DARREN LUND Globe & Mail : Rights critics run amok: Why free speech needs healthy limits
I can’t take Darren Lund’s defense of Human Rights Commissions too seriously he is simply being disingenuous by failing to mention at all the draconian powers vested in our HRC’s, which is the very heart of the current controversy.
Darren Lund is guilty himself of the very damning assertion he makes against the media who have spoken out against the Human Rights Commissions:
“Partial reporting of only the most inane details of rights rulings creates easy targets. In the case of hate speech…They offer the only available remedy to people who face hatred, whether in finding a place to live, in the workplace, or in the public sphere.”
Partial reporting? Sorry Darren within our existing criminal code in Canada, are laws that deal with Hate Crimes & Hate Speech – convenient that you left that out. HRC’s were never mandated to monitor Hate Speech, even those most responsible for the HRC’s creation such as Alan Borovoy have stated that outright and decry the current abuses being committed in the name of Human Rights. Not that others didn’t see this coming.
Lund cites the HRC case he himself initiated, Darren Lund v. Stephen Boissoin , as evidence of hate speech, yet the commission itself based its decision on the very flimsy linkage of Boissoins comments to the violence committed against the young victim in this case. Evidence that would not stand in a real court of law, you know the kind with real lawyers and real judges and oh yea – real evidence. Does this not concern you Darren? Guess not, you did win after all. Regardless of your personal feelings or assumptions of guilt towards Boisson Mr. Lund, he is still entitled to a fair hearing, which is something Boissoin did not receive, and is beyond the evident scope, inclination and abilities of our HRC’s to provide.
The HRC’s would not be the magnet of public scorn they have become had they stuck to their original mandate of protecting the vulnerable against housing and workplace discrimination. The truly Dangerous People in Canada that Lund refers to are in fact the Thought Police embedded in our HRC’s operating under the auspices of Section 13 (1). It is bizarre that he fails to refer specifically to the implications, excesses and abuses that Section 13 (1) has exposed our society to and he calls the MSM’s commentary inane? Section 13 (1) is legislation which has gutted the Free Speech provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and must be abolished. His little screed can only be summed up as yet another whiny little do-gooder dance of deception.
By ignoring the fact that HRC’s have overstepped their original mandate – that hate crime laws already exist, and the anti-democratic Section 13 (1) Darren Lund displays an alarming lack of candor which is clearly an emerging pattern among HRC Defenders as Ezra Levant points out here, Len Rudner (and now by extension Lund) is either ignorant of the facts or stupid or…..
Rudner claimed that HRCs follow the same procedures and standards that regular civil courts do. But that’s just not true. The civil rules of court don’t apply; civil rules of evidence don’t apply; HRC “investigators” have stunning powers — including search and seizure powers without warrants — that do not exist anywhere in civil procedure. And the “burden of proof” necessary for a conviction in HRCs is not at all like civil courts. The standard is the absurd “pre-crime” standard of “likely to cause” hurt feelings, and that standard is applied inconsistently by HRC tribunals, which are staffed by non-judges. No wonder the federal HRC has a 100% conviction rate under its thought crimes provisions.
Now away with you Darren before Endora hears about this.
Update: More Darren Lund bashing here & here & here & here – it’s turning into a maelstrom of criticism, a veritable “Great Fire of Lund-Undone” 😉
Upperdate 2: From the comments at the Western Standard – Boissoin weighs in…
………”Ps….I didn’t know then just as I don’t today who assaulted that boy. I don’t even know the boy who was assaalted. I heard about it two weeks after my letter was printed and the boy heard about my letter from the reporter. At that time, I was a facilitator for the Red Deer RCMP’s Restorative Justice Program, a licensed minister, the Executive Director of a Christian Youth Charity and have personaly welcomed dozens of at-risk youth into my own home regardless of sexual orientation.
Anyone who knows me personally thinks it is absurd to accuse me of approving of and/or causing such a horrendous crime. The so called staff member that was one of Lund’s witnesses was actually a “client” that was on a 6 month employabilty program. She had her facts way out to lunch and if she had known something she failed to mantion it to any senior staff member, a board member or the police.
Lund continues to attack my reputation. He slanders me in my own community and do you think I can get a fair shot at responding to media…nope.
Ps…I have an interview with Rutherford tomorrow at 11am. I am not sure if it is live or taped.