And what the Hell is Jennifer Lynch, QC Smoking
“She denied that her investigators have ever posted bigoted comments on the Internet, or engaged in entrapment, as has been frequently alleged.“We have not done that and I would not tolerate it,” she said.” national post
One word, dear, Jadewarr.
Can the poor woman not read?
June 18th, 2008 at 3:43 am
The commission has consistently denied any impropriety and will continue to do so. An excellent strategy from many points of view. If I understand their enabling legislation correctly, they have a lot of power. The trickle of mainstream publicity we have seen looks large to us but it really isn’t. They are concerned about adverse publicity, sure, but they don’t really care. Look how they are handling it – with “Professor Predictable”. To the bigger world, they are still the ‘human rights’ group, and its opponents and victims are still a very mixed bag, ranging from true heroes to some thoroughly questionable types indeed. In political terms, the Dykstra call for a committee review is a biscuit to a barking dog. ‘If it stops the noise, fine. If it doesn’t, well, we have more biscuits.’
June 18th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Maybe it’s slipped my mind, Jay, but could you point to an actual hate message published by any CHRC employee? (I don’t mean the “fishing” messages from Steacy, but real hate messages.)
And ditto for entrapment?
(Warman has been accused of all this, by you and others, but he is not a CHRC employee, and Lynch is not responsible for him.)
June 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Your honour, I did not stick my hand in the cookie jar, and I assure you that I would not tolerate such behaviour on the part of my under-siblings. My challenge was simply in identifying peanut by-products and who is responsible for them.
My mother, who is my harshest critic, continues to misunderstand the critical importance of my dual role to decide on a moment-by-moment basis whether the jar contains peanut products, and to promote awareness and lead family discussions of peanut allergies.
I take pride in the work I’ve done. My mandate is to think broadly about peanut-related issues. The process by which I dealt with the issue at hand has been broadly mischaracterized, beginning with my interrogation that Tuesday morning by the fridge door; in truth, the furniture-stacking assemblies I created adhered at all times to the principles of natural justice.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a conference to attend in Aruba.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Jay said:
“Can the poor woman not read?”
Let’s not be too hard on the poor thing, it’s a long leap from organizing coffee and tea service purchasing to full literacy.
Beside the poor dear has a disability, a handicap that plagues her from having full civil/legal conciousness…..she went to Osgoode.
That pretty much explains everything ;-)
June 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
The marijuana was medically approved and she was smoking it in the entrance to a restaurant, so back off, buddy!
June 18th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Hey, go easy on her. It would be awfully hard for her Commission to run one of these fancy “investigations” if they spent a bunch of time learning what actually happened!
June 19th, 2008 at 3:53 am
(I don’t mean the “fishing” messages from Steacy, but real hate messages.)
So in your tiny brain, it’s ok to post hate messages when you’re just fishing. Did Jen lend you some of her medicinal marijuana?
June 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am
ST:
You can’t read very well, so I’ll be pleased to type slowly and use only short words, OK?
Fishing as in trying to obtain real names/identities during an investigation.
Hate means, er, hate.
Clear now?
Good.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Both are reprehensible.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Dawg:Fishing as in trying to obtain real names/identities during an investigation.
You said “fishing” messages. So, he posted hate messages on Stormfront.
Check Free Dominion (part of Steacy’s testimony at a CHRC tribunal:
1. Do any investigators post on Stormfront.org?
I am not aware of any investigator other than me, who has posted on Stormfront.
2. Getting back to Jadewarr, do Commission employees sign up accounts on Stormfront, under pseudonyms such as “Jadewarr”?
I used the Jadewarr email address to create an account on Stormfront. I am not aware whether or not other investigators have created other accounts on Stormfront.
...
5. As part of your duties, have you ever signed up with a message board and made postings?
Yes, I have done so using the Jadewarr account in investigating section 13 complaints.”
So, he has admitted to posting hate “fishing” messages (See question 5 and Steacy’s answer, Dawg). Yes, I agree Jay, reprehensible.
So, in your own words Dawg:
You can’t read very well, so I’ll be pleased to type slowly and use only short words, OK?
Oh, and are you Clear now?
Let’s recap:
In the illogical Land of Dawg, it’s okay to post hate (fishing) messages if you’re an investigator with the CHRC. I bet the police wish they had such absolute powers.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:18 am
Here we go. I wondered if the Dawg post would reopen a closed case. There were hate messages. We know this. He either has them close to hand already or can easily find them. His goal is to either redefine them as innocent or at least excusable and, with luck, have others advance some weak argument that he can publicly refute and trumpet elsewhere as the best case that can be made. He just needs one. This is standard agitprop.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:14 am
“Hate means, er, hate.”
ROTFLMAO
and vacant means, er vacant.
LOL ;)
June 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Yeah, Yeah, WLMR, “It’s good to hate.” We know where you stand on matters of hate.
I would like someone to point to a message on Stormfront (I don’t hang around that site, myself) that is unquestionably by a CHRC employee and constitutes hatred. Post the link here.
There now, that shouldn’t be so hard, should it?After all, it’s a “closed case,” right? cough
June 21st, 2008 at 2:13 am
crickets
June 21st, 2008 at 2:31 am
It is amusing to watch Dawg’s attempts to use this message thread as a ‘struggle session’. (“Their real motive was once again to force me to admit all my alleged crimes. ‘I did not commit any crimes,’ I asserted firmly. Immediately two people jumped on me and cut off half of my hair.”)
The book-burner says he wants somebody else to do his homework, but I think he really wants to revise history. I choose not to play. But if he waits, a Parliamentary committee, an RCMP investigation, tribunal hearings, an internal CHRC ‘study’ and maybe even some enterprise journalism may turn up even more hate postings like the ones that have already been discovered, quoted, testified about and discussed on message boards and in magazines and newspapers for months now. If he does not already have them, he knows where to find them. If he does not consider them hate postings, it is nobody else’s duty to reinforce that error. It is obvious that Dawg simply wants to create some evidence, any evidence, to rally the book-burners. (“Workers from local factories and peasants from nearby communes had been bused in for the spectacle. From the audience came repeated, rhythmic chants…. ‘Down with You Xiaoli! Down with You Xiaoli!’”)
June 21st, 2008 at 8:33 am
The real issue is the quote from Ms. Lynch (courtesy of the National Post).
She lied. Dean Steacy admits to skulking around the Internet as Jadewarr.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Shorter el Ricardo:
“Damn, my bluff was called.” [Exit in a flurry of bluster.]
And Sheila, marvellous evasion! Lynch said 1) none of her staff had engaged in entrapment; and b) none had posted hate messages on the Internet.
Even assuming that Steacy was the only person to use the “Jadewarr” account (and we both know that’s unlikely), what “hate” messages, and what “entrapment,” have been laid at Steacy’s door?
Lynch didn’t lie. At this point, frankly, I’m not so sure about you.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am
Observable, direct reality says one thing. The party line says another. Sounds like a great topic for reform study at reeducation camp.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
My first reaction to Lynch’s comment was the same as Jay’s, but now I’m wondering if Dawg doesn’t have a point. Warman may have made some questionable comments under pseudonyms he’s admitted to (I’m not talking about 90sAreOver), but was he an CHRC employee at the time? I’m not sure. Insofar as they were intended to elicit speech offenses from his targets, such comments might be considered entrapment. Jadewarr’s comments on Stormfront, as far I can tell, were just attempts to gain the confidence some the the Stormfront principals.
Has anyone actually compiled a list of postings by CHRC employees to their target forums?
“Hate speech”, btw, is a much narrower category than “bigoted comments”, though I know some are apt to confuse them.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I agree IP. We need a list of the postings from the know CHRC sockpuppets.
Lynch is perfectly capable of the logic chopping of saying that Warman never posted a hate message while he was an employee and Stacey only trolled to find identities.
Before either assertion can be disproven a complete list of known posts needs to be compiled. Dawg does us a service in saying “Well, where are the posts?”
Of course, this presumes that the Anne Cools post was not written by Warman – a presumption which I am unwilling to make in the absence of clear evidence that he did not make it.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Tough to prove a negative, Jay
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
According to Wikipedia, Warman was with the CHRC until March 2004. That covers both the 90sAreOver and Lucy posts. The Lucy posts (as I recall – I couldn’t locate the texts today) might be interpreted as “bigoted comments”, though not “hate speech”. The Cools post (from 90sAreOver) could be interpreted as hate speech, but I’m not sure whether Warman wrote it or not.