Another week, another brick laid by our Human Rights Commissions on the walls that imprison our freedom…
First: How much of our money is Jennifer Lynch and their ilk going to spend on trying to preserve their empires when elected officials begin to respond to the concerns of their constituents? Brian Lilley reports that she spent $167,000 on a PR firm to find out how better to grease the skids of their gravy train:
During the tense period for the commission, chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch sought advice from Hill & Knowlton on how to communicate with the minister of justice and whether another government minister could quote her in a news release. The company also drew a map of a Parliamentary committee room including instructions on where Lynch should sit during an appearance and where water glasses could be found.
Think about it. A bureaucracy, paid for by tax dollars, accountable to parliament, spending its budget on how best to pull the wool over the eyes of the parliamentarians. It is all too common in bureaucracies, but it still makes me sick.
Second: Scaramouche became waylaid when trying to follow up on the above story, but stumbled upon something just as troubling – in a speech to parliament, Jenny Lynch declares that all national security measures should pass under the scrutiny and approval of the Human Rights Commission.
In the context of national security, the jurisdiction of the Commission would be triggered when it is alleged that a national security measure discriminates against individuals based on one or more of these prohibited grounds.
This is because the implementation of national security measures, such as screening of airline passengers, falls under the definition of ‘service’ and is therefore within our mandate…
Third: The unions fully recognize that the HRT’s are on their side – and plan to use this to their full advantage (emphasis mine):
There are a few extra benefits to having the HRTO adjudicate the WDHP policy complaints over the Grievance Settlement Board anyway. Most significantly, the HRTO will not issue a gag-order as a condition of the settlement. What that means is that every respondent will be forever named in a public document available online. Another significant difference is the HRTO will not just find the “Employer” guilty and fine the “Employer”, but will also mete out separate fines to the employer’s individual representatives that must be personally paid out of their own pockets. All this becomes public record as well.
Fourth: Yes, I know it’s Britain’s human rights system, but we always seem to be only a few years (or months) behind the Brits. This is an old complaint that we’ve written about before. At this stage, we can give props out to Dr. Robert Henderson for refusing to be strong-armed into a settlement. The good doctor allegedly invaded his patient’s privacy when he telephoned the patient’s employer – a care home – that the patient, a methadone user, was asking for opiates at his office.
[The human rights office] considered a fair settlement would be for him to pay $5500, costs of $950, write a letter of apology and undertake training in privacy protocols.
Save the elderly, go to jail. Or at least be fined, forced to recant, and be “re-educated”.
Note: Brain cramp. Invercargill is in New Zealand, not Britain. D’oh!!