Well, we’ve finally made a modest breakthrough with the government. Looks like somebody in the Conservative Party has taken their eyes off of Ms. Couillard’s breasts and actually started to do something about the CHRC.
The Conservative government has introduced a motion to Parliament’s Justice Committee proposing an investigation into the abusive, corrupt practices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion specifically refers to public “concerns” about the CHRC’s “investigative techniques” and their “interpretation and application” of the section 13 thought crimes provision. You can read the rest over at Ezra’s blog.
This shows the power of the blogosphere can actually get things moving. It also shows, once again, how irrelevant and lazy the mainstream media is to Canadian life. With the exception of Mike Duffy and the National Post, the coverage of the attack on free speech in Canada has been atrocious. The Washington Times has had more coverage than any other paper in this country, except the National Post. What does this tell us? It tells us that the bloggers are hungrier to report real news. Faster. Smarter. And more relevant. We don’t have to wait 24 hours for a second rate job when we can get the latest update in 24 seconds by writers that are just as competent if not more so than Joe Reporter at the National Liberal Rag. Particular thanks and credit goes to Ezra Levant, the captain of the Freedom Five, and all the supporting bloggers around the Internet whose relentless research and criticism hasn’t let up one bit in keeping the heat on the fraudulent practices of the CHRC. And with the Maclean’s show trial coming up on Monday, things are sure to get even hotter next week and subsequently.
I am not convinced whether the Conservative Party is genuine about moving this forward. It is after all just a motion to the Justice Committee. What it wants to do is take some heat off of Nicholson and the PMO. I hope the heat isn’t turned down on either of them because so far, they have kept their arm’s length distance. Even now, they’re keeping a good, long way from the trenches on this. Still, Nicholson’s letter does take away from the Attorney General Office’s moral authority. If the Justice Minister is backing off, what signal does that send to the “truth is no defense” lawyers at the ATO? They don’t have the support of the Justice Minister any more — at least not at the level it was before.
And what about the CHRC itself? The RCMP launched a criminal investigation a week or so ago, and now the government has given its nod to question them about their investigative practices. Before that, the Privacy Commissioner was on the job. That means all this crap is going to come up again and again in Committee and, with any luck, it will filter down to the media for public consumption and outrage.
In light of these investigations, what kind of moral authority, therefore, does the CHRC have to do anything, much less investigate and prosecute Section 13.1 cases? They don’t have the confidence of the law or the government any more. That’s why they are being investigated for criminal and fraudulent behaviour and techniques. In the political world, you’d see Ministers stepping aside until their names were cleared, but since the CHRC doesn’t have much of a reputation to begin with, that little protocol of honour is not really necessary, is it? Still, maybe Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. [Queen of Canada] will have the good sense to send everyone home (paid, of course) until this whole thing blows over. I know that nobody on this side of the fence would complain too much, even if we’re paying the tab. On the other hand, the CHRC Titantic is going down pretty fast. Perhaps it’s time for the employees to start dusting off their resumes, and start looking for a new job while they still have some integrity left. When the ship sinks, employers are not going to look favourably on former CHRC employees who only left because the Racket they worked for was so corrupt it had to be shut down. “What were you thinking?” comes to mind as a prime question to ask such a job applicant.
No one has respect for an organization that believes it is outside of the law or not subject to the rules of natural justice, and whose rebuttal when confronted with their outrageous secretive conduct is essentially: “Badges, Badges?! We don’ need no stinkin’ badges!”