I was saddened to read in this morning's National Post that Jennifer Lynch, the former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, had died at the age of only 63. I had known for a few years that she was ill, but news of her passing, especially at such a relatively young age, was still an unpleasant surprise.
One could say--and, indeed, I feel-- that her death closes the book on an era in Canadian public life
|
Jennifer Lynch photo in today's National Post. |
that saw broadly defined human rights trump the more fundamental right of freedom of speech. This is because Lynch was the head of the CHRC at a time when it had the mandate to prosecute Canadian citizens for, essentially, hurting the feelings of other Canadians. Thankfully, Parliament finally removed that power last year, as the Post story describes.
I wrote often, not only in the Post
, but also in the Report
and Western Standard
magazines, about the injustice of the CHRC's anti-free-speech powers. Most of my pieces dealt with broad philosophical and legal issues. But one, published in the fall of 2009, about the "enemies list" that Lynch said she kept, was particularly personal. Here is that Post
op-ed:
When Jennifer Lynch, the prickly princess of the Canadian
Human Rights Commission, revealed in an interview with this newspaper last June
that she kept a file on the many critics of her renegade fiefdom, I have to
admit that my first thought in response to the news was not that of a concerned
citizen, outraged that a civil servant charged with protecting human rights was
compiling some sort of Nixonian enemies list.
And I certainly wasn’t vexed over the potential adverse consequences,
of being included on the enemies list, to high-profile CHRC critics such as Ezra
Levant and Mark Steyn; no, they’re big boys and can certainly take care of
themselves.
Rather, my first response was actually to hope that I,
red-badge-of-courage like, would be named in her file. After all, I’ve been
writing critically about the censorious nature of Section 13 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act for more than a decade and I reasoned that if I hadn’t caught
the evil eye of Ms. Lynch by now, one of my professional life’s great passions
would somehow be diminished.
I needn’t have fretted because I am pleased to report today that,
after submitting a freedom-of-information request over the summer, I am now in
possession of a 49-page printout listing the contents of Ms. Lynch’s file, and
that two articles bearing my byline are among the 1,001 news articles, columns,
op-eds, editorials and blog entries which the Chief Commissioner has collected.
Break out the champagne.
Actually, break out the champagne and a cheque for $62,840
because a certain Heather Throop, “Director General, Corporate Management
Branch” (of the CHRC, I presume), informed me by way of registered mail that I
would need to pay that amount to obtain information beyond a mere listing of
the contents. Sadly, I don’t happen to have that sort of money lying around.
My FOI request had sought copies, not only of all the
clippings and printouts in Ms. Lynch’s file, but also of any “notes, memos or
correspondence” that Ms. Lynch or anyone else in the CHRC may have written that
are “directly on any of the clippings or printouts, appended to any of the
clippings or printouts, or placed in the aforementioned file.”
I asked for this because I figured that if Ms. Lynch were
paranoid enough to maintain such a file (as she was) and then sloppy enough to
reveal its existence (as she did), she might also have been angry enough to at
least scrawl a telling comment or two on offending articles. I dreamed of uncovering
handwritten notes such as, “We’ll watch this one—he’s in trouble!” or “I’ll let
Richard know about this, for sure!” (“Richard” being CHRC attack dog Richard
Warman.) Such information would surely embarrass the commissioner and, in doing
so, would further advance the case against Section 13 and the CHRC.
Alas, Ms. Throop informed me in a three-page missive that
any further digging by the CHRC to fulfill my request would entail e-mail
searches, electronic records management system searches, typing and reading
involving up to 100 employees and 6,284 hours of government time at $10 per
hour, hence the $62,840 figure, of which I was requested to immediately send
half (or $31,420) to Ottawa to enable my request to proceed. Either that, or
narrow my search and reduce the cost accordingly.
The fact that the CHRC wants to charge me for this FOI
request puts me in somewhat the same precipitous boat as a defendant ensnared
by the CHRC machinery: while a complainant’s every expense is covered by the
CHRC, a defendant is forced to foot the bill on his own, and isn’t even allowed
to collect costs if he successfully defends himself.
Bottom line: I won’t be digging into any of my RRSPs to
further my search for truth and justice and I don’t care to censor my
application, so I guess my exploration ends here. But my FOI request has at
least accomplished several things, including confirming that Ms. Lynch’s list
really does exist and that it contains, not just opinion pieces that are
critical of the CHRC, but also news stories about the CHRC and human rights in
general, a fact that suggests the commissioner is taking note of critics who
are quoted in those news stories.
The entries, which are listed in reverse chronological
order, begin with a June 29, 2009 editorial by the Montreal Gazette (“Rights
commission threatens our liberty”) and end with a February 16, 2008 column by
the Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente (“Human Rights Commissions: A day at the
theatre of the absurd…”).
In between, the titles and headlines reveal that Ms. Lynch
has been keeping a close eye on both the national media (articles from this
paper, for example, account for 16 percent of the entire file) and the regional
press (in fact, one of the two entries under my name is of a column I wrote for
a twice-weekly newspaper in suburban Vancouver).
One can only conclude that, 1984-like, Big Sister has been
watching. And watching very closely, at that.