Jennifer Lynch: You owe me $18.

This morning, I was listening to the John Oakley show on my way to work. Candadian Censor-in-Chief dumped a massive, stinking load of hooey on us poor listeners-who really just don't understand how benevolent and "fair and balanced" the CHRC really is.

Oddly, Ms. Lynch didn't mention anything about the "fair and balanced" work done by her investigators, current and past who play make-belive 'haters' on the internet, spewing the most vile comments imaginable in the hopes of honey trapping other haters in Canada.

She opaquely saluted Barbara "I'm In Love With Sharia" Hall's helpful feedback on the Steyn/Maclean's issue, and when asked if truth should really be removed from criminal defence of 'hate speech' she got awfully coy, saying that hey-that's for Parliament to decide.

Listen to the audio here.

Furthermore, Ms. Lynch actually refer ed to hate speech as being "evil". She is an obnoxious tyrant, a foul bean-counting censor and the antithesis of what it means to be a Canadian. We have to fight her and her noxious kangaroo aparatus with all of our might.

Unfortunately, John wasn't taking calls after her Stalinesque speech, but as we all know, Ms. Lynch is not really into dialogue-she is a Master of the Multicult Monologue!

To make a long story even longer, I was in such a tizzy listening to her pathetic defence of soft totalitarianism, and her patronizing and blabbering explanation of the glories of Section 13 that I actually dropped my brand new MAC eyeshadow and it split into smithereens. (Yes, I was trying to put on make-up, have breakfast and purchase the quintessential Tim Hortons coffee all at once-damnit-I'm a working mother and I have to multi-task...)

Jennifer Lynch-you owe me either $18- or one unit of MAC "Jest" eyeshadow-it looks great on me and now it's in shambles.

And for your added morning sickness-here is "Human Rights" lawyer Pearl Eliadis in all her glory, defending the most repressive and Orwellian institution in Canada.

PLEASE NOTE: I think I have figured out one of the things thatt the CHRC got for their money when they hired an external PR agency. They definitely got briefing notes about changing the language of their debate.

Please note that in the audio clip Ms. Lynch and Mrs. Eliadis (in her letter to the editor) are taking great pains to explain that the CHRC does not use the language of criminal law. They don't 'convict'! They don't 'prosecute'-silly proletariat haters!

This is a recurring theme. They are trying to strip away the suggestion that they are criminal thugs, or that their actions are in any way related to real criminal convictions and jurisprudence-where real lawyers represent clients, and real people pay their own bills, and where truth is really a defence.

Do you agree with me?

Don't let them dictate the language of this debate. It is the free speech community that must definite the terms of reference-and reject their efforts to re-frame the debate.