Jennifer Lynch's remarks to the Justice Committee

Have been posted here at the Canadian Human Rights Commission site. Here's an excerpt. My bolds:

Today, our Act still brings a powerful vision to Canada, brilliantly articulated in section 2: The purpose of this Act is to give effect to the principle that every individual should have the right equal with others to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have – free from discrimination.

This is what inspires me.[Okay, so the equality provision inspires her. So we see what end of the see saw balancing rights her patoot is parked on]

The Commission provides access to justice so that the most vulnerable may have their voices heard. Thousands upon thousands of complaints have been resolved.

-snip-[Some good accomplishments perhaps, but cut for brevity]

Let me be clear. Hate propaganda, sadly, is alive and well. Hateful expression aimed at groups of people continues to pose a threat to the harmony of our communities and undermines equality. Equality is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is therefore ironic that some point to the same Charter as providing an absolute right to freedom of expression. No right is absolute. When rights are in conflict, legislators must find a way to balance those rights.

This debate has already been decided, in part. -snip- [another list of legal restrictions on freedom of expression such as defamation laws etc.]

The Commission has narrowly applied the law in accordance with a Supreme Court of Canada ruling and other jurisprudence. For a message to be prohibited by section 13 as “hate,” it must involve, and I quote: “extreme ill will,” “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification,” that are “ardent and extreme in nature.”

In fact, a prominent complaint filed with the Canadian Commission in 2007 is a prime example of how the Commission has properly applied this law.[Properly applied? After what a year of 'investigating'? One of three similar complaints as part of a triple jeopardy attack that arguably qualifies as lawfare? That was fair?]

The complaint was brought against Rogers Communications, owner of Maclean’s magazine, by complainants who believed that some content in the magazine constituted hate messaging.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint citing that the impugned content did not meet the narrow definition of hate.

-snip- [Quoting from the Maclean's decision]

This is the only complaint that we have ever received against mainstream media and we dismissed it. This clearly demonstrates that the Commission does not regulate offensive speech. Any other suggestion is false. [What about Catholic Insight Magazine, which is stuck with $30,000 of legal bills since it was under investigation? "The process is the punishment," said MP Russ Heibert yesterday and he's right.]

There's a lot more. Go read it for yourself.

I'll link to the transcripts when they are ready.