Vancouver Secrets

Freedom Of Speech VS Freedom Of Expression

How Jennifer Lynch is set remove both from Canadians…

Hate speech: This debate is out of balance

Jennifer Lynch

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canadian society. So is the right to be treated with equality, dignity and respect. Our report, while proposing amendments to the act, rejects the notion that human-rights legislation, and the processes used to enforce it, are an unreasonable restraint on freedom of expression. Support for this view was articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, which concluded in a 1990 decision that hate propaganda presents a serious threat to society:

“It undermines the dignity and self-worth of target group members and, more generally, contributes to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality.”

Tolerance and open-mindedness are ideals to which Canadians have subscribed, and are part of the quest for equality that has come to define our country all over the world. They are the foundation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, whose promise is to give effect “to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have” without discrimination.

Some who disagree with this notion would have Canada weaken its human-rights system, taking the view that freedom of expression is the paramount right in Canadian society, over and above the right of all citizens to be protected from the harm that can be caused by hate messages.

In fact, there is no hierarchy of rights with some rights having greater importance than others. They work together toward a common purpose.

It is up to legislators and courts to find the appropriate balance that best protects the human rights and freedoms of all citizens. Canada has an enviable track record in this regard, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is viewed as a model for other free societies to emulate. Human-rights commissions and tribunals provide access to the justice system and remedies for those who believe they are the victims of discrimination. As is the case with all administrative law bodies, they ensure that all parties are protected by the rules of natural justice, and that frivolous complaints are efficiently disposed.

Canadians expect fairness and efficiency from their human-rights system, and we must continue to offer both.

However, I believe critics of human-rights commissions and tribunals are manipulating information and activities around rights cases and freedom of expression to further a new agenda. This agenda posits that rights commissions and tribunals, and the attendant vigilance over all the rights and freedoms Canadians now enjoy, no longer serve a useful purpose. In this way, the debate over freedom of expression has been used as a wedge to undermine and distort our human-rights system.

Ironically, a debate about balancing rights has not itself been balanced. One can only surmise that if these critics succeed, thus would begin a broader assault on freedoms they would subordinate to absolute freedom of expression.

Ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights is a responsibility that belongs to all of us. Our diverse and inclusive society was created through a commitment to equality, dignity and rights. We have come a long way, but we cannot afford to relax our vigilance or declare victory. Together, we must ensure that those who are the most vulnerable in our society are not further marginalized.

To be sure, the debate over freedom of expression and hate messages will continue. The commission welcomes that debate; it is a positive and democratic exercise. By presenting its special report, the commission’s aim is to contribute a balanced analysis for those interested in developing informed opinions on this passionate topic.

So if you are a critic of a corrupt commission that abuses its power and takes away freedom, you are guilty of a broad assault on freedom? Orwellian at best.

Jennifer misses the point of why Canadians are against her commission. The Human Rights Commission is actually the opposite – while trying to defend the rights of the minority they crush the rights of the majority.

Most Canadians are completely oblivious to who Jennifer is and what the HRC actually is doing to their rights – let’s hope Jennifer keeps writing and digging herself into a hole.

The comment section that follows her Globe and Pail rant is worth a read… a few highlights:

“Ms. Lynch. My family came from communist Romania. My family is extremely well acquainted with the type of courts your outfit operates.

Frivolous accusations, secret trials and inconsistent procedures, no consistent rules of evidence, nor rules of precedence, and unqualified partisan adjudicator appointees.

Ceausescu would have applauded your work.

And Stalin would have instantly recognize the HRC “order to apologize” as taken straight from his court system.”

“The critics of the commission are not trying to destroy protection for human rights, they are merely trying to restore some balance. There is no justice here, just accusation, Star Chamber trials and condemnation combined with arbitrary penalties. There is no human right to not be offended that I know of - hatred is one thing but hijacking words and phrases and applying them to hatred is disgusting. Under the present system any one group can claim a word or phrase is offensive and subjecting them to hatred and the speaker is rushed into the hell of Star Chamber justice. The human rights commission should be subject to the normal rules of the legal system with some consideration for process. Manipulating the facts as Ms Lunch has done is equally as offensive to me as the bizarre comments of far extreme claimants for justice. Ms Lynch is claiming that any crticism of the commission is tantamount to undermining rights-what an absurd claim. This sort of labelling of opponents is what brings the commission in to disrepute and subject to severe criticism. Let’s debate the issue and stop hiding behind manipuilated facts Ms Lynch, we will all be better off with an honest debate.”

“Ms. Lynch is just the sort of person you would appear before if someone decided to engage the HRC to lynch you. These people have no legal training, but they do have an agenda that is antithetical to the freedoms we cherish, including but not limited to the freedom to express ourselves. We have police and courts of law to apprehend and punish people who commit crimes, including hate crimes. Why do we need this unelected body, responsible to no-one, to punish thought crimes, or rather thoughts they wish were crimes but cannot prosecute in a legitimate forum like a court of law, because they are of course not real crimes. If you get dragged in front of the HRC, you are punished with legal costs even if you are innocent. You want reform? Make a false accusation a crime. Make false accusers pay for the costs to defend yourself.”

Blazing Cat Fur on our Czarina …

It’s time to protect our human rights – get rid of the Human Rights Tribunals and Jennifer Lynch.