  photo credit: Alain Bachellier |
Kathy at five feet of fury links to Steyn’s latest and greatest, Anger Management.
We now have the counter-argument* from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There is no appeal to precedent or legal principle. There is no legal argument at all. Instead, there is an emotional whine that “a great deal of anger has been expressed on various websites” against the CHRC’s employees.
… Reading this “legal response”, you’d think the CHRC had seceded entirely from the Canadian justice system. Which they have, more or less. That’s why they’re so determined to resist attempts to get them to conform to the norms of Canadian law.
… On the other hand, notice the offers to compromise in the final paragraphs. Those would not have been made had Maclean’s not filed its motion, and other parties, from Catholic Insight to The National Post, from Free Dominion and other bloggers to (as I still quaintly think of us) free-born Canadian citizens, not weighed in on the issue. That’s why it’s important to keep the pressure up.
It appears that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (three lies for the price of one*) is making another attempt to stay in the shadows. They could give illegal aliens in America some lessons, especially with the annual May Day Communist/illegal alien protests coming up. In an attempt to avoid another YouTube fiasco, the Canadian HRC is pretending that they’re in danger from those wacko free-speechers who have the temerity to be angry and frustrated by the theft of their God-given rights:
The Commission acknowledges the importance of public access to hearings before the Canadian Human Rights tribunal, and will consent to a variance to the terms of the Tribunal’s May 7, 2007 Ruling in order that public access to the March 25 hearing be enhanced. The Commission maintains, however, that special measures remain necessary in order to safeguard the witnesses – in this case two witnesses who will be testifying in their respective capacities as Commission investigators (though it should be noted that Ms Rysk is no longer employed by the Commission).
Therefore, they want a room set up for members of the public to view the hearing on video. Witnesses will be off camera, and additionally the public may not bring cameras into this observation room. While those members of the public will undoubtedly report on what they observe, brief print descriptions will obviously not effectively showcase the HRC’s oppression as well as a video will. A transcript will be helpful, but it will lack the power and viral nature of video, and the Ellsworth Tooheys and the Delores Umbridges on the HRC know this. So they play, predictably, the victim card.
They can’t bear scrutiny and if we continue to shine light on them, they’ll scatter like cockroaches. Why does this matter to me as an American? Because if it can happen in Canada, it can happen here.
*1) totally inconsistent with Canadian law, 2) the opposite of human rights, and 3) not commissioned to do what they are doing by Canadians, most of whom have no clue about these attacks on their freedom.
Recent Comments