Orwell’s Little Helpers: whatever it takes to shut you up!
Down with the Yuman Rites Circus!
Tim BlairÂ â€“Â
Jennifer Lynch, chief Canadian Human Rights Commission goon,Â refuses to appearÂ on a Canadian talk show with Ezra Levant. So another Human Rights Commission loser isÂ sent in her placeÂ â€“ but he only appears on the condition that author, journalist and free-speech advocate Levant not argue with him.Â Mark SteynÂ weighs in: “Canada’s Chief Commissar of ‘Human Rights’, Jennifer Lynch, QC, calls for ‘balance‘, so feel free to provide some in theÂ comments section.”
(ViaÂ Garth Godsman)
Uh-oh:Â Do we Aussies wanna be like them? Here comes the thought police:
Australia’s discrimination watchdog has criticised human rights laws as “piecemeal”, weak and insufficient in protecting human rights, and called for an overhaul …
Australian Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson, QC, said Australia was far behind other countries.Â
What odds she’s talking about the likes of Canada?Â
I’d heard of this quote from a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator, but I wanted to see the hearing transcript for myself just to confirm that it’s not being misquoted or quoted out of context. I just got the surrounding pages (availableÂ here; see PDF page 43 for the quote), and here it is:
MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?
MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.
MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.
MR. STEACY: It’s not my job to give value to an American concept.
Later on, Steacy does get a bit less clear:
MS KULASZKA: So if someone claims freedom of speech for what they said, it is rejected out of hand?
MR. STEACY: If somebody is claiming freedom of expression, it is not rejected. As I said, freedom of speech is an American concept, it is not a Canadian concept. If somebody said, “I am doing this because of freedom of speech,” I would equate that to somebody raising a freedom of expression concept.
So freedom of speech is equated to freedom of expression, which is not rejected, but freedom of speech isn’t valued because it’s an American concept â€” hard to tell what he means. But however one reconciles the logic here, and whatever the extent to which free expression is indeed “not rejected,” Mr. Steacy’s rhetoric is still striking: “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”
* So much for the Stalinist assholes who are in charge (but not responsible) in Canada.
Here’s a poster who gets it:
Posters above have covered most of the main points; one which has not been covered is the issue of fairness. According to Ms. Lynch “Canadians expect fairness and efficiency from their human-rights system, and we must continue to offer both.”Â
The problem is that “we” are not offering anything of the sort. We are offering a system blatantly biased towards the complainer and against the complainee. How can you possibly justify as “fair” a system where a complainer can lodge a complaint at no cost to himself and the complainee must pay, often, enormous legal costs to defend himself?