Today’s Lynch List

Alright, here we go.

First off, from the Niagara Falls Review: Human rights tribunals have little interest in real justice:

John Fulton was accused of committing a wrong.

He prepared his defence, paid the legal bills and was waiting his hearing.

[…]

It illustrates how out of touch the human rights process has become, how it is more interested in making a social statement than it is justice.

“The way the tribunal is set up now, the complainant is rewarded for taking a risk-free grab at a big bag of money,” said Andrew Roman, Fulton’s lawyer.

Incredibly, the human rights adjudicator is largely placing the blame on Fulton; it seems the tribunal would rather an accused roll over and fork over a settlement than stage a defence.

That is not justice.

Read the rest here. H/t to Scaramouche, who writes: “Human rights” in Ontario:

The small businessman, a gym owner, who ran afoul of the “human rights” apparatus when he refused to accommodate a pre-op transsexual who wanted to let it all hang out in the womens change room, has been let off the hook because the chick-with-a-dick dropped the complaint.

A great victory! Huzzah and hurray! The “system” works! Right?
Well, no, not exactly. The gym owner, who’s actually rather sympathetic toward the differently sexual, was hounded for three years by Ontario’s “human rights” inquisitors, and is out of pocket an estimated $100,000 in legal fees.
[…]
A real shame? A real travesty, more like. With another drive-by guilty verdict, a la Barbara Hall’s shifty shafting of Mark Steyn and Maclean’s.

Read it all here. Also noted by Blazing Cat Fur. More on this story at Free Dominion.

Second, the Infidel Blogger Awards are back! Here’s the info:

We hope to build on last year’s enormously popular effort to recognize the very best in Non-“Canadian Human Rights Commission” approved blogging & punditry and of course further our goal of offending the Kommissars of the Human Rights Kult and their politically correct enablers in the MSM, Judiciary, NGO community & Government.Best Overall International Infidel Blogger

Thank you once again for your support of the “Georgies”. Remember free speech & blasphemy are your rights, exercise them and have yourself some good old-fashioned Offensive Fun!

This year’s categories are listed below, click the link and make your nomination in the comments for each respective category. Nominations will close Nov. 18th. Voting will commence on Thursday Nov. 19th and end Tuesday November 24th with the winners announced Wednesday Nov. 25th.

NB: All categories are open to your International Favourites save for “Best Overall Canadian Infidel Blogger” .

On to this year’s categories!

 

Best Overall Canadian Infidel Blogger

Favourite Non-Politically Correct MSM Pundit

Most Despised Politically Correct MSM Pundit

Favourite Apostate Blogger or MSM Pundit

Blogger or Pundit most likely to be charged under Hate Crime Laws

Blogger or Pundit most likely to be assasinated by Islamists

Biggest Pro-Censorship Ass-Hat in the Known Universe

Read all about it here. Also noted at Blazing Cat Fur, and by Covenant Zone, Free Dominion, The Blog of Walker, Five Feet of Fury, Scary Fundamentalist, Jesse Ferreras, and Xanthippa’s Chamberpot. Meanwhile, on a related note, I guess I am a nice guy after all.

Third, Mark Steyn writes for Macleans: Spare me the therapeutic platitudes:

A couple of weeks later, Jennifer Lynch, QC (Queen Censor) and Chief Commissar of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, came to the House of Commons to offer her own view of Section 13. Facing very specific allegations of abuse of power and conflict of interest, she took refuge, like the Château Laurier, in soothing generalities. Indeed, as with the Assistant Manager, Housekeeping, recent difficulties seemed to have provided a marvellous opportunity for a growth experience: “ . . . just to reassure myself as I can reassure you here today that Canadians can have pride in all of the employees of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the way we carry out our complex mandate.”

“Ms. Lynch, let me stop you there,” said Joe Comartin, the dogged Dipper on the Select Committee. “That’s not an answer to my question. Did you conduct a detailed investigation into these allegations?”

Since the “human rights” racket ran into its little public relations problem with the complaints against this magazine a couple of years back, Commissar Lynch’s technique has been to say at every opportunity how much she “welcomes the debate.” Indeed, she’s been so busy welcoming the debate that sadly she’s had no time to have one. Still, it came as a surprise to see her offer up the same flat bromides to the Parliament to which she is, supposedly, accountable. The Queen Censor spoke to the Select Committee with the same weirdly fixed smile on her face for the full hour. Presumably she fancies this makes her look friendly and reassuring, although movie buffs may find it alarmingly reminiscent of the guy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers who tells you in the evenly modulated voice that the process is completely painless and you won’t feel a thing. Her response to specific questions was to freeze the smile and pause just a little too long before replying, as if the random Form Response Generator was running a bit slow.

Read the rest here. It’s quite brilliant. Also noted by Scary Fundamentalist.

Fourth, Bob Ellis writes for Dakota Voice: Political Correctness Punishes Even When No Law is Violated:

By now you’re probably aware of the tremendous abuses which can be perpetrated on everyday people–especially people of faith–in the name of political correctness, “anti-discrimination,” and “hate crime” legislation.As this latest story from LifeSiteNews illustrates, you don’t even have to be guilty of breaking any law (much less doing something genuinely unfair and harmful to someone) in order to be damaged by this politically correct lunacy.

In recent years the Canadian Human Rights Commission system has come under heavy fire from critics. One of the major criticisms that has been levelled against the system is that people who launch complaints have their legal fees covered by the government, while those responding to the complaints are required to pay their own legal fees. The result is that most respondents will have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending themselves, even if they win the case – ensuring that, in the words of HRC critic Ezra Levant, “the process is the punishment.”

Read the rest here. H/t to Free Dominion.

Finally, old friends of Barbara Hall, and hot ski jumper action!

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: