scaramouche

...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

About me

User: scaramouche
Irreverent, contrarian, delighted to be out of synch with the zeitgeist, I depend on my sense of humour (such as it is) to keep me sane in this wacky world.

  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

Counter

visited *loading* times

« View the previous post.  |  Home  |  View the next post. »
Friday, 19 June 2009

Nubs and contexts and matrixes, oh my: Did you hear Jennifer Lynch on the Oakley Show? As she did yesterday on TV with CTV’s Tom Clark, our very own fair-haired Czarina endeavoured mightily to put things “in context.” You see, once everything has been properly “contextualized,” thinks Jen, all will be copacetic.
She began with a spiel about the Human Rights Act, how it’s 40 years old, and all the wonderful stuff it’s supposed to do, i.e. create a perfect society, free from discrimination and hatred, with full equality for all. And, hey, who could possibly disagree with that, asks Jen?  (Who? Well, me, and practically everyone else who knows that such social tinkering--an endless work in progress--comes the cost of our most crucial freedom Ms. Lynch.)
Jen then resorted to, yes, that all-important “context” again. The CHRC isn’t judge, jury and all of that regular criminal court stuff. In fact, at one point Jen, using the same “tone” often employed by Ontario Chief Commissar Barbara Hall (why do these chicks all seem to come from the same mould?) soundly scolded John for daring to use “criminal” lingo in reference to what her side of our quasi-semi-ersatz-faux judiciary does. The CHRC is on the intake end of complaints. It assesses them and tries to settle the ones it considers legit. It’s only when the shakedown, er, mediation fails that it’s then passed on to the Tribunal--a COMPLETELY SEPARATE BODY, emphasizes Jen--which then does through all quasi-semi etc. legal motions. (Were I the head of the Tribunal I’d be pretty p.o.’d, since Jen made it sound as though it does all the dirty work while the Commission’s hands remain pure and unsullied.)
 So you see, it’s a mistake to think of the Commission as doing anything mean and nasty, since it’s simply in the business of taking stuff in and passing it on.
But what about the big chill so many are feeling, asked Oakley, especially since now the CHRC is going to be overseeing “hate” on the Internet. How are we supposed to define such “hate”?
“Well, that’s the nub of it, isn’t it John?” responded Jen. And what a tricky little nubbins it is, since Canada’s censorship provision, Section 13, refers to speech that “is likely” to lead to something bad happening to a particular group, not something bad that has actually occurred. And that fuzzy wording means the defendant--ooops, there’s that unacceptable “criminal” lingo again--the person being complained about is going to be guilty, sorry, going to be in the wrong no matter what.
A mere bagatelle, says Jen. And, BTW, did you know that the CHRC is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE BODY from the CHRT?
But back to the definition of “hate.” The hate at issue here is only of the most “ardent and extreme nature,” the type that undermines the “dignity and self-worth” of vulnerable victim groups. As such, claims Jen, it has “a very narrow definition.” (Narrow? Hah, that’s a laugh. It’s so “narrow” you could drive a HumVee through it. It’s so “narrow” you could form a human chain of every censor in Canada, and still not be able to span it. It’s so “narrow” that…okay, I’ll stop now.) What journalists ought to focus on are the hundreds of complaints that are settled within the CHRC precincts and don’t get passed on to the Tribnal.
Did she mention that it’s a COMPLETELY SEPARATE BODY?
Oakley took the plunge and asked her about Fr. Alphonse de Valk, the Catholic priest who got in deep “human rights” doo doo because of his comments about homosexuality.  Isn’t he entitled to his opinon, and why is he out of pocket for his all his legal expenses while the complainant gets a free ride?
Well, answered Jen, completely changing the subject, in the balanced, unbiased and comprehensive analysis we delivered to the House of Commons this week, we agreed that people are free to express an opinion, and that no one has a “right” not to have hurt feelings. And despite all our best efforts to make the system “modern and effective” (about as “modern” as Cold War-era Russia; about as “effective” as any totalitarian body), our detractors still try to undermine us at every opportunity.
What about Dean Steacy, asked Oakley, the CHRC official who rebuked “freedom of speech” as an “American idea”?
Jen had a ready, though hair-splitting and ridiculous answer for that one. Steacy didn’t mean that here in Canada we don’t believe in free speech. All he meant by that was that the Americans call it “free speech” while Canadian parlance is “free expression.” Same diff, right? (Riiiiiight!) To further “clarify” (bafflegab alert): Canadians have a “matrix of interdependent” something or others that allow us to “strike a balance” between some more mumbo-jumbo, which is a much more “modern and effective” way to do things, don’t you know? It’s only that those “detractors” (Mark Steyn; Ezra Levant; carping bloggers) have blown everything out of proportion, thereby causing a great “furor” to erupt. Those trouble-makers--here, let me read you a particularly nasty quote by Steyn about “pedophiles”--are looking to “undermine” an essentially sound and balanced and modern and effective system: they’re the ones who are doing the real harm.
And finally--my favourite part of the interview. The part where Jen, nose growing to Pinnochioesque lengths, insists that the system “works”. As evidence (there I go again) she says that three--count ‘em, three--“human rights” bodies considered but ultimately dismissed the hate speech complaint brought against Rogers/Macleans/Steyn.
Bollocks on toast with a parsley garnish! The reason the B.C. ‘roos dismissed it was because the media glare made their proceedings look ridiculous. The reason Babsy Hall, head of the Ontario wing of the apparatchiks, dismissed it was because of the unflattering spotlight that had been shined in B.C. (and even though she insisted the complaint was out of her “jurisdiction,” she still deigned to offer a drive-by verdict--guilty as charged). And the CHRC dismissed it--after the OHRC did--for exactly the same reason.
Funny how Jen’s ability to “contextualize” things seems to come and go, depending on what it is that needs to be put into “context”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:30 | link | comments (6)


Comments:
#1  19 June 2009 - 13:34
 
 The HRCs are foetid cesspools, staffed by troughers having no effective independent oversight and no understanding of 800 years of English Parliamentary/democratic history. 

These people are:
Orwellian
Stalinist
Anti-democratic
Venal and self-serving
Messianic

Succinctly, a direct threat to Canadians' freedoms. 

I will give Lynch credit, though- unlike most who cross him, she's made Harper out to be a milquetoast little baby, incapable of using Parliament to rein her in and too timid to repeal the CHRA.
Anonymous
#2  19 June 2009 - 17:44
 
I agree with all of the above. Once you shine a spotlight on the bullsh*t, people see and smell it for what it is.

And I absolutely love the snarkiness of your post, btw.  :-)

So according to Jenny the system works because Macleans/Steyn got off - Snort! Gee, no mention about what it cost them in dollars and time to be declared "not guilty" by the Stalinists.

The Lynch mob doesn't like being discredited for their illegal and immoral jackboot tactics, but that Censorship Czarina's reign is coming to an end. Of course, if our PM had any balls, he'd take Ezra's advice immediately: Fire. Them. All.
User: MooseandSquirrel.ca Contact me View user's mediablog MooseandSquirrel.ca
#3  19 June 2009 - 19:03
 
Good work!

BCF
Anonymous
#4  19 June 2009 - 20:43
 
I just listened to the archived interview.  I had been willing to give Ms. Lynch the benefit of the doubt, more because of the possibility that she may still be ignorant of her department’s internal workings rather than that she harboured any fantasy to see the CHRC become society's great equalizing school marm.

I realize now, it may well be both.  I also realize she is either disingenuous and unfair or dimwitted.  Why have I concluded this?  Once again, in trying to prove herself (and others) a victim, she brings up Mark Steyn's enhanced rebuttal to Pearl Eliadis' op-ed without providing any context to the audience.  

While I have great respect for John Oakley, I was very disappointed that he was not aware of the history behind that comment, although he was quick to suggest that it was obvious satire.  Ms. Lynch, of course, was heartened to learn that Mr. Oakley was not swayed by Mr. Steyn in thinking that she was indeed a drunken pedophile serial killer.  Yes, what a relief that must have been, Ms. Lynch.

Ms. Lynch knew the context of that comment.  She had to as it was originally stated as "Is Pearl Eliadis a drunken pedophile?" in rebuttal to Ms. Eliadis’ ridiculous musings about the undetermined status of the potential ‘hatemongerers’ (sic), Levant and Steyn. Quote, “Are Levant and Steyn hatemongerers (sic)? Maybe not. But no one has decided that.” Mr. Steyn only recently updated his ‘can two (or more) play at this game’ rebuttal to include Jennifer Lynch as Ms. Lynch had seen fit to use that original quotation in a recent presentation.  Yet, Ms. Lynch failed to act in any modern, unbiased and balanced way by simply omitting the stunning bit of argument that started the whole ball rolling.  

Context for me but not for thee, eh?  How very modern and CHRCish of you, Ms. Lynch!

In light of this, why would anybody accept that Jennifer Lynch has a clue about what comprises fair and balanced conceptualization?

Anonymous
#5  19 June 2009 - 21:19
 
I think you summed it up brilliantly.

I just watched the CTV bit and she does come across as a pompus old ass.

Good God, the spinning and deflection she generated would put a dervish to shame.

Keep up the good work.

Sanwin
Anonymous
#6  20 June 2009 - 12:58
 
So the system works eh?

It certainly has worked well for sinecure seeking public service parasites seeking power and security in a no-real-work-to-do environment.

HRCs have been a laughing stock for their obvious make-work agendas for some 10 years or so. It just took the spark of these malignnat idlers making the mistake of shaking down legitimate media commentary to get us hustling towards rolling their undeserved prestiege and abused powers back.
Anonymous
Comments: