Pathetic
Jennifer Lynch, head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission since 2007, told the Canadian Bar Association’s annual meeting that opponents of rights bodies have successfully created a “chill” that makes it difficult for anyone to defend those bodies without also becoming a target.In fact, lawyers and law school deans tend to take the Charter seriously, the rule of law seriously and the use of entrapment and agents provocateurs seriously.Lynch, saying some criticisms have been “troubling” and “at times scary,” also read out a graphic anonymous letter she received stating that she should be shot dead. (probably written by staff..ed.)
“I’m here to ask for your help,” Lynch told CBA members, noting that academic experts, law school deans, and senior lawyers are among Canada’s “most trusted sources of information” on public policy matters. canada.com
The coward Lynch has been reduced to pleading for help to defend the indefensible. From this report she is not making any argument as to why HRC should be defended nor is she justifying their abridgement of s. 2 Charter rights to free expression. Rather she is simply being publicly pathetic and hoping that someone will pity her enough to come to her defence. It is no longer about the utility or legitimacy of state censorship; now it is a desperate, personalized fight for survival.
This coward needs to be fired….now. Just after s. 13 is repealed.
h/t bcf
Update: Ezra plays whack a mole with the coward Lynch’s speech in Dublin. And he cites this little gem:
Critics are trying “to destroy our investigators’ and litigators’ reputations and credibility with untrue accusations,” Lynch said during her appeal for help from Canadian lawyers and academics.Two points: first, pretending to be Nazis, lying under oath, claiming public interest immunity, announcing no rules were broken because there were no rules, claiming that freedom of speech is an exclusively American value, losing serenity, destroyed the investigators’ and litigators’ reputations. No need for “untrue accusations” when there are so many true ones available in transcript.“For the moment the obligation to defend our existence monopolizes our energy.” ottawa citizen
Second, it is not the CHRC or Lynch’s obligation to defend the existence of the CHRC. That is a political question and it is completely inappropriate for the coward Lynch to be engaged in such a debate (not that she is willing, in any case, to actually have a debate. Nope, the coward Lynch is all about shrill, pathetic, one sided huckstering.)
Fire. Them. All.
August 15th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Stasifer Lynch … as dumb as Nancy Pelosi … the two Wicked Witches ….
August 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
She mistakes a chill for the fact no one cares much for lawless government informants who mislead tribunal chairpersons.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I assume this conference was held in Dublin, Ireland, not Dublin, Ontario or Dublin, Ohio. So I see Ms. Lynch is off jetting to exotic locales again on the public dime. I wonder how much this junket to gin up sympathy for the CHRC cost the taxpayers.
I suppose by posting this question, I’m adding to the “chill” that makes it difficult for public employees to visit a foreign country and whine about how they are being treated “unfairly” by their ungrateful, unruly subjects er… opponents.
August 15th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I’ve been saying for months, “where are the legal heavyweights; why haven’t they spoken out?”
I fear the reason is that they DON’T agree with Ezra et al…
August 16th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Ah BCF - right on the $$$ again.
And YES, the silence of the legal community (“Legal heavyweights”) on the use of government agents using stasi-like tactics should be troubling.
The Canadian Bar Association and the various Law Societies have also been remarkably restrained on CHRC/CHRT tactics and target selection as well as the use of Lawfare, Slapp, and Libel suits to create a real CHILL.
But, Lynch always missed/overlooks the CHILL her agents/ex agents and intervenors have created in the past on Freedom of Speech and those that advocated it so WHY is she surprised there has been a huge reaction from ordinary citizens, the MSM, Bloggers and political commentators?
Her PLEA is pitiful – even from her.
August 16th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Is there an email address for the CBA that we can send our anger to?
August 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
New Nickname for the dear Lady – J Ly
August 16th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Damn it Curry guys like you always say what I wanted to say first. LOL but a bit serious.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:30 am
DaninVan,
Bingo!
Not only do most “legal heavyweights”—and most lawyers in all other weight classes—not agree with Ezra, but they recognize that his campaign against the human rights is fundamentally dishonest and, to the extent that it relies on gross distortions and personal vilification, borders on conduct unbecoming a lawyer.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I laugh everytime I hear someone declare something “troubling”. It’s a form of disparagement that frees the disparager from having to make any kind of point. That Lynch, a high-ranking government official with considerable responsibility, should resort to such cheap tactics is … troubling.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
truewest; So basically you’re saying that our Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it’s written on, and that Lawyers, Officers of the Court, need pay no heed to it’s content and intent…
“Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada 1.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. ”
No, I’m not surprised that the legal profession is ignoring the elephant in the jury box, but for entirely different reasons than you state, and to my mind not honourable ones.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Dan,
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been found to be a “reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstratably justified in a free in democratic society” (Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892) as you would know if you’d been following this discussion for the last, oh, 18 months.
Granted, Jay has this interesting theory that Taylor only applies to telephone answering machines, but the rest of the legal profession seems to take a broader view and still thinks that it’s still good law. Which, legally speaking, it is, at least until the SCC decides to revisit the issue. Which is not happening any time soon.
Feeling a little stupid now?
Don’t worry—you’re in good company. For example, many of Ezra’s disciples, all of them self-proclaimed experts on Canadian human rights law, have been screeching for months now, demanding that Little Stevie Harper be a man and shit-can Jennifer Lynch. Alas, they all seem to have overlooked s.26(4) of the CHRA, which provides “Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour but may be removed by the Governor in Council on address of the Senate and House of Commons.” That provision, designed to prevent political interference, means that if Harper wants to remove Lynch, he has to persuade the House of Commons AND the Senate that it’s time for her to go.
Let the pissing and moaning begin…or rather, continue, at increased volume.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
No, I believe he is saying that as the law of the land now stands, with the Taylor decision in mind, the actions of the HRC fall under the general category of those required to preserving a polite society while still being completely compatible with a “free and democratic society”. That being the case, the major legal players of the nation are unlikely to wish to venture an opinion on a topic which may return before the SCC. Of course, his take would be that the whole notion of these challenges of the HRC’s authority is completely outrageous and of the meanest motivation, but that is neither here nor there.
The problem, in my view, is getting it there. Certainly Steyn and Macleans did their level headed best, but they had the misfortune of having the Ontario Human Rights Commission rule that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismiss the complaint, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismiss without referring the matter to a tribunal. Thus they had to defend themselves before these various bodies without obtaining a ruling which would allow them to appeal. The nation must wait further for either Section 13 to be repealed or for the SCC to take up a new case to consider the many unintended consequences of the Taylor decision, and the subsequent license it has given to the HRCs.
Now truewest may say I am a wet behind the ears yank with little sense and no legal training, but hey, he is largely lacking in charm.
I’d be keen to hear what you might say, DaninVan.
Now I must return to a rather boring and repetitive discussion elsewhere.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been found to be a “reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstratably justified in a free in democratic society” (Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892) as you would know if you’d been following this discussion for the last, oh, 18 months.”
And tw, if you had been following along you would recall that the entire premise of the CHRC’s continued regulation is that there is “no hierarchy of rights” under the Charter when, in fact, s. 15 only applies in instances where a federal regulatory jurisdiction is invoked. Given McLachlin, CJC’s dissent in the narrowly decided Taylor decision I will be interested to see how the Court deals with fundamental rights where s. 15 is not involved. Especially as the legislation in question has been amended and extended in the interim.
As for dumping the coward Lynch, her term runs out shortly and the point is not her richly deserved dismissal but rather the repeal of s. 13 of the CHRA.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Jay,
Your analysis of Taylor grows more incoherent each time you try to advance it. Not only is your bald statement that, “in fact, s.15 [the equality provision of the Charter, for those without a scorecard] only applies where a federal regulatory jurisdiction is invoked” a complete mistatement of the law, but even if you were correct, s. 13(2) invokes that jurisdiction: it regulates certain kind of speech on the Internet by clarifying that s.13(1) “applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication”.
I await your argument that regulation of the Internet is ultra vires the federal government.
Nick,
Your rambling comment does stumble across a practical matter; the only way this thing is going get near the SCC is with some neo-nazi goon as an appellant and the hapless Doug Christie as his lawyer. In the meantime, we will have the pathetic sight of people like Steyn and Levant dressed up in martyr’s robes, nails in one hand, hammer in the other, begging to be hoisted up on the cross. Witness the wailing and moaning that followed the revelation that Jennifer’s Lynch “Enemies List” was little more than a humdrum clippings file. Witness Levant’s bleatings about $100,000 in legal fees and, as he recently put it, having “fifteen government bureaucrats and lawyers bearing down on me for 900 days”. It would be funny if only so many of you rubes didn’t take it as gospel.
The fact is that the only way s. 13 is going to be repealed is if you can persuade a majority of MPs that it’s a bad law. Maybe I’m wrong, but screeching about the “Coward Lynch” and putting forth buffoons like Levant, Werner and Mr and Mrs. Five Feet of Blazing Cat Turds as your spokesmodels ain’t going to to the trick. And you certainly don’t help your cause by attacking adults like Janet Keeping, who share your goals but deplore your tactics.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
tw, to date Parliament has not – as it has with telephones and broadcasting – passed legislation with respect to the net. Is it ultra vires, I doubt it. However, for 15 to kick in there has to be actual regulation rather than the CRTC’s current policy of regulatory forebearance or an actual Act of Parliament.
I would be delighted to read a cite as to the applicability of s. 15 to non-governmentally regulated activity.
As to your tactical observations: two years ago it was “business as usual” at the CHRC; now the Coward Lynch is telling the world that her imagined “obligation to defend our existence monopolizes our energy.” Not bad for a bunch of “buffoons”.
August 18th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Jay,
As I said, even if you’re right that a court may not consider s. 15 in determining whether an infringement of another right is justified under s. 1 (and you’re not), the inescapable fact remains that s.13(2) of the CHRA clearly regulates the Internet. The fact that the CRTC doesn’t regulate the Internet is entirely irrelevant.
As for your latter point, while there’s an element of hyperbole in Lynch’s comments, I suppose one should never underestimate the destructive power of a bunch of buffoons. If destroying the human rights apparatus entirely is your goal—and it is in some cases—then maybe you’ve made some progress. Still, unless the Reformatories get a majority—something I don’t see happening anytime soon—I don’t see them throwing you either bone you’re slobbering over—the repeal of s. 13 or of the CHRA generally.
August 18th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Oh, and the btw, this comment is nonsense: “Second, it is not the CHRC or Lynch’s obligation to defend the existence of the CHRC.”
Lynch was appointed to head up a body that Parliament intended to operate at arms-length from the executive; hence the provision that cabinet needs to get the approval of the house and senate if it wants to remove her or any other commissioners. Seems to me that under those circumstances, Lynch is obliged to speak up if she feels the Commission is under attack, particularly if the attack is being led by a third rate Reformatory hack like Levant.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Truwest, true to form has no sustainable argument. I suspect his exhaustive survey of Canadian lawyers who support Section 13(1) was likely limited to himself and perhaps Warren Kinsella – another lawyer with very few billable hours to occupy his day;)
August 18th, 2009 at 8:54 am
If TW’s harrumphing is any indication of the legal profession’s indifference to and/or complicity in, this attack on the individual, then I rest my case.
How DO you walk,TW, with gunshot wounds to BOTH feet.
““Second, it is not the CHRC or Lynch’s obligation to defend the existence of the CHRC.”
REAL Judges don’t respond to media criticism.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:15 am
tw, good luck with the argument that s. 13(1) regulates the internet. Its aim is to regulate “any matter that is likely to expose….”. This is hardly a regulatory scheme for the Internet.
The proper person to defend the CHRC’s existence is the Minister. That existence is a political matter and the very point of having an independent commission is to depoliticize it.
The coward Lynch is so stupid that she cannot figure out that each time she walks into the political arena she de-legitimizes the Commission. (This might be worthwhile if she was any good as an advocate but the woman is terrified of her critics, well aware the Commission has much to hide, and a walking public relations disaster.)
August 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Lynch is obliged to speak up if she feels the Commission is under attack, particularly if the attack is being led by a third rate Reformatory hack like Levant.
And if the “attack” is from an MP who happens to be a member of the committee to which she is responsible, tw?
August 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
dcardno,
Lynch isn’t responsible to a committee or to right-wing sockpuppet Russ Hiebert or even, as Jay asserts, to a particular minister. She and the rest of the CHRC answer to Parliament. And while I don’t think she’s really distinguished herself as Chief Commissioner, she doesn’t deserve the campaign of personal vilification that appears to be the stock in trade of buffoons like Werner, BCF and Levant. Then again, perhaps the reason they resort to name-calling is because, as Arnie and DaninVan demonstrate once again, they don’t actually have any arguments beyond bald assertions of their right to be buffoons.
Jay,
I’m not arguing that s.13(2) is a comprehensive regulatory scheme—because I don’t need to. I’m merely pointing out that s. 13(2) is a form of regulation of speech on the Internet, one that emanates from a higher power than the mighty CRTC —Parliament. So if federal regulation is what you require, it’s here.
But it is not necessary. That much is clear from the Chief Justice’s reasons in Taylor. In determining whether or not infringment of s.2(b) of the Charter by s. 13 of the CHRA is justified under s. 1 of the Charter, Dickson writes:
“In applying the Oakes approach [that is, the test to determine whether legislation is justified under s. 1] to legislation restricting hate propaganda, a meaningful consideration of the principles central to a free and democratic society requires reference to the international community’s acceptance of the need to protect minority groups from the intolerance and psychological pain caused by such expression. Such a consideration should also give FULL RECOGNITION TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER, IN PARTICULAR ss. 15 and 27 (dealing with equality rights and multiculturalism)”(EMPHASIS ADDED.
The fact that s. 13 originally applied to an area the feds decided to regulate is neither here nor there. The fact that you insist on hammering away at that point is, frankly silly.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:23 am
I note with absolutely no surprise that Jay’s courteous responses are met with truewest’s bile…
August 19th, 2009 at 8:27 am
She and the rest of the CHRC answer to Parliament…
...but not to a Parliamentary Committee? Parliament conducts its business, through those committees, tw. Your opinion of Hiebert is simply not relevant: he is one of her bosses.