Jennifer Lynch, please put this in your file.

Seems like a few other bloggers also others noticed this little tidbit in this National Post piece that interviews Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the CHRC:

---

"Please, please, look. We have experienced 16 months of invective hurled at us, and at any time when anybody has tried to speak up and correct misinformation, gross distortions, caricaturizations, then the very next day there's been some full-frontal assault through the blogs, through mainstream media. I have a file. I'm sure I have 1,200, certainly several hundred of these things," she said.

---

What I would like to know is, what's in that file and what exactly is Ms. Lynch doing keeping tabs on her critics? Given the censorious nature of the CHRC and the information that has come to light about their dubious procedural methods (which have been detailed ad infinitum in the media, thanks mainly to Ezra and other bloggers), the fact that Ms. Lynch is keeping a file on the critics of the CHRC is, quite frankly, a chilling disclosure.

Sure, maybe she's just got a file on hand so that when the CHRC writes up their reports about how 'unfairly' they've been treated (maybe she should ask Ezra how he feels about that) she can draw up a few references to misquote. But quite frankly, I'm uncomfortable that a government agency with a history of going after those whose politics it finds 'disagreeable' (using questionable methods to boot) is keeping tabs on citizens who are critical of its purpose and procedure. That sort of thing is to be expected in totalitarian regimes perhaps, but not in free and democratic countries that are supposed to respect liberty and diversity of thought and opinion.

There are even more chilling questions to be asked: Who has access to this list: just Ms. Lynch, or the whole CHRC? Has it been shared with any law enforcement agencies? Was it compiled using government resources? For what purpose was it created, and towards what purpose will it be used in the future? The CHRC's mandate is being reviewed now, and these are questions that members of the parliamentary panel reviewing the CHRC's activities and mandate should ask (hint hint; i know you guys have visited here before).

In the meantime, BCF and Jay Currie have also written excellent posts that you should check out, including information on how you can file an Access to Information request with the CHRC to see what exactly Ms. Lynch has in her file.

Minister of *National Defense Breaks Arm in Charity Rugby Match

Apparently Peter MacKay broke his arm playing a charity rugby game that raised over $25,000 for the Military Families Fund. I think we all wish him a speedy recovery and I hope that he's back to full strength soon. National Greats like Rod Snow and Morgan Williams were also on the field for the game, so good on all of them for supporting such a great cause.

(On a side note, 'The Minister of Defense' is a pretty badass nickname for him to roll onto the pitch with, hey? And I'm betting the fear that our Defense Minister could literally knock his foreign counterparts to the ground at any given moment is probably a pretty sweet bargaining tool for Canada when it comes to military matters).

*Correction added

The Press, Doing its Job as Usual

...or not.

"Coalition would have deeply divided Canadians: Ignatieff"

---

If the proposed coalition of opposition parties had come to power last year it would have deeply and enduringly divided Canadians, says Michael Ignatieff.
“I'm in politics to unify people, not to divide them,” Mr. Ignatieff said.
....
“There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me.”

But Mr. Ignatieff felt that Canada, entering into a severe economic recession, needed more certainty than the coalition could provide, comparing the tentative deal to an unstable three-legged stool.
....
“I felt it was very difficult to guarantee the necessary political stability during a time of crisis with three partners in a formal coalition,” he said.

“That was my first doubt. I couldn't guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition under the circumstances."

---

What's most interesting about this article is the fact that it doesn't deign to ask Mr. Ignatieff a glaringly obvious question:

Sir, your name is at the very bottom of this document; If you believe that the coalition was 'an unstable three-legged stool' that would have deeply divided Canadians, why did you sign your name to the agreement? If you believed then what you believe today - that the proposed coalition would have lacked the political stability necessary to lead the country through incredibly unstable financial times - why is your signature on that document?

Of course, none of us actually expect the media to do their job and ask political leaders tough questions.

You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Ignatieff. You are admitting that you believed the coalition would have been detrimental for Canadians; You therefore either signed out of a lust for power or a lack of courage to stand up for your principles. Which is it?

By your own admission, the coalition would have lacked the political stability that the country would have required to overcome the current economic recession. By your own admission, it would have deeply divided the country - and yet your signature is still on that document. You put the interests of your party ahead of the interests of Canadians; you can't just whitewash your actions by simply claiming that you were 'never fully on board' - your signature says otherwise. What is even more brazen is that you expect Canadians to buy your story. Journalists might not ask the tough questions; fortunately, Canadians will.

A Funny Thing Happened To Me On The Way To The Holy Land

Sometimes, it's hard to believe your eyes:

---

The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan has boycotted the Pope's visit because he has yet to formally apologize for comments he made three years ago, in which he quoted a Medieval text that suggested the Prophet Muhammad's teachings were "evil and inhuman."

Jordan's top religious adviser commended the Pope for expressing his "regret" after that speech, but many Muslims want a full apology.

---

Contrast that with this: 

---

In Iraq, many Christians fled sectarian violence that broke out after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Christians faced rape and kidnapping, and many were killed, while churches were bombed...Benedict has said that the goal of his trip is to foster improved relations between...Christians and Muslims...

---

So what I want to know is, where's my apology? A few (accurate) remarks taken out of context means that the Pope should get down on one knee and apologize to those who routinely call for the genocide of all Israeli men, women and children - but a systematic campaign of murder, bombings and rape is a-okay? 

This is the problem I have with the Catholic Church's middle east policy - I keep hearing about "dialogue" from the pulpit, but how do you open a dialogue with a group of homicidal religious fanatics who won't even meet with you unless you apologize for hurting their (easily aggrieved) feelings?

Media Bias? What Media Bias?

Look over there, it's a bunch of angry right wingers!

An Open Letter to Lee-anne Goodman and the Associated Press:

Great. You wrote an article that completely missed the point of what the fuss was all about in the first place.

The whole article seemed to spin it to sound like Republicans and the right in general were attacking Obama for his 'un-American' choice of mustard.

However, if you had actually read Mr. Jacobson's blog (which I did), you would have realized that what this is really about is media bias; namely MSNBC edited out information that was completely trivial in order to help President Obama look better, which is a betrayal of their journalistic integrity.

It is ironic: while it is actually MSNBC that tried to hide Mr. Obama's mustard choice because it seemed 'un-American' to them, this article goes out of the way to make it seem that the American right-wing are the ones obsessed with his mustard choice. This completely ignores the fact that the real story is, and always has been, about how far MSNBC will go to cheerlead for their hero, President Barack Obama - they're afraid of a little mustard. And if you and your colleagues had an ounce of credibility, you'd jump on this as a story about MSNBC disgracing your profession. MSNBC is afraid of how the president's choice of mustard will make him look, and it's FOX News that's a "propaganda machine?"

But hey, whatever, it's a chance to ridicule conservatives, right? 

This is exactly why trust in the media is so shockingly low as of late. 

Euro-Centric Thinking: A Juxtaposition

Acceptable Canadian Bloodshed:

Unacceptable Canadian Bloodshed:

Thanks a lot, you ungrateful jerks.

This Guy's Arrogance Knows No End

Do you ever get the feeling that they put a bunch of politically naive college freshmen in charge of the White House? 

I do.

It's like they took a student union and put it to work running America. Change has come to America, and it is Ineffective and Arrogant.

(and it likes environmentally harmful photo-ops. Hey, I wonder how many people were on that plane and if it was actually going anywhere, seeing as how Barry wasn't on it).

I've been waiting for this to break.

And I have a message for the Tories, a message anyone on the internet should know well:

Please, don't feed the troll.

Let him have his book launch. Don't say a word, save for short, dismissive denials of any mistruths. Pretend that you don't care (because really, you shouldn't; who cares what Garth Turner thinks?). Let media interest peak for a few days and then die off as they move on to some other non-story of the week. If the Tories waste their time engaging in vociferous public denials and criticism of Garth Turner, they will only play to his narcissism and help him sell more books.

Then, six months to a year later, when no one cares anymore, if he has engaged in any legitimate defamation requiring legal response - sue the pants off of him, as quietly as possible. There will be media coverage, obviously, but it will be nowhere near as bad if the Tories come out swinging from the gates and avoiding controversy will ensure that his book launch isn't greeted with massive sales. In short, play it smart don't help the blowhard promote his book.

This Is Not What Our People Fought and Died For

Two very disheartening stories out of Afghanistan and Iraq (at the very least - and it's not much - there's this). I've always told those who are against the mission that we're there to fight for human rights; with happenings like these I'm not so sure that's what we're accomplishing.

Barack Obama Doesn't Care About White People

How long must the American people suffer before the Commander in Chief (of racism) acts? I hear they're killing people inside the Fargo Dome.

*