Alright, here we go.
First off, Jay Currie asks: Will Lynch underbus Warman before the Committee:
If even a few Members of the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights have read the material Ezra sent them pursuant to one of their member’s request, the coward Lynch will have a rough go before the Committee on Monday.
Now I expect we’ll see a degree of bluster and a repetition of the promise not to use s. 54.1.c of the Canadian Human Rights Act. But that is just the opening statement. What happens when the questions about the Commission’s conduct start up. Remember, this is a Parliamentary committee so there are none of the usual ruses of “this is before the Court”, solicitor client privilege, or a right not to self incriminate. No doubt Lynch will maintain personal ignorance on many a matter but too much of that will tend to suggest she was asleep at the wheel.
One line she might take is to simply say that any abuse or corruption of Commission process or procedure was the result of the pernicious influence of Richard Warman. The beauty of this is that Warman is not at the Commission any longer. Another is that it defangs the argument that s.13 really was Warman’s law. For Lynch the downsides are minimal. She can suggest that Warman was a bit more zealous than was acceptable to the Commission and cite the fact he ceased to be an employee/contractor of the Commission years ago as a good reason to “move on.” (Questions going to Dean Stacey’s conduct would be a bit trickier as he is still employed by the Commission.)
The beauty of this line of defence is that many of the Committee Members will have only the most superficial understanding of the systematic corruption and abuse of the Commission and, if Lynch can paint Warman as the “bad apple” to who all such things may be ascribed, she might just be able to bamboozle the Committee. (Alternatively she could cry.)
Of course this would completely screw Warman but I don’t get the impression Lynch is particularly interested in anything other than saving her own skin. And, realistically, the last thing the Commission wants is for Warman’s various defamation actions to reach the discovery stage, much less Court, because even document discovery will reveal a great deal about the workings of the Commission. The Chief Commissioner slagging Warman would diminish his reputation significantly and reduce his prospects for any meaningful success in Court. Which might be an added bonus for an embattled Lynch.
Back that bus up Jenny, never mind the screams.
Read it all here.
Second, from Scaramouche: Jennifer’s “sting”:
Though she’s tried before to tell usHow she wants to root out “hate” from all our hearts.Free expression’s a nice conceptBut one’s “feelings” are more vital in these parts.Every little thing she says is bollocks.Everything she say is such a crock.Turn us into raving alcoholicsJust to drown out all her foolish talk.Does she have to tell the M.P.sOf her dossier of stuff so raw and rude?It’s a big enough containerBut it’s always us who end up gettin’ screwed.She’s resolved to take a stand.Protect her sinecure.Her intentions are the best;Her motives are so pure.Though the frothers keep on frothin’Sayin’ censorship’s a bust.Like a moth drawn to an open flameMust she immolate? She must!Every little thing she says is bollocks.Everything she say is such a crock.Turn us into raving alcoholicsJust to drown out all her foolish talk…
Every little thing she says is bollocks.
Everything she say is such a crock.
Turn us into raving alcoholics
Just to drown out all her foolish talk.
Good for him”His definition of “uncivil” debate: any “debate” that targets Section 13, his precious (but worthless) security blankie. Shame on him.
Read it here.
Third, from The Volokh Conspiracy: From the Volokh Archives: Touchy Canadians:
Originally posted Dec. 2003. Just came across it, and though it was worth reposting in light of recent controversies over hate speech prosecutions in Canada:
Some Canadians are rather touchy about criticism from Americans regarding freedom of speech in Canada. The irony of this touchiness is that the Canadian Supreme Court has based its free-speech jurisprudence, at least in the context of antidiscrimination concerns, in large part on the theories of left-wing American academics such as University of Michigan professor Catharine MacKinnon. The Canadian left has a penchant for importing left-wing ideas from the U.S. and elsewhere, adopting them as public policy, and then accusing anyone who objects of being “anti-Canadian” because these policies somehow define Canadian identity. I like Canada a lot myself, but I should hope that there is more to Canadian identity than national health insurance, gun control, and aggressive hate speech laws.
Read it here.