The Lynch List, 05-Mar-2010

First, the Calgary Herald comments on William Whatcott’s overturned Human Rights Tribunal decision:

Restrictions on free speech in “human rights” legislation frequently generate conflict between gays and social conservatives. But these conflicts are merely one example of endless possibilities.

Write a letter to the editor calling for more frequent driver’s testing for seniors and you may be charged with exposing people to hatred or contempt on the basis of age. Express your opinion about integrating fundamentalist Muslims into Canadian society, or limiting immigration from certain countries, and your comments might be found “hateful” on the basis of religion or place of origin.

Canada’s federal and provincial politicians keep laws on the books which force courts to determine the legality of speech by using the problematic standard set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990 in Taylor vs. Canada (Human Rights Commission). The majority of the court in Taylor ruled that to be valid under the charter, laws can only restrict speech involving “feelings of an ardent and extreme nature,” and “strong emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification.” With this test in place, the majority declared confidently, “there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning” of laws restricting free speech. But it turns out that Justice Beverley McLachlin’s dissent in Taylor was correct: there was — and is — a lot of danger.

Also noted by BCF, Scaramouche, FFOF,

Second, Some more clarification on the revised bible-distribution policy that is the subject of a Grimsby, Ontario, Human Rights Complaint:

Stucke said the policy of her board is to send a note home to parents with students asking if they would like their child or children to receive a Gideon Bible.

“If permission is granted, the Gideons distribute the Bibles either before or after school or during the noon hour,” said Stucke. “The distribution of the Bibles does, in no way, interfere with classroom instruction time,” she said.

Seems pretty reasonable, but to date reason hasn’t really been that much of a factor in the OHRT…

Third, The Financial Post reports on an example of negligent legal advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Center, yet another tax-funded bureaucracy dedicated to increasing the number of Human Rights complaints.

Finally, the month of Earle begins, I wonder if the CHRC is going to suggest the British policy of putting children on a hate registry for schoolyard taunts, someone is foolish enough to believe that the Human Rights Commissions protect religious freedom, municipal officials admit that dealing with the Commissions is a “crap-shoot“, and versions of O Canada: The CHRC’s, the songbird’s, and the kitty’s.


3 Responses to The Lynch List, 05-Mar-2010

  1. Thanks for the link!

  2. “[N]egligent legal advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Center”

    Okay. I LOVE this.

    As if ANY legality, coming from the human rights Mafia, even PRETENDS that its opinions, precedent, binding legal framework, means any damned thing.

    Reminds me of the bad old days of the Soviet Union. A favorite joke:

    Employer: “I’ll pretend to pay you.”

    Workers: “You pretend to pay us, and we’ll pretend to work.”

    Interesting times :)

  3. I got sick of inserting “quasi-” before everything connected with the HRCs.

    I also got taken to task earlier for using terms such as “charges”, “convictions”, “defendant”, “penalty”, “prosecute”, etc. Apparently we aren’t up on the latest newspeak.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: