The Lynch List, 24-Feb-2010

February 25, 2010

Away we go…

First, The University of Victoria tries – again – to evict a mentally-disabled man from campus housing while a BCHRT complaint is pending hearing in June. Want to bet the BC Human Rights Tribunal will view this as reprisal?

Second, The BC Court of Appeal affirms that the Human Rights Tribunals can act as parallel complaint mechanism to other boards and tribunals – as long as you are a lucky member of a “vulnerable” group.

The court says the Human Rights Code gives the tribunal discretion to hold a hearing into a complaint even if another body has already ruled on the matter.

Third, What to do when HRC-mandated harassment complaint procedures and training are ignored by the management of Money-Mart? Mandate more complaint procedures and training! More at WiseLaw Blog.

Fourth, Intellectually-disabled children have a human right to disrupt regular classes (I’m all for inclusive education of the disabled, but it’s not a “right”).

Fifth, Scaramouche applies her wit to the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s autobiography:

What a bunch of tommyrot! The process is not fair–since it is set up to favour the complainant, whose legal bills it picks up–not timely–it can drag on for years which, as Erza Levant has pointed out, is part and parcel of how it punishes the defendent–not accessible, or at least, accessible only to some (i.e. minorities/members of designated victim groups; if you want to complain about, say, an imam’s hateful statements you can forget about it), and not based on the kind of law and jurisprudence on which Western law is predicated (although it does bear more than a passing resemblance to Soviet and Islamic law).

Sixth, Jay Currie recommends that each of us give Rob Nicholson a piece of our mind on his fluff-stuffed NP column

Parting Shot: Notice that the majority of Canada’s medals have been won by women (11.5 of 15 so far)? Maybe the Human Rights Commissions can get to the bottom of this inequality and order the IOC to remedy the situation! How dare the Olympics award medals based on merit!


Morbid Obtusity

February 23, 2010

Once upon a time, in the dear old days of yore, everything depended on logic. Why is something true? Because A cannot at the same time be B – no matter how hard someone wishes it could be, nor how much window dressing you put on it.

Good ol’ Aristotle (no, not Jackie Kennedy’s second husband) said it way back when: A is A. Never, ever B, or Q, or J. Farnsworth Hornswoggle the Third, or protection of the “multi-culti” racket.

Well, racket is the new real, friends.

Which brings us to our own beloved Queen B – er, Queen’s Counsel, the Jenster, and the one talent she actually does possess  – mastery of turning A into B, which requires real work (paid for with YOUR tax dollars!), most notably convincing suckers – er, persuading the Canadian public – that in order to protect your rights, we must destroy them.

The girl wields language like a master swordsman, only her instrument is the wet spaghetti noodle of intentional vagueness. Everything she says defies logic and reality, yes – but in such a way that it SOUNDS logical and rational. Every con man knows it’s not what it is, it’s how you say it. (Flashback to Bill Clinton: “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”)

Business as usual in today’s climate of moral relativism. Everybody, especially in government, does it, right? But in this oozing firmament, Jen’s a semantic star. Who else do you know who can say THIS in the same unblushing breath [emphasis mine]:

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canada. As all of you will know it is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Because no right is absolute, the modern concept of rights is that of a matrix with different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system.”

Geddit? Throw together A and B together, and they come out A! B never existed except how WE define it! We have never been at war with Eurasia! … *misty-eyed sigh*…  Masterful.

How do you think Jen rose to the top of the “human rights” racket? And don’t you think, power-wise, that racket is the best place to be?

I took some time to read the CHRC’s updated “Policy on the Application of Section 13.” Why? Because this is my girl’s magnum opus.

(Mysteriously, it’s dated March 2, 2010. Since, as I write this, today is February 23, 2010, it shows that not only can Jen manipulate language, but time, too. BOW before your Overlord!)

Now, yer average Joe, looking at this document, will see that no less than Parliament OK’s it. Why? Because it’s founded on Supreme Court case law! (Stupid proles!) If the Supremes and the court sez it, it’z troo.

Ah … but WHY is it troo, and not true? Because the Mistress of Murk said so. Back to that in a minute. First, we need to revisit another bloke who, along with Aristotle, helped define logical reality, thus setting the framework for modern civilization and all its accomplishments.

Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? Back in the 1400s, William of Ockham said “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” That is, simplest is best. Using this “razor,” we need to “shave” everything down to its basic essentials in order to understand it properly.

Jen pays lip service to Billy Bare Bones when she bandies stuff like “fundamental rights” about – and then spits in his face with the “matrix of rights” drivel. A single “fundamental” cannot also be a “matrix.” Which is true. But Jen says it CAN. Which is troo. See what I mean?

Ezra Levant put Jen’s speechy slime firmly in the nutshell it belongs in (and who would know better than him!):

“I would like to point out something superlative in Lynch’s speech: she has taken Orwellian inversions to a level that I have not seen before. She’s simply the best at what Orwell called newspeak and doublethink.

Every flaw and error in her own conduct and that of her CHRC henchmen, she attributes to her opponents. Every vicious tactic she uses herself as a matter of course, she blames on her victims.

It is classic Orwellian behaviour, and it shows Lynch is better suited to working in Iran than in Canada.”

(Ouchy-wow! No wonder you made it to her Nixon list, Ezra; believe me, I’m green with envy.)

Now, if you’re still with me, here, I’d like to point out that Jen, while undeniably the Queen of Quibble, didn’t just develop her incredible talent in a vacuum – she had help in high places.

Namely, the aforementioned Parliament and Supreme Court.

Everybody knows that it takes a bunch of like-minded people to get the upper hand in government. You know, the conservative crowd (less government is best – hey, Billy!) versus the government-is-best crowd (by whatever name they call themselves; Labour, Democrat, “progressive,” yawn, zzz …).

Once you have the upper hand, you can make people do things. Just smith the words, and then get yer sympathetic toadies (oops! friends!) in the mass media to Xerox ‘em out to the rubes. Jen’s friends in Parliament and the Supreme Court share her vision of total control and, like her, know how to put it in the right words and feed it onto the media conveyor belt so the suckers –er, Canadian public – swallow it.

Consider this:

The aforementioned Canadian Human Rights Commission Policy Statement relies on a SINGLE CASE to justify every last sleazy thing done in the name of “anti-hate discrimination.” Just one: Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892.

Disclosure: I’m not a lawyer. However, I AM a citizen, with brain cells. ONE case to support a WHOLE LOT of misery inflicted on people simply speaking their minds? Hello, Rev. Stephen Boissoin?

Okay, so this must have been a helluva case, supported by everyone on the bench, in a clear case of moral mandate for the good of the Canadian people. Right?

Wrong:

“In 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Taylor case that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was constitutional, but by the slimmest of margins, with a 4-3 split decision.  To date, this has been the only constitutional test of Section 13 to ever reach the Supreme Court. It should be noted that Madame Justice McLachlin delivered the dissenting opinion, saying that Section 13 was a violation of freedom of speech and should be wiped from our law books.” [emphasis mine]

One case. Well, so WHAT if it’s a slender thread? In the reality racket, that’s all you need.

Repeat after me: There IS no right. There IS no wrong. There was NO dissent in Taylor, and if there was, it is meaningless now, no matter what they said. Therefore, we ALL AGREE that the right to speak your mind is MEANINGLESS. At all costs, NO ONE MUST BE OFFENDED.*

(*Except when we need them to be offended, to keep our cushy public job going.)

So, brush aside all those hundreds of thousands of dollars in punitive fees to defend yourself, damage to reputations, protection of the right to infect people at fast-food restaurants with terrible diseases, fear of saying ANYTHING that might come back to bite you.

“Hatred” is no more. Pain is delight. Freedom is slavery. You stupid proles!

Jen, George Orwell – and Abraham Lincoln! — are proud of you. You’ve fooled most of the people most of the time. Up is now down. You rock.*

*(that is, you crawled out from under one. Enjoy yer 15 minutes while you got ‘em.)


The Lynch List, 23-Feb-2010

February 23, 2010

After the marathon list yesterday, this one is more of a shortie:

First, an advocacy group is launching a human rights complaint against several Ontario city municipalities for its zoning bylaws concerning supportive housing. Which cities?

Kathy Laird told The Observer the four municipalities were selected largely because they represent various regions of the province.

“They were an arbitrary choice, she said. “However, we did find some extreme situations in Sarnia.”

…Laird said she is hopeful each municipality will agree to mediation and acknowledge their bylaws infringe on the Ontario Human Rights Code.

To heck with the long and difficult process of democracy, let’s govern municipalities by activist groups through HRC edict!

Second, Scaramouche continues to document a back-and-forth between OHRC Commissioner Barbara Hall and the National Post editorial staff and readership over the relevance of the Human Rights institutions today.

Third, the Australian HRCs aren’t much different than our own. After all the other legal avenues had been exhausted, a Hungarian accused of war crimes has asked the Australian Human Rights Commission to intervene on his behalf. (h/t BCF)

Finally, another Guy Earle interview, and more commentary on Fulton’s transsexuals-in-the-womens’-changeroom debacle from Politic?.


The Lynch List, 22-Feb-2010

February 22, 2010

I’m baaaack. Lots happens when you’re offline for a few days.

First, an organization representing handicapped persons in Quebec is demanding that businesses be forced to install movable debit-card readers and keypads to allow better access for the disabled. They hope to bring a complaint to the Quebec Human Rights Commission to this effect. As is the case for most human rights complaints, reality is irrelevant:

Their efforts are pitting the rights of thousands of handicapped Quebecers against retailers’ security and cost concerns.

Last year, Quebec police urged retailers – especially dépanneurs, restaurants and gas stations – to replace movable debit-card readers, which were being unhooked and stolen. Criminals were using the devices to access bank-card data and customers’ PIN numbers.

Second, several Montreal residents are bringing complaints against the local transit police for harassing them because they were using the transit system without paying the fare. Since they happen to be a racial minority, they are bypassing the usual complaints process and are instead alleging “systemic racism” within the transit police, allowing them to bring their case before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, which will most likely be very sympathetic.

Aside from the obvious point that these individuals are not disputing that they were fare-dodging, and therefore can’t argue that they shouldn’t be subject to being questioned and fined by transit officials, this is one more instance of the human rights system being used by designated “vulnerable” groups to bypass existing complaint resolution mechanisms.

Also noted by BCF

Third, An op-ed by Ian Hunter in the National Post, concerning the evolution of human rights legislation. He points out the logical result of affirmative action, something that I have been saying for years:

The spread of the idea that an appropriate response to inequality is not to prohibit but to encourage the drawing of distinctions based upon race or colour or sex has been all-embracing. Decisions that were once required to be colour- or gender-blind, are now, by affirmative action, required to be based precisely on these factors. I well remember a university dean chortling to me about how he had just hired a “twofer” — a black female. The alchemy which transmuted what had formerly been an illegal act of bigotry into a socially encouraged exercise in affirmative action was simply the decision of a government agency that the result was socially desirable. The damage caused to passed-over candidates — passed over, be it noted, for factors over which they had no control — didn’t matter.

And, wouldn’t you believe it, but Barbara Hall responds!! (Thanks Scaramouche, who is plugged by Mark Steyn.)

Fourth, Big Blue Wave reports that a Chinese couple was awarded $7000 for a racist assault by some youth. When there is no hope of the criminal justice system doing anything about the problem, at least you can get some justice if, and only if, you belong to a “protected group”. French news article is here.

Fifth, Joseph Brean reports on the arguments before Federal Court over the appeal of Marc Lemire’s Section 13 acquittal and subsequent finding of the unconstitutionality of Section 13.

The CHRC is expected to argue that, by severing the penalty provision, Section 13 can be saved.

Ms. Kulaszka argues in her brief this cannot be the case, because the penalty and victim compensation provisions “reflect the intent and objective of Parliament to chill, punish, and deter expression as set out in [Section 13]. They are the pith and substance of what Parliament wanted to attain in the legislative scheme around [Section 13].”

She argues even human right tribunals do not see Section 13 as purely remedial, citing decisions that describe “cease and desist” orders against hate speech respondents as having “symbolic” value as a “public denunciation.”

Also noted by Scaramouche and BCF, and Five Feet says “don’t wait for the gub’mint to “let” you write what you want.

Sixth, An update on the Charmaine Archer complaint regarding the strip-search in the Ottawa airport that she says was motivated by racism.

Seventh, Blazing Cat Fur tried to get to the bottom of the CHRC regularly visiting his website. After an FOI request and five dollars, all he got was this lousy redaction. (Also noted by Unambig, Scaramouche, SDA, Xanthippa’s Chamberpot)

Eighth, Scaramouche notes that Karen Selick in the National Post reports on complainants-of-fortune trying to cash in on the transsexuals-in-the-changeroom brouhaha in Fulton’s fitness center. Selick accurately defines the term “shakedown”:

Many cases settle at the mediation stage, when the nature of the shakedown process is first revealed. Targets are told, in essence, “You can settle for $25,000 now or pay $200,000 in legal fees later. Take your pick.” Most pick settlement…

Finally, An old friend of this blog comments on the HRT decision forcing Elections Canada to improve access, the Human Rights Tribunal of BC interferes again in other legal proceedings, the OHRC is threatening Whole Foods of all companies, senior citizens have a human right to be firefighters,  and girl’s sports teams in Maine will have to compete with gender-confused boys.


The Lynch List, 17-Feb-2010

February 17, 2010

Here’s the latest Lynch list:

First, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has awarded over $30,000 (yes, that’s five figures) to a woman for enduring some racist language and being fired for bad work habits.

In his decision, tribunal adjudicator Eric Whist accepted Khan’s testimony, slamming her former employer, Lynn Tompkins of Lynx Trucking Transportation in Rexdale with a $25,000 fine along with an order that he create an anti-harassment policy and undergo training himself.

…The ruling, said Khan’s lawyer, Bruce Best, sends a powerful message.

“Employees don’t have to put up with this behaviour,” said Best, of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. “You have rights and if you stand up for them, people will be forced to change.”

…[Khan said,] “To think that Canada is so multicultural and yet there are still people who say these words, and behave this way …”

…Released last Thursday, Khan said the ruling has taught her children the simple concept of right from wrong.

“They know now that if somebody ever calls them that name, they should defend themselves. If I didn’t fight for this, they would have thought it was okay.”

Also noted by LG&F.

Second, a battle is brewing in the wake of Nortel’s bankruptcy proceedings, in which disabled employees are considering launching a human rights complaint after the bankruptcy judge cut their benefits.

Third, Stephen Hammond comments on how far-reaching human rights law has become, in the context of the Osoyoos strata council case.

Parting Shot: This is what “womens’ studies” is all about – a whole lot of complaining and a few Human Rights complaints on the basis of identity politics.

When the first appointments to the CRC Program were announced to senior members of the research community, I started counting those Chairs given to women, to men, and those that might be either. I did a rudimentary gender analysis, which the CRC secretariat under Marc Renaud later confirmed: my gender analysis revealed that only 14% of the early Chairs had gone to women…

In 2003, with the legal advice of Rosemary Morgan at the Canadian Association of University Teachers, a team of eight women from across Canada,  laid a formal Complaint, alleging discrimination before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Cohen et. al. v. Industry Canada was settled in 2006 by a negotiated agreement.  Yet data still show that women, who are a third of full-time faculty in Canada, continue to be under-represented in CRC appointments.

Because research chair appointments (an any other prestigious position), after all, should be awarded on the basis of identity first. Less relevant issues such as competence should only be considered after the equity gods have been satisfied…


The Lynch List, 16-Feb-2010

February 16, 2010

First, prompted by the Calgary Herald editorial noted in the last Lynch List, Jay Currie writes on the lawfare campaign against Ezra Levant, and its implications on our freedom of speech. More at Ezra’s site, also noted by BCF Five Feet, and Scaramouche.

Second, further commentary on the flip-flops on racial data gathering by Toronto police by LGF (that’s Lumpy Grumpy and Frumpy, not Little Green Footballs):

Do you get the circular logic? More X-people are being expelled from school for violent acts, but it isn’t possible that X-people are committing more violent acts, therefore the policy is somehow inherently racist. More X-people are convicted and imprisoned for crimes, but that doesn’t make sense from an anti-racist Utopian viewpoint, therefore X-people are being targeted by racist cops.

Third, an open letter to Jennifer Lynch, thanking her for the admiration of her staff and dropping a few hints as to where the real haters are…


The Lynch List, 15-Feb-2010

February 15, 2010

It’s Monday; where do I begin?

First, The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has butted heads with Elections Canada, who doesn’t seem to back down from anything:

In its ruling, the tribunal said Elections Canada must improve accessibility at voting sites across Canada, adding that Elections Canada should also try to improve its complaint system.

I don’t see what’s so hard about a mail-in ballot, but that’s just me. Either way, we should be comforted by the fact that the taxpayer is funding both sides. Also noted by BCF.

Second, Some poorly-translated, but nevertheless pointed words against the Quebec HRC for the disabled parking stall issue:

According to ASCQ lawyers some parts of the decision go against actual jurisprudence especially concerning the liability of a syndicate of co-ownership and each and all of its co-owners.

Third, some commentary on the hate-speech libel wars. From the Calgary Herald, Hate Hunter will Finally Pay:

We are glad to see that Warman is suing Levant, not out of disagreement with the combative Calgary lawyer, but for the simple reason that Warman will finally have to spend his own money in a real court, rather than availing himself of commission time and resources at taxpayer expense.

Fourth, Amir Attaran surfaces again – providing his reasoning on why taxpayers should be forced to fund IVF treatments (he’s currently pursuing a Human Rights complaint to that effect). His argument doesn’t sound all that dissimilar from the concept of providing addicts with all the illicit drugs they want – ‘cuz we might hurt ourselves

Fifth, The Toronto Star continues to demand that all races be equally involved in crime. Scaramouche weighs in on this matter too, and states the obvious, but unmentionable, factoid that we’re all thinking:

And anyone who thinks that that’s a good thing–and who thinks that the reason Toronto police arrest a lot of “Black people” (really, young Black males) is because police are all a bunch of “profiling”-crazed bigots and not because young, Black males tend to commit a disproportionate amount of crime (is it “bigoted” to point that out?)–should think again.