First Question for the Coward Lynch
I am going to take a shot at posing ten questions for the coward Lynch to answer when she comes before the Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I welcome my commentors’ questions with the proviso that they have to be short and they have to be backed up by publically available evidence. The objective is to send the set to the members of the Committee to assist them in their examination of the coward Lynch.
Question 1: “In light of Mr. Justice Dickson’s reliance upon the remedial and concillatory intent of s. 13 would you please explain the failure of the Commission to achieve remediation and reconcilliation as evidenced by the following document:
.....
We are proposing to forward a list of reader submitted questions you would like to see the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights hearing on Section 13 (1) ask Jennifer Lynch during her scheduled appearance.
We hope to do this formally with say a top ten list of reader questions e-mailed to each committee member but I also recommend you e-mail the members individually.
As Flea suggests you should make your questions short and sweet and back them up with publicly available evidence. You may submit your questions at the blog of your choice, or e-mail me – blazingcatfur@gmail.com if you wish. Thank you.
...
Here is the contact information for each member who attended yesterdays session, grouped by party affiliation, so you can frame your questions appropriately.
Conservatives:
Ed Fast – ed@edfast.ca , faste@parl.gc.ca
Daniel Petit – PetitD@parl.gc.ca
Rick Norlock – rick@ricknorlock.ca , Norlock.R@parl.gc.ca
Stephen Woodworth – woodworth.s@parl.gc.ca
Brent Rathgeber – rathgb1@parl.gc.ca , rathgb0@parl.gc.ca
NDP:
Joe Comartin – ComarJ@parl.gc.ca
Bloc Quebecois
Serge Ménard – MenarSe@parl.gc.ca
Liberals:
Brian Murphy – Murphy.B@parl.gc.ca
Ujjal Dosanjh – Dosanu1a@parl.gc.ca , Dosanjh.U@parl.gc.ca
Dominic LeBlanc – dominic.leblanc@nb.aibn.com , leblanc.d@parl.gc.ca
October 6th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Sorry Jay, not so short and two questions
On June 20th, when asked during an interview on the Roy Green show about investigators logging on to Neo Nazi websites in an attempt to investigate, you responded:
We no longer do that. We do not post hate. We have not done it and we would not condone it.
You went on to say that there had been a policy change within the last year with respect to investigators logging on to hate sites; that this was no longer part of your investigative procedure.
When did you become aware that Mr. Richard Warman, a former investigator with the CHRC and repeat complainant in s. 13(1) cases, had assumed aliases and was posting what might be considered hate messages on hate sites as part of his investigative technique? (see Warman v. Northern Alliance and Jason Ouwendyk)
What was the original policy? When did that policy change take place and what specifically prompted the change?
October 6th, 2009 at 4:38 am
Next Question:
Regarding staff posing as Neo-Nazis online – when were you informed and what action did you take?
Supplementary: DND staff having access to CHRC premises, evidence and computers – again what did you do about it.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:37 am
My questions are the following: Why was Warman allegedly allowed to file a section 13 complaint while he worked for the CHRC? Are there any documents outlining management’s concern for conflict of interest regarding an employee and then an exemployee filing serial complaints against people? Why was he given monatary awards? According to the JAG annunal performance report, circa 2003 page nine, DND they started funding a section to provide legal advice to the CHRA, tribunals and courts, what does this organization do Miss Lynch and who is employed at said section?
October 6th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Since the “AIDS Secrets” article was based in the scientific understanding of the time, and is reinforced by the scientific understanding of to-day, Mr. Lemire’s “crime” is seemingly that he re-published an article by an American “white supremacist”.
Does the CHRC maintain lists of internet sites where “hate-mongers” are alleged to congregate and, irrespective of the answer, by what authority do/did their “investigators” monitor and participate on those sites in the absence of complaints?
October 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am
A reader submits:
Some suggestions (no doubt there are more, but these are a start):
1. CHRC investigator Dean Steacy has stated that freedom of speech is “an American concept” and that he, as a CHRC employee, does not give it any weight. How does this square with Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees, as “fundamental freedoms”, “freedom of thought,belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”?
2. Jennifer Lynch has equated the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the CCRF with the alleged “right” not to be offended, and has argued that all such rights need to be “balanced”. How does one achieve balance between a fundamental freedom guaranteed in the CCRF with a fabricated “right” that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution? What is the difference between a fundamental freedom guaranteed in the CCRF and an artificial “right” created by bureaucratic fiat? What is the hierarchical relationship between these incompatible principles?
3. According to undisputed testimony in Warman&CHRC v. Lemire, the CHRC hacked a private citizen’s internet account in order to post bigoted messages online. If the CHRC did not do this, will Jennifer Lynch so swear under oath? If the CHRC did do this, then who was responsible? Has this employee been disciplined? Was this employee acting in accordance with or against CHRC policy and/or guidelines?
What are the policies and/or guidelines for the violation by CHRC employees of the privacy and private internet accounts of private citizens? What measures have been taken to prevent a recurrence?
In this connexion, it has been reported that the CHRC is investigating Richard Warman for violations of Section 13 of the CHRA. Is the CHRC investigating other current or former CHRC employees for any reason, including alleged violations of Section 13? Is a different standard being applied to current or former CHRC employees than has been applied to private citizens investigated for Section 13violations? If so, why? If not, will Jennifer Lynch so swear under oath?
4. According to undisputed testimony in Warman&CHRC v. Lemire, more than half-a-dozen CHRC employees have maintained on line identities as neo-Nazis and/or white supremacists, and have acted in the style of agents-provocateurs. What are the CHRC’s policies and/or guidelines regarding CHRC membership in neo Nazi and/or white supremacist
organizations? What policies and/or guidelines govern the posting by CHRC employees of bigoted or hateful messages? Does the CHRC enjoy an exemption from Section 13 of the CHRA? If so, given Section 13 defines hatred as being in the eye of the beholder, what is the basis for this exemption? If not, then why have CHRC neo-Nazis and/or white supremacists not been charged with violations of Section 13? Please provide the full names and all on line aliases for all CHRC employees who have ever engaged in this type of activity.
Who authorized this “sting” activity? Does it continue today What is the difference in impact on vulnerable minorities of bigoted or hateful comments disseminated anonymously online by private citizens, and bigoted or hateful comments disseminated anonymously online by public servants?
5. The Criminal Code of Canada contains offences relating to libel, slander and the promulgation of hatred. What does Section 13 of the CHRA achieve that cannot be achieved by the CCC? What protections and guarantees afforded by the CCC have been stripped from accused/respondents in CHRC proceedings? How can CHRC procedure – e.g., no right for the accused to face his accuser; no presumption of innocence; inequitable cost burdens for the respondent; no defence of truth or fair comment – be deemed legitimate in light of its failure to provide the protections guaranteed by the CCC and natural justice?
6. Please explain in detail how a system designed to protect vulnerable minorities from discrimination has ended up providing tens of thousands of dollars in cash awards to a rich white lawyer who works for the Federal government.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Could Ms. Lynch please explain when entrapment became a) legal and b) moral in Canada? Could Ms. Lynch also please explain the CHRC’s 100% conviction rate prior to Mr. Lemire kicking their @sses?
I was just wondering.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:29 am
ooh, ohh! One more question Ms. Lynch!
Why is it you can’t sit at the same table, or even in the same room, with Ezra Levant and/or Mark Steyn? Is it a race issue? Did one of them say he was going to bite a chunk out of you? Or are you afraid they have boy cooties?
October 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Miss Lynch is Richard Warman still on the payroll of the CHRC, if so does he work out of a DND designated building?
October 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Jenny – It has not only become public knowledge that your staff at the CHRC s13 Hate Squad fabricated evidence and submitted it to the CHRT, but that fabricated evidence is now in the public domain for all to see. Why have you tried to bury this and why have you not held a full public inquiry into the corruption under your command?
October 6th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
According to testimony in Warman & CHRC vs Lemire,more than six CHRC employees maintained on line accounts on neo-Nazi websites and posted messages.
In your letter published in the Sept.9 Ottawa Citizen, you said “In some investigations, postings were made, but this has never included the posting of hateful or derogatory messages, nor would the commission condone such a practice”. Could you please repeat under oath that none of the CHRC employees have ever posted hateful or derogatory messages on these websites.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Thank you for attending today, Chief Commissar, it would be a great help to the committee if you would permit yourself to be hooked up to this new lie detector for the duration of your testimony. The vendor claims it is the most robust unit ever built but customers within the security and law enforcement branches want it subjected to the most severe stress possible to prove its worth before they sign contracts.
First question, the honourable member for Putain-Batard …......
“S’il vous plait, madame, je suis enchante.”
October 6th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Not so much a question as a request to subpoena the “lists” that Ms. Lynch indicated were being compiled, by her organization, of her critics.
Why are these lists being compiled? (Ok, that last part was a question…)
October 7th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Who is in your file of 1300 critics you are personally keeping?
Am I in that file?
Is the guy next to me in that file?
What members of the press are in that file?
What MP’s are in that file?
Why do you think CHRC employees are the most hated people in Canada? Isn’t that counterproductive?
October 7th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Ms. Lynch,
Would you please explain why it is not a conflict of interest (or a violation of any other ethic) for one of your employees to be paid as a CHRC investigator, with additonal pay for testifying as a CHRC witness, in a case where he is the complainant who stands to win a substantial cash award from the respondent?