Alright, here we go. Technically, this Lynch List is for Oct. 31st, I guess, but it was meant for Oct. 30th. I just got it in late, as the 30th wasn’t a terribly productive day for me.
First off, a little more feedback on Lynch, Moon, et al’s testimony on Monday from Jay Currie: Lynch lies again:
At the Hearings of the Parliament of Canada Justice and Human Rights Committee, the coward Lynch stated that there was only one current s. 13 matter being dealt with by the Commission.
She conveniently forgot the Marc Lemire has filed a s. 13 against Richard Warman for the assorted messages Warman posted to the net. Now, Warman has tried to have this complaint dismissed but recently the Commission ruled (but did not publish) that Warman had failed to make his case and that the complaint would be investigated.
Which means that Lynch was either lying to Parliament or, charitably had not been informed of her seatmate’s “under investigation” status.
But here’s a puzzler: who in the hate crimes section can investigate Warman? Dean Stacey? Why no, he invented at least one of the aliases Warman had access to. Ms. Kozak? Maybe, but let’s make sure she was not trained by Warman as Ms. Rizk was. And we’d best check if she worked with Warman in his role as most favoured complainant otherwise there might be just the hint of bias.
And here’s another puzzler: what message was Lynch sending about potential s. 13 investigatee Richard Warman by having anything whatsoever to do with him at the Parliamentary Committee Hearings? Police officers don’t sit down with suspects, judges don’t speak with the accused.
Second, from Scaramouche: Notes from the Resistance:
While some Canadian proponents of state thought control–Jennifer, Richard, Bernie etc.–were defending their warped notions about the need to “balance” free speech with offensive speech as a means of sparing “vulnerable” people’s precious feelings (“feelings” and not freedom being these proponents’ be-all and end-all), I was off to Washington to attend the International Legal Conference on Freedom of Speech & Religion. The experience of being in the U.S. capital for the first time (at conference held right inside the U.S. Capitol Building compound, no less), of meeting delegates and speakers from the EU, the U.S. and Canada who are passionate about the cause of free speech, of taking part in an intensive, two-day event, was so heady, so exhilarating, that I’m still reeling from it. What follows are my first thoughts and impressions, which at the moment are still a bit scattered, but which I shall endeavour to collect as I write.
Third, Markham Hislop writes for the S.E. Calgary News: AB Human Rights “Kangaroo Court” A Threat To Small Newspapers Like SECN:
Yesterday afternoon I spent an interesting 90 minutes listening to three lawyers debate the “tension” between protecting freedom of speech and preventing discrimination that is inherent to Alberta’s human rights legislation. The lecture theatre was mostly filled with students as far as I could tell. As the editorialist for SECN, I had a practical reason for attending, beside covering the debate as a news story.
Just about every time I craft a column it could be argued I subject some poor soul, sometimes more than one, to “contempt” (though, in my defence, not “hatred”). Which means I’ve contravened Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. Probably many, many times.
This is no small matter. Ezra Levant, political commentator and gadfly, and former publisher of the Western Standard, was hauled up before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after he published the infamous Danish cartoons that so offended Muslims the world over. Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada laid a complaint and Levant was investigated. He claimed his legal costs alone were $100,000. The Western Standard folded, presumably in part because of the financial pressures created by the human rights complaint.
Publishers and journalists paid attention to that case, believe me. Especially small publishers like me. My company is young and still struggling financially. One human rights complaint and the attending legal bills, and we are bankrupt. Talk about “tension” between human rights commissions and newspapers!
Fifth, from Freedom Through Truth: Australia Considers Bill To Criminalize Free Speech By Christians:
Excerpt from The Australian:
Australians who wear a crucifix to work or offer to pray for a patient in hospital could run foul of a charter of rights, according to a British legal expert who says its introduction in this country would trigger an attack on religious expression.
Canada has similar infringements on religious expression because of the anti-Christian Canadian Human Rights Act.
- Pro-life debater shouted down at McGill University
- Pro-life debater shouted down at St. Mary’s University
- The persecution of a Catholic Bishop (at Blazing Cat Fur)
- The persecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin (at Ezra Levant)
- The persecution of Catholic Insight magazine (at Ezra Levant)
- The persecution of Christian businessman Scott Brockie (at The Interim)
Read it here.
Sixth, a bit of a grab-bag. Britannia Radio notes the Canadian Jewish News article that covered one of Ezra Levant’s latest speaking engagements: Hate laws backfire on Jews, author says. Five Feet Of Fury notes Rebekah Hebbert’s latest for Mercator.net – The ABCs of fighting for free speech – while Blazing Cat Fur notes Gerry Nichols’ Top five stories guaranteed to scare conservatives no. 3: Night of the Living Bureaucrats. Meanwhile, BigCityLiberal talks about Marc Lemire’s application to testify before the HoC Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Seventh, from Scaramouche: Gee Officer Lynch, ma’am, krup you:
On Sunday, the day before I traveled to Washington, I was in Stratford, Ontario, watching West Side Story. While the film version of the musical is familiar–I know all the songs off by heart–this was the first time I’ve seen a full scale stage production. (We put in on once at my Zionist summer camp, but I don’t think that counts.) Compared to the movie, the play’s language and song lyrics are uglier, rawer (I think–I haven’t seen the movie for quite a while). Granted it was written in an era that, in retrospect, was refreshingly free of political correctness. But as I watched the racial epithets flying fast and furiously in these politically correct times it was, frankly, a little shocking. I kept looking over my shoulder, half expecting a contingent of Jennifer’s or Babsy’s thought police to burst through the door and shut the thing down. How is it, thought I to myself, that at a time when the “n” word can get To Kill a Mockingbird axed from the public High School curriculum, actors impersonating 50s gang members get to hurl “mick” and “spic” and “wop” and no one seems to mind?
Read the rest here.
Eighth, from the Beacon Herald: Family needs help for unhappy return to Mexico:
Posted By BRIAN SHYPULA
A dream for a better life in Canada has become a nightmare for a family from Mexico who must return home before their visas expire Nov. 6.
Juan Soler, who is on compensation after being hurt on the job at a Sebringville business, and wife Claudia Perez, who isn’t legally allowed to work in Canada, don’t have the money to get themselves and their three children back to Mexico.
They’re grateful to local schools and churches which are coming to their aid.
“I’m afraid because I have wonderful family and I want my family to be OK,” Mr. Soler said in an interview.
Mr. Soler has applied to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to intervene.
“I want to get justice for my treatment,” he said.
Read it all here.
Ninth, from Dawg’s Blawg:
Well, well, well.regret this, still on-line after all this time? Wouldn’t want us to doubt the sincerity of your “regret,” now.
In this week’s Maclean’s magazine (no link on-line as yet):
EDITOR’S NOTE:Do the Maclean’s editors, then,
In the Sept. 21 article “The CHRC tells itself to shape up” (National), we reported that Human Rights Commission staff hacked into the email account of a private citizen to post racist comments on a website. Maclean’s is satisfied that there is no evidence to suggest that either Richard Warman or commission staff did so. We regret the statement.
Read it here.