|
|
|
Journalists nominate the out of control CHRC for their “Code of Silence” Award |
|
Wednesday, 20 May 2009 00:00 |
|
Award recognizes the most secretive government, department or agency in Canada http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/2009/05/journalists-nominate-out-of-control.html The Canadian Association of Journalists has just released their nominations for their “Code of Silence” award. This year for the first time, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been nominated for their culture of secrecy and entitlement. The Code of Silence award is to highlight secretive government agencies that engage in “secrecy and lack of accountability." The nomination for the Canadian Human Rights Commission reads: |
|
Read more...
|
|
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 00:00 |
|
The Ottawa Citizen Original Article here June 17, 2009 7:49 AM After years of rancorous debate, there seems at last to be a consensus that human rights commissions, at both the federal and provincial levels, are in serious need of reform. Even the Canadian Human Rights Commission admitted the need for change in its recent report to Parliament on freedom of expression. Of course, the reforms it suggests are much less sweeping than its critics would like. Still, it's a start. This is a conversation Canadians must have, because the current system is sowing acrimony and mistrust, and risks treading on the right to free expression. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
The Canadian Human Rights Commission's unbalanced view of critics |
|
Thursday, 18 June 2009 00:00 |
|
Original Article here National Post editorial board
National Post | June 18, 2009 Monday in Montreal, Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), launched a counterattack against critics who, over the past couple of years, have suggested the commission is out of control and should have its power to investigate alleged hate speech taken away from it. In an address to a conference of other human rights commissioners, an excerpt of which is posted here, Ms. Lynch claimed to welcome debate on the future of human rights legislation no fewer than five times, then proceeded to dismiss anyone who questioned the legitimacy of commissions as unworthy of listening to. She accused many of her institution’s detractors in “the mainstream media” of clouding the facts about commissions’ roles and tactics in an attempt to discredit them. “Critics of the human rights system are manipulating and misrepresenting information to further a new agenda: one that posits that human rights commissions and tribunals no longer serve a useful purpose.” |
|
Read more...
|
|
Montreal Prof. Quits Green Party In Protest Over Richard Warman |
|
Tuesday, 23 June 2009 00:00 |
|
Dear Elizabeth May,
I hereby, and reluctantly, resign from the Green Party of Canada.
On the one hand, I admire and support you personally as leader of the Green Party.
However, I am a fervent advocate of "...freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;..."
I.e., as long as it's not libelous and is "fair comment". In my opinion, in this regard Canada is now governed by a double standard according to "political correctness" and according to which ethnic group one belongs to.
Thus, I absolutely can not support a party who presents " Richard Warman" as a candidate: |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Monday, 22 June 2009 00:00 |
Original Article here
The Ottawa Citizen
June 22, 2009One of the many things that bug me about Canada's system of human rights tribunals/commissions is the assumption, on the part of their defenders, that only they care about human rights and that anyone who disagrees with them must have other, more sinister motives. In fact, the debate is about how we should protect human rights, including the very important right to freedom of expression. That's why I cringe to read a recent speech by Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in which she called on the "human rights community" to make sure the "manner in which (this debate) takes place is respectful of our human rights system." Talk about beginning from a biased position. When the debate is about whether the human rights system should exist, or should be seriously reformed, it's a bit rich to ask all participants to be "respectful" of it. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Name the date, Jennifer. I’ll be there |
|
Thursday, 25 June 2009 00:00 |
|
Original Article here Last week, I wrote about the neo-nationalist and quasi-fascist parties elected to the European Parliament. When a political movement calls itself, as in Bulgaria, the Attack Party, one naturally expects to hear the martial drum of approaching jackboots. But, in western Europe and in North America, the reality is that fascism pitter-patters in on cashmere slippers, smooth, unthreatening and beguiling as it gently ushers us ever deeper into Soft Despotism (to use the title of Paul Rahe’s new tome) or (to take Kathy Shaidle’s and Pete Vere’s book) The Tyranny Of Nice. And so it is that the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, after lying low during the worst year-and-a-half in its existence, now feels it safe to poke its head above the parapet. A year ago, at the height of publicity over its investigation of Maclean’s for publishing an excerpt of my book, the CHRC sought to get itself off the hook in the traditional manner: commission a report. They signed up professor Richard Moon, who’s no pal of mine and is distressingly partial to state censorship. Yet, amazingly, his findings, published at the end of last year, recommended the abolition of Section 13—not, alas, on the grounds that this abominable “law” licensing ideological apparatchiks to police the opinions of the citizenry is at odds with eight centuries of Canada’s legal inheritance, but on the narrower utilitarian basis that in the age of the Internet Section 13 is unenforceable. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
|
|
