The Lynch List, 17-Jun-2011

Buckle up your seat-belts…

First: The Human Rights Act is now officially extended to include all First Nations peoples and governments. In a sense this is appropriate – people of all races and backgrounds should suffer equally under easily-abused laws that inhibit their freedoms.

However, bringing First Nations under the Code will be easier said than done. Since the Indian Act remains in force, the question remains as to who is responsible to pay for all the entitlements under the Code: the federal government or the local band.

Langtry said the jurisdiction of who pays for what may actually have to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In other words, prepare for another costly legal fight in which you pay for both sides, taxpayer!!

Second: Guy Earle has filed his petition for judicial review in BC Supreme Court. Among his arguments:

“Further, there was, and is, systemic bias in that taxpayer funded counsel was, and is, available to the complainant, Lorna Pardy, whereas no such provision was, or is, available for respondents, such as Mr. Earle,” the petition states. “The Tribunal incorrectly decided that it had jurisdiction over the content of entertainment pursuant to s. 8 of the Code, and that the purpose of s. 8 of the Code was to restrict the expression of artists and entertainers.”

While there’s no doubt I’m pulling for ya, Earle, there’s no point arguing about the “intended purpose” of the Code. The Tribunal has stated many times that the “intended purpose” of the Code is to change society as they see fit, damn those torpedoes (real rights).

Third: Rob Breakenridge on the OHRC’s housing-ad crackdown:

Not only that, but the OHRC apparently has no problem with inserting itself into the affairs of private businesses, either, by forcing websites to censor ads and to include OHRC literature.
How exactly does all of this improve human rights in Canada? If anything, it’s incredibly detrimental to human rights in Canada.
If you’re living in an apartment, and you’d like to take in a roommate, then the government has no business inserting itself in that decision.

And as is often the case, human rights efforts are notoriously counter-productive:

It seems likely that this would scare off a lot of people from posting ads for roommates or even considering a roommate. That could mean fewer housing options.

Fourth: A Saskatchewan NDP blogger writes in the Regina Leader-Post that human rights protection should be extended to protect people from the natural consequences of using their fundamental freedoms – completely at odds with the whole notion of “freedom” to begin with.

You may not perceive any great risk in accepting an invitation to join a group on Facebook, or in posting a single tweet on Twitter – precisely because so many people engage in those actions without apparent consequences. But even these may be dangerous if a private interest notices an action and uses it as reason to discriminate.

Fifth: Kevin Libin attended the annual conference of human rights hucksters the other day. Any questions of the zelousness of the attendees was quickly answered by a conversation he overheard:

…one delegate was heard checking with her neighbours if it was acceptable if she ate her banana nearby.

“They can get pretty stinky,” she worried

Dan Shapiro of Sheldon Chumir waded into the shark-infested waters:

When Dan Shapiro, research associate at the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, argued that commissions would be better not prosecuting offensive publications, rather than chill useful debate, delegates spent the question-and-answer session lessoning him on how this could only lead to a boom market in hate speech. Only by government diktat would school superintendents see cause to implement anti-bullying classroom codes, guaranteed one. There must be “consequences” for those who cause “suffering” with words, insisted another.

Still got all your fingers, Dan?

5 Responses to The Lynch List, 17-Jun-2011

  1. Bill says:

    “The Tribunal has stated many times that the “intended purpose” of the Code is to change society as they see fit, damn those torpedoes (real rights).” – Care to post a link or citation? Or this just one of your many examples of “fair comment” (ie. posting something that is demonstrably untrue, but lacking the integrity to admit it or correct it when others point out that it is demonsttrably untrue)

  2. Remarks from Jennifer Lynch at the Justice Committee, emphasis mine:

    “The Canadian Human Rights Commission is also promoting the equality of Canadians, with a very broad mandate. With a lot of interesting, important, and exciting work, we are leaders and catalysts in advancing equality in Canada and in fact internationally. ”

    Lynch from the same hearing:

    “As we balance rights, there will come a time when there may need to be a limit on [freedom of expression] and not on [freedom from discrimination].”

    From the OHR Code preamble:

    “[the Code’s aim is the] creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect”

    So they have a broad and expansive mandate to change society into what they believe is one of equality, understanding and mutual respect. There is no law or statute to define exactly what that means. And they are willing to enact and defend limits to constitutionally protected freedoms with s.1 in order to do that.

    Furthermore, the Commissions have shown that they have every intention to foist UN ideology on Canadians.

    I’d be happy to continue to post examples within Tribunal decisions as I come across them, in which they detail their ever-increasing mandate to change society.

    The statement in question is, again, clearly polemical. So are most of yours.

  3. Bill says:

    Needless to say, there is a vast difference between:

    “The Tribunal has stated many times that the “intended purpose” of the Code is to change society as they see fit, damn those torpedoes (real rights).”

    and the quotes you posted. The above is clearly meant to portray tribunal members as having stated that teh purpose of the tribunals is to create social policy as the unrestricted whim of the tribunal members. There is vast difference between your characterization and the subsequent quotes you have posted in defence. The tribunals members are implementing the law as passed by democractically elected parliaments, which prohibits discrimination in the employment and housing spheres based on inherent characteristics, and also prohibits hate speech. Clearly, the characterization of being catalysts for equality was a reference to the deliniated powers of the tribunal, as specifically and explicitly set out in its enabling legislation.

    But of course, you don’t believe in democracy and will do everyting in your power to impose a backwards, theocratic fuedalism on the rest of us, all for teh ultimate purpose of satisfying your anti-Muslim extremism and homophobia. (Only slightly polemic, so entirely fair game)

  4. Democracy gave Germany its 1933 government and the South its Jim Crow laws. Yeah, I have lots of faith in democracy to protect real human rights.

    I’m backtracking on my earlier threat to redact any libel in your posts – they’re actually quite funny and completely discredit your more reasonable arguments.

  5. Bill says:

    A huge win for the pro-discrimination extremists in the US:

    This must be a celebratory day for you. Huge companies will now feel safe to continue to pay women less for the same jobs as men. You should feel very proud.

    Yes, I know right-wing extremists think their anti-Muslim extremism is hilarious. You must have many a good chuckle reading your co-blogger’s Don’s advocacy for stripping Muslim’s of their civil rights and general state repression of Muslims. Hilarious!

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: