRC (someone who wasn’t gay) and won. His sentence? To never again be allowed to say anything bad about gays. Other suits have demanded that the complainant be allowed to publish articles of particular lengths in particular publications. Bye-bye, freedom of the press.
Read the rest here.
And if you don’t believe that restricting free speech and silencing dissent from the party line is what this is all about, just look at Canada, and its system of “human-rights commissions”; they’ve turned into ideological kangaroo courts, determining which speech is protected and which isn’t, all based on their own ideas of what they would prefer to tolerate and what they wouldn’t. Fortunately, when they went after Mark Steyn (because the Canadian Islamic Congress didn’t like what he said about the effects of Muslim immigration), he fought back, and he had the kind of public profile and financial backing he needed to win; but not everybody is Mark Steyn, and not everybody has the tools and the support to defend themselves effectively, and so the result is still the chilling of freedom of expression.
That’s why Steyn said what he did in his testimony this past February before the Ontario Human Rights Commission:
The Ontario Human Rights regime is incompatible with a free society. It is useless on real human rights issues that we face today and in the cause of such pseudo-human rights as the human right to smoke marijuana on someone else’s property . . .—in the cause of pseudo-human rights, it tramples on real human rights, including property rights, free speech, the right to due process, and the presumption of innocence. . . .
It’s all too easy to imagine the Terry Downeys of the day telling a homosexual fifty years ago that there is proper conduct that everyone has to follow. Or a Jew seventy years ago that there is proper conduct that everyone has to follow. That’s why free societies do not license ideologues to regulate proper conduct. When you suborn legal principles to ideological fashion, you place genuine liberties in peril.
Read it here.
Third, Wally Keeler does that thing that he does:
The Poetburo of the imagine nation of the Peoples Republic of Poetry announced that Mz Jennifer Lynch, head honcho of the bureacrazy of bloated bland glands known as the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been convicted on several counts of textual assault without a Poetic Licence. It must be understood that the imagine nation is the ultimate State of Diversity and it will defend its turf against the textual predators of political correctness.
PREVENT MEDIOCRITY, BE POETICALLY CORRECT.
The state has no right to be in the bedrooms or mouths of the imagine nation.
Read it here.
Fourth, Mbrandon8026 from the Freedom Through Truth blog comments on what could have been:
Sunda Croonquist married a Jewish lawyer and converted to Judaism. Keep up with me folks. While doing surveillance work, and studying acting she got the odd acting and small film gig.here and can read the National Post bit on the lawsuit here.
Through chance encounters she got into comedy and then became a black, Catholic, Jewish stand up comedian with a Jewish mother in law and in laws. What ripe talent for comedy until . . .
Until this year, when brother and sister in law and mother in law decided to sue her for her material which offended the poor babies. Hurt feelings. You can figure out if you are offended by her humour
Fortunately Ms. Croonquist has a good lawyer, her husband’s firm.
If these in laws had lived in Ontario, they could have filed a Form 1 with Rabbi Barb et al, and commenced action through the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against Ms. Croonquist. How would Barb’s buddies have handled this complaint. Can Jews file a complaint against Jews for discrimination? Or would you have to file the complaint against the part of Ms. Croonquist that is not Jewish? Since she is part Black, and part Swedish, you could claim that she is not REALLY Jewish, just snuck in the back door.
Read the whole thing here.
Fifth, of Olympics and ski jumpers. From smn.com.au: Vancouver ready for 2010 Games: IOC:
“We obviously have many things to do,” Furlong said, adding that the priority is on transportation systems between the international airport, local hotels and venues, and the ski resort Whistler, where alpine competitions will be held.
Officials were tight-lipped about their response to a human rights court challenge of the IOC’s decision not to add female ski jumping to the 2010 program.
Asked if the Games could still accommodate a women’s event if a Canadian court ruling, expected in the northern hemisphere autumn, favours the women, Furlong replied, “We’re not planning any event at this point in time … we’re talking about something that’s completely hypothetical.”
Read it all here.
Sixth, the Albertan Wildrose Alliance party gets a write-up in Macleans mag:
Certainly, there are many unhappy Tories: social conservatives are disgusted by the government’s failure to reform Alberta’s human rights commission, which in recent years has ensnared a number of vocal critics of gay marriage and other hot-button issues. Fiscal conservatives are enraged by Stelmach’s $4.7-billion-and-climbing budget deﬁcit, charging him with abandoning Ralph Klein’s debt-busting legacy. Many Albertans, and Calgarians in particular, worry about what’s happening with health care as the province cuts spending and pushes to centralize the system. Others call the government incoherent: early last month, at a press conference called to dispel rumours of new taxes, Stelmach rescinded liquor dues introduced just four months prior—at a cost of $180 million a year to the treasury. Similar indecision has characterized Stelmach’s handling of oil and gas royalties, adjusted almost willy-nilly several times since he revamped them in late 2007—moves the oil patch says have injected investment uncertainty into the province and chased business elsewhere.
Read it here.
Seventh, and I think I’ve talked about this before, but it was just too good to not talk about, from the Vancouver Sun: Human Rights Tribunal finds no meat in couple’s deli complaint:
There’s no meat in a Muslim couple’s beef about the salami at a Coquitlam Real Canadian Superstore, B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
William and Micheline Issa had filed a complaint with the tribunal on behalf of themselves and their three children, saying that the store had served them salami containing pork a year ago.
The couple said they eat only salami that is 100-per-cent beef, as consuming pork would violate their religious beliefs.
But tribunal chairwoman Heather McNaughton dismissed the complaint, in part ruling that it wouldn’t likely succeed.
Read it here.
Eighth, Blazing Cat Fur picks up on a rather cranky commenter:
From the comments at a Catholic Register article critical of the Wannabe Homo Host Hostess.
Like so many “Christians” who have weighed in on this issue from their sanctimonious perches, Dorothy has completely missed the point.
Read it here.
Ninth, Scary Fundamentalist comments:
Okay, Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, probably doesn’t know much about Canada’s Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. But after a recent case highlighted their gullibility, this comic strip seems strangely relevant:
Read it here.