|
The pushback continues. Notwithstanding Ezra Levant's line-by-line dissection of her "reverse chill" routine, Jennifer Lynch, Queen of Censors, returned to the fray this morning, in an appearance on The John Oakley Show on Toronto's AM 640. Scaramouche found it a riveting listen:
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.
Hey, that's great! Presumably, if Elmo & the Socks had complained to all 14 of Canada's "human rights" commissions and all 14 had "considered but ultimately dismissed" the complaint the system would have worked even better - indeed, nearly five times better.
As it happens, in British Columbia we were improperly acquitted. Under BC law, we're guilty. Likewise, under what the CHRC regards as its "emerging jurisprudence" (ie, the accumulated bollocks of Richard Warman), we're guilty. We got off only because it had become politically problematic to convict us - in other words, because, unlike all the no-name targets of the "human rights" racket with the singular exception of the dogged Marc Lemire, we pushed back. And, unlike Mr Lemire, Maclean's and I had a high media profile. Had Joe Schmoe of Loserville Creek written what I'd written and posted it on his blog, you'd never have heard about it and he'd have been convicted. That's another reason to get rid of Section 13 and its provincial equivalents: There's no equality before the law.
I think about this a lot, because I remember the advice I was given by a high-profile friend when all this began: Play it cool, sit back, let the legal process run its course. Had that happened, I would have been deemed what Pearl Eliadis calls a "hatemongerer" in multiple jurisdictions and under the statutory penalties it would have been illegal for Maclean's to continue carrying my column. That's why everyone should push back and go medieval - okay, enlightenment - on Jennifer Lynch's totalitarian ass. That's what Ezra did in Alberta, and that's the only reason he survived, too. You play by Jenny's rules, you'll go down.
Incidentally, I see Queen Jen is still reprising my "drunken pedophile" line. If she's that affronted by it, why not bring a "human rights" complaint against me? If nothing else, surely it must be grossly offensive to pedophiles to compare them to Canadian "human rights" officials. I jest. Or do I? Well, you'll never know until you haul me into court. Ah, but I don't think Commissar Lynch is terribly eager to do that. Ezra and I can more or less say anything we want anywhere anytime, and no HRC is going to be in any hurry to accept any complaint with us as defendants. There goes that old equality-before-the-law shtick again.
By the way, the Closet Conservative makes a good point about the new, improved lingo coordination of the PC enforcers:
I think I have figured out one of the things that the CHRC got for their money when they hired an external PR agency. They definitely got briefing notes about changing the language of their debate.
Please note that in the audio clip Ms. Lynch and Mrs. Eliadis (in her letter to the editor) are taking great pains to explain that the CHRC does not use the language of criminal law. They don't 'convict'! They don't 'prosecute'-silly proletariat haters!
This is a recurring theme. They are trying to strip away the suggestion that they are criminal thugs, or that their actions are in any way related to real criminal convictions and jurisprudence...
So no need to worry, because it's not a "prosecution" followed by a "conviction", it's just a "hearing" followed by a, er... Well, as Professor Martin told the House of Commons committee yesterday, John Taylor was jailed for his opinions. I guess it looked pretty much like a "conviction" from the Cell Block #9 communal shower. But, of course, to convict someone in a real court, you'd need due process and legal representation and stuff like that, so perhaps Jen and Pearl are right. Maybe instead of "conviction" we could just call it "re-education camp".
|
