Thursday, October 29, 2009

Marc Lemire asks to testify before the JUST committee investigating the out of control CHRC

Oct 2, 2009
To: Miriam Burke
Clerk of the Committee
Fax: 613-996-1962

RE: Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)

Dear Miriam Burke;

My name is Marc Lemire, and I have been studying the Canadian Human Rights Commission for over 6 years.  In particular Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is under review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST).  On September 2, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled in my case that Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional

As a result of my 6 year hearing, I have amassed the largest collection of critical material on the CHRC and their systemic corruption.  I would like to be a witness and give testimony on the abuses of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which I have documented before the Federal Court of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.  The documents I have collected, have lead to a criminal investigation of the CHRC, as well form the basis for most of the current controversy of the CHRC.

The information that I have uncovered included:

And this is just a small list of all the material I have.

What steps do I need to do, to be able to give a brief or presentation to the subcommittee?


Marc Lemire

Canadian Free Speech League files application to Intervene in Lemire case

Doug Christie's Canadian Free Speech League stands for freedom of speech!  On October 28th, 2009, they applied for Intervenor status in the Lemire case, which is a Constitutional Challenge of the internet censorship powers held by the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The CHRC is seeking a judicial review of the stunning decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Lemire case, which found Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be a violation of the freedom of speech rights of all Canadians.

So far there is three parties involved:

Motion by Douglas Christie, counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Parliament's JUST committee continues their review of the censorship provisions of Section 13. Next up, the Chief Kangaroo and her cheering section


Parliament’s JUST committee continues their review of the censorship provisions of Section 13…  Next up, the Chief Kangaroo and her cheering section



Tune in live on Monday from 3:30 to 5:30pm, and watch the CHRC and their cheering section at the Canadian Jewish Congress, squirm under questioning from Members of Parliament.


More information here:









Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights


Meeting No. 43

Monday, October 26, 2009

3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.


Watch LIVE here:





Review of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Section 13)





3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.


Canadian Human Rights Commission

Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Chief Commisioner

Philippe Dufresne, Director and Senior Counsel

Litigation Services Division



4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.


Canadian Jewish Congress

Mark Freiman, President

Bernie M. Farber, Chief Executive Officer


As an individual


Richard Moon, Professor

University of Windsor, Faculty of Law




Wednesday, October 21, 2009

XTRA!: Feds consider striking hate speech clause

Feds consider striking hate speech clause

National / MPs want to protect minorities from “real harm, not perceived harm or hurt feelings

Dale Smith / Ottawa / Wednesday, October 21, 2009

After three years of public thrashings, a controversial hate speech provision is now under the federal microscope. In a committee room in the bowels of Parliament Hill, a cross-section of MPs will debate the clause’s merits through the fall, and possibly into next year.

The provision in question, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, allows the Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints regarding hate speech by phone or internet.

Opponents of Section 13 complain that it establishes a lower threshold for offences than the two hate speech laws that appear in the Criminal Code.

A raft of free speechers — from civil liberties groups to the Canadian Association of Journalists — decry the clause as an unnecessary intrusion on Canadians’ right to speak their minds. The issue gained visibility in 2007 after Muslim groups used Section 13 to pursue Ezra Levant and Macleans columnist Mark Steyn for publishing material they found offensive. Steyn and Levant are now avowed enemies of the clause.

But the worst blow was dealt to the provision in September, when a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal declared the clause unconstitutional.

“It was a breath of fresh air,” said long-time Section 13 critic and Liberal MP Keith Martin of the tribunal decision.

Since September’s decision sets no legal precedent, the legislation remains intact until either a superior court decision strikes it down or Parliament amends the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). In the meantime, The Commons Justice Committee — the group charged with studying the provision — will investigate whether it should be struck down.

Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber is a member of the committee and a vocal opponent of Section 13.

“I think our study is timely in that the Human Rights Commission has filed an appeal, so it will be reviewed by the Federal Court of Canada, and if they uphold that decision, presumably that will strike down Section 13,” says Rathgeber. “That could create a legal void, and there are many cases pending.”

“I hope at the end of the day we can table a report in Parliament that can protect the freedom of speech while still protecting groups from real harm, not perceived harm or hurt feelings,” Rathgeber says.

But Rathgeber and the Conservatives will have to face an opposition that is just as likely to want to keep the provision in place.

“We certainly wouldn’t be in favour of abolishing it,” says Liberal justice critic Dominic LeBlanc. “We think that Section 13 and the Human Rights commissions have played a useful role. We’re always open to discussions of how Section 13 might be strengthened or clarified.”

LeBlanc adds that he has spoken with the chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and is in the process of reading their recent report on the issue.

“We think there should be a measure between the Criminal Code provisions with respect to hate propaganda, and a lower threshold which would properly be in the domain of a Human Rights Commission — particularly around new technologies and information technologies,” LeBlanc says.

The NDP also supports the retention of the clause.

“My own position is, and I’ll be calling witnesses from this vantage point, is what we can do to clarify the problems,” says NDP justice critic Joe Comartin. “I think it is possible to rewrite the section, to amend it, and to put in criteria as to how you would interpret when the commission would have jurisdiction to intervene. I think that would be probably a bit more restrictive than it has historically been.”

Comartin expects the Conservatives to call witnesses that would advocate for the abolition of Section 13, starting with opponents like Levant and Steyn.

But not all Conservatives feel the need to abolish Section 13. Lesbian Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth feels that it should be retained.

“The Canadian Human Rights Act does include women, but the Criminal Code does not,” says Ruth. “So if we lose Section 13, there’s no protection for hatred against women anywhere.”

“If it is missing, then it should be in the Criminal Code,” says Martin. “The Criminal Code is there to protect us all from hate speech, and any individual, any group must be protected against true hate speech.

“If there is something missing in the Criminal Code, then again it’s up to Parliament to deal with it. It’s a wonderful opportunity to strengthen the Criminal Code aspects of hate speech while removing the flaws in Section 13 that exist right now.”

Ruth says that she has been engaging with the ministers of justice and Status of Women on that inclusion, but that their priorities at present remain the economy and tough-on-crime legislation.

The prominence of voices like Levant and Steyn in the call for repeal — along with PEN Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Pink Triangle Press (Capital Xtra’s parent company) — is nevertheless disturbing to some supporters of the clause.

Richard Moon, a constitutional law professor at the University of Windsor, says Levant may reach some of the right conclusions, but he uses the wrong rationale.

In October of 2008, Moon published a report for the Human Rights Commission that called for Section 13 to be struck down.

“I have felt deeply disturbed by the way in which certain claims made on rightwing blogs like Levant’s have seeped into mainstream discourse, many of which are grotesque exaggerations — or, in some cases, outright fabrications of the circumstances,” Moon says.

“I believe there are very good — but complicated — arguments as to why we ought to repeal Section 13, but the accusations of corruption or even those sorts of simple assertions that they have a 100 percent conviction rate — those are all grotesque distortions.”

Moon is referring to the claim in Shakedown that everyone who is accused of hate speech by Canadian human rights tribunals is convicted. Moon explains that frivolous complaints are weeded out before they reach the tribunal — only those likely to succeed actually make it to hearings.

“I’m deeply disturbed by the…smear campaign against the people who support Section 13 and the people at the Commission who are, for the most part, simply carrying out their statutory duties,” Moon says. “You can have a problem with the statute and call for its repeal without attacking civil servants who are generally implementing the law as it stands.”

A Supreme Court case is likely as a result of September’s tribunal decision declaring Section 13 unconstitutional. The last time this issue was brought before Canada’s highest court was in 1990, when a split 4-3 decision in the Taylor case declared the limits placed on free speech under Section 13 legal and constitutional.

Meanwhile, the Justice Committee will tender a report that may influence Parliamentary direction on the issue. If the report is convincing, Section 13 could be repealed by way of Parliamentary bill.

“It is Parliament’s responsibility to deal with the Act — it’s not the Tribunal or the commission’s responsibility,” Martin says.

“The important thing is for Parliament to have the courage to go and make the changes of Section 13(1) that will protect one of our true fundamental rights — the right of freedom of speech — while making it very clear that hate speech belongs in the Criminal Code.”


Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Award

The 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Award

Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
October 13, 2009

Last Saturday in Victoria, BC, Connie and I proudly accepted the 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Award from the Canadian Free Speech League. It was a personal pleasure for me to receive an award named for one of my literary heroes. I encountered the writings of George Orwell decades ago and they effected me so profoundly that they set me on paths of political thought that I continue to travel to this day.

This award is particularly appropriate in view of the Orwellian world Connie and I have had thrust upon us. A world where the State believes it can eradicate human emotions, where truth is not a defense and convictions are assured, where lawfare is an effective means of political coercion, and where people who speak out for our freedom of speech and political thought are labeled by censors as followers of one of history's greatest tyrants and mass murderers. (No, not socialism's Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. That other guy.)

A variety of speakers at the annual meeting told the 125 people in attendance about their experiences of being crushed by the state. Marc Lemire did a power point presentation that gave an all too brief overview of what he has been through and brought everyone up to date on the latest developments in his case and the CHRC's appeal of the Hadjis ruling on the constitutionality of Section 13. A representative of the battle against the long gun registry spoke and a B.C. couple told a heart-wrenching story of having all their children seized by the B.C. government after a misdiagnosis of shaken-baby syndrome. Arthur Topham spoke of B'nai Brith's CHRC attack on him and we heard a story from a gentleman who has been locked in a battle with the government of B.C. over busking, of all things.

We also received a generous cash award which will go to our legal defense. The battle will go on.

We will never look up to the face of Big Brother, and love him.


Conservative Website Hosts Mark and Connie Fournier Win 2009 George Orwell Free Speech Award

VICTORIA, October 10
. While many Canadians travelled to see friends and relatives for the Thanksgiving weekend, over 125 free speechers from as far away as Hawaii jammed a hall for food, fellowship and the 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Awards.

This year's recipients were Mark and Connie Fournier, the former owners of, a conservative website in existance since 2001. They have the unique distinction of being the victims of no fewer than three defamation suits at the hands of the ultra litigious Richard Warman, the chronic Canadian human rights complaints filer. For the past three years, the Fourniers and many of their posters have fought a staunch battle for free speech and found themselves being spied on by blind Canadian human rights investigator (don't ask how -- we don't know and he won't tell), even before a complaint was filed against their site.

One of their libel suits in currently stalled as the Fournier's are appealing a court decision forcing them to divulge the names of eight John Doe's, or anonymous posters of their website, to Richard Warman. The Fournier's are standing four square for privacy of people on their site. Their lawyer Barbara Kulaszka, calling from Ontario, warned: "This appeal is very important for freedom of speech and people posting anonymously on the Internet." She also praised Marc Lemire for "his tremendous stamina and sacrifice over the past six years to overturn Sec. 13. It always falls to individuals to carry the heavy burden," she said.

Hosted by Douglas Christie and his Canadian Free Speech League, the Orwell dinner featured webmaster Marc Lemire. Marc gave a powerful power point presentation of the struggle against Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and his recent victory, when Member Athanasios Hadjis ruled the Internet cewnsorship section unconstitutional. The CHRC is appealing (seeking judicial review) of this decision. Marc revealed further CHRC dirty tricks, including a cozy relationship with Canada Post which resulted in the closing of at least one person's post office box on nothing more than the allegation that he'd run afoul of Sec. 13.

Mr. Christie warned: "The fight for free speech is not the fight of a generation or even a lifetime."
Also present was webmaster Arthur Topham of Quesnel who is being victimized by Harry Abrams, a Victoria B'nai Brith operative, and B'nai Brith in a Sec. 143 complaint about his criticism of Zionism and Israel. Both the CFSL and CAFE have "interested party" or intervenor status in this upcoming battle,. scheduled to open in Victoria, December 14.

Representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Paul Fromm, the 1994 George Orwell Award winner, explained the travails of math lecturer Terry Tremaine, another Warman victim, who faces a preliminary hearing in Regina, October 19 on Warman-instigation Sec. 319 "hate law" charges about postings Mr. Tremaine made about Jews and national socialism. He was prosecuted under Sec. 13 on another Warman complaint and fined $4,000 and gagged for life (a "cease and desist" order) in 2006. Warman's complaints led to his losing his job at the University of Saskatchewan.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Richard Warman files notice of appearance for the CHRC appeal of Section 13 constitutionality


Richard Warman has filed a notice of appearance in the CHRC appeal of the Lemire ruling that found Section 13 to be unconstitutional.





Court Number :


Style of Cause :


Proceeding Category :


Nature :

S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review

Type of Action :




( 8 records found )


Date Filed


Recorded Entry Summary




Affidavit of service of CĂ©line Girouard sworn on 09-OCT-2009 on behalf of Respondent confirming service of doc 5 upon all parties by telecopier on 09-OCT-2009 filed on 09-OCT-2009










Notice of appearance on behalf of the respondent - Richard Warman filed on 09-OCT-2009










Affidavit of service of Barbara Kulaszka sworn on 07-OCT-2009 on behalf of Respondent confirming service of doc 3 upon Defendant AGC by mail on 07-OCT-2009 filed on 07-OCT-2009










Notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent filed on 07-OCT-2009










Memorandum to file from Bob Lemoine dated 02-OCT-2009 that Marc Cossette (Registry Officer) has advised me today that he has contacted the office of the Canadian Free Speech League in response to their letter of 2-OCT-2009 and advised them that a motion for leave is required to intervene placed on file.










Letter from Mr. Douglas H. Christie of the Canadian Free Speech League dated 02-OCT-2009 advising the court of their intention to continue intervening in this matter received on 02-OCT-2009










Service copy of Doc. No. 1 with proof of service upon respondent Attorney General of Canada on 02-OCT-2009 filed on 02-OCT-2009










Notice of application and 2 copies with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) filed on 01-OCT-2009 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Deputy Attorney General of Canada Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes

The last database update occurred on 2009-10-10 12:57

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Marc Lemire files in Federal Court: Opposes the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission

Earlier today Marc Lemire filed his "Notice of Appearance" at the Federal Court of Canada, and has let it be known that he intends to oppose the motion by the censorship fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission.

The CHRC is appealing the recent ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which found their internet censorship law to be unconstitutional and an affront to Canadian justice.

As typical for the out of control and fanatical CHRC - they are willing to do and spend anything to keep their censorship franchise running.


How you can help:

[VIDEO] Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber on Section 13 in House of Commons

Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber statement on Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Made on October 5, 2009 in the House of Commons.

British Columbia representative of B'nai Brith maliciously edits internet post to attribute it to Marc Lemire

British Columbia representative of B’nai Brith maliciously edits internet post to attribute it to Marc Lemire

Harry Abrams caught red-handed by Mark Fournier of FreeDominion

For the past few months, the British Columbia representative of B’nai Brith Harry Abrams, has been on a mission to try to smear me on the FreeDominion message board.

Not satisfied with having his arguments demolished over and over again, Abrams decided to get a little creative and take matters into his own hands.

Here is the post by Mark Fournier which documents how B’nai Brith’s man, Harry Abrams, edited a post to the FreeDominion message board, in a lame attempt to smear Marc Lemire. Interestingly, B’nai Brith has a bit of history with allegedly defaming people.


Harry, Harry, Harry...You've been hanging around the CHRC for much too long and you've picked up some very nasty habits.

But before the real fun begins, I'd like to quickly address your inane assertion that someone using a plural possessive pronoun is evidence that they are the president of something. That has to be one of the silliest points I've seen anyone try to raise as evidence, or as supporting evidence, of anything, particularly as evidence of something as potentially damaging as you have tried to use it for here. If I say I love our country it does not mean that I own Canada or that I think I'm the prime minister of Canada or that anyone else would think I was the prime minister of Canada.

I also found it amusing (as did others who have already pointed it out) that the document you used to “prove” Marc Lemire was the head of the Heritage Front from 2001 to 2005 actually reveals that there was no head of the organization during that time period. Yet somehow I expect you will continue to spread the same lie even though you clearly know it is a lie.

But this is just the comic relief stuff, you have some big and serious problems here, Harry.

Maikeru wrote:

Marc Lemire wrote:

... the simple fact is we have learned
from our past and moved on to a more progressive organizational
structure. The Heritage Front now is based on a committee of various
people who oversee different duties within the HF. There is no one
leader, but rather it is a democratic process where each person gets a vote.

Beyond satisfying the gap in presidency for the period, it also answers why Gerry Lincoln's nose was out of joint in the article posted by our ARC buddies.

However, in light of that information, another question arises.

There is an error in Maikeru's post above and you are directly (and I believe knowingly) responsible for that error. There is no reason to believe Maikeru is yet aware that he has made a mistake but I'll bet you can spot where he has it wrong, can't you, Harry?

I'm aware that this discussion has taken place on a public internet discussion forum. This is not a real court of law where there would be immediate repercussions for what you've done here. Neither is it a CHRC hearing where you can lie and fiddle with evidence with impunity if you are the complainant. But don't you think tampering with evidence, even just in an internet forum, is more than a little bit scummy? The optics are really bad for you with this one, Harry.

Below is an accurate reproduction of the opening of the post you have cited earlier on this thread as it appeared on Stormfront in 2002:



P.O. Box 564, Station "R", Toronto, Ontario, M4G 4E1
Heritage Hotline: (416) 693-2298

A Decade of Defiance

The Heritage Front in the new Millennium

Since our founding in the fall of 1989, the Heritage Front has been one
of the most written about, talked about and even hated groups in Canada.
Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the HF. Countless
hours of radio and television time has been devoted to reporting on us.
Numerous government agencies have tried to silence us. Terrorist groups,
criminals and unstable individuals have even targeted us.

Now here is your reproduction of the same text as you posted it on Free Dominion.


Harry Abrams wrote:


P.O. Box 564, Station "R", Toronto, Ontario, M4G 4E1
Heritage Hotline: (416) 693-2298

A Decade of Defiance

The Heritage Front in the new Millennium

by Marc Lemire

Since our founding in the fall of 1989, the Heritage Front has been one
of the most written about, talked about and even hated groups in Canada. Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the HF. Countless hours of radio and television time has been devoted to reporting on us. Numerous government agencies have tried to silence us. Terrorist groups, criminals and unstable individuals have even targeted us.

Compare the two closely, Harry. Can you spot the discrepancy that led directly to Maikeru's error in his post? I missed it myself the first time through so I didn't begin to suspect you had falsified the document until I scrolled to the bottom and saw this reference to the article in question:


Reprinted from UpFront: FRONTLINE - Issue #20

The devil is in the details, Harry. You should have deleted this line when you were falsifying the beginning of the article. I might have entirely missed your tampering had you been smart enough to make the deletion of the actual source of the article. But I did notice. And then I noticed that, although Marc Lemire doesn't have much writing to draw from, the writing style of the real author of the article did not seem like Marc Lemire's writing style.

I knew I had you then, Harry, but I waited to confirm my suspicions. I emailed the link to Marc Lemire and straight out asked him if he had written it. I'll bet you aren't the least bit surprised that he had no problem admitting that he had reposted the article, but he flatly denied he had authored it.

So who has more credibility? Marc Lemire or Harry Abrams?

Well, Marc Lemire has spent the past six years under the thought police's microscope at the Ministry of Love and no one has caught him in a lie yet. You, on the other hand Harry, are a known liar and now you have clearly shown that you will falsify a document to support your lies.

It isn't like this is the first time you've consciously and knowingly attributed words to somebody that you knew weren't his for the purpose of damaging the reputation of your target. You did the same thing on another thread here at Free Dominion when you put up some text prefaced with, "Arthur Topham says:" even though there is no way you could deny that you knew Arthur Topham hadn't said the words you attributed to him because you knew the identity of the real author of those words before you posted them.

Marc Lemire's CHRC case is over, Harry. The constitutionality of the process he went through is being appealed but the facts of the case are settled. Why are you spending so much time spreading lies and and taking the foolish risk of falsifying a document to continue the smear of Marc Lemire? Malice?

Or is this something you have been doing on behalf of the B'nai Brith? Do they know what you are doing here? Do they know that you have lied and defamed Arthur Topham in this forum? The same Arthur Topham who you and B'nai Brith are harassing with a CHRC complaint? Do they know you have falsified a document in an attempt to publicly smear Marc Lemire even though his case is over?

Maybe you aren't here at the behest of the B'nai Brith but it wouldn't surprise me if you were. After all, the B'nai Brith, with their false identification of Lemire in a picture that they had up on their Nizkor website kind of indicates that they would completely approve of what you have been doing.

Rest at:

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

CHRC Jennifer Lynch's Speech to CBA in Dublin Ireland - Lynch claims there is a "reverse chill" against the CHRC

CHRC Jennifer Lynch’s Speech to CBA in Dublin Ireland - Lynch claims there is a “reverse chill” against the CHRC

Lynch claims bloggers have created a “reverse chill” and begs CBA lawyers for help to keep her censorship franchise alive


On October 5, 2009, Marc Lemire received a response to an Access to Information request he filed back on August 20, 2009. The request by Marc Lemire was for “Speaking notes and background documents of Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch speech given on August 15, 2009 before the Canadian Bar Association's meeting in Dublin Ireland. Would like the invitation of the Canadian Bar Association, and any CHRC correspondence over this appearance. Also requesting the supporting documentation used in Lynch's speech, including the "anonymous letter she received stating that she should be shot dead."

In the speech by the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission – Jennifer Lynch – she claimed that a “reverse chill” exists for the defenders of Human Rights Commissions, and that journalists like Mark Steyn “have successfully created a ‘chill’ that makes it difficult for anyone to defend those bodies without also becoming a target.”

Lynch asked lawyers from the Canadian Bar Association to come to the CHRC’s aid, and write “letters to correct misinformation.” [Guess Lynch’s message was received].

Bloggers and writers wrote extensively on the ludicrous claims by Jennifer Lynch. Mark Steyn wrote in a piece entitled “Jennifer Lynch: Please send reinforcements!” that “Oh, dear, what’s the country coming to? Defenders of state censorship are too cowed to speak out in favour of not letting people speak out? You could hardly ask for a better snapshot of the degradation of “human rights” in contemporary Canada than the chief censor whining to a banqueting suite full of government apparatchiks that the ingrate citizenry are insufficiently respectful of them. The bureaucrats at the top table control hundreds of millions of public dollars. Jennifer Lynch represents state power; Ezra and I represent a bunch of impecunious bloggers

Ezra Levant summed up the Lynch speech as “What Lynch really meant in Dublin and at her previous hate-filled rant in Montreal is that she doesn't believe she ought to be accountable. Mere scrutiny, for her, is chilling. Mere opposition and criticism is being targeted. But no-one has sued her; no-one has commanded her to appear to answer for her private political thoughts. At most, she was invited to answer questions by her bosses, at a Parliamentary committee, to merely answer questions about her staff's outrageous conduct -- but she refused to attend, and now attacks the MP who invited her, Russ Hiebert, as one of her 1,200 enemies on her official enemies list, compiled at taxpayers' expense.” [They're laughing at you in Dublin, Jennifer]

Deborah DumbPong, after hearing about the Lynch speech criticized thatCry me a freakin' river, Jennifer. You said it. This is all about defending your jobs, not about defending "vulnerable minorities." Her total lack of ability to put herself in the shoes of those bodies like hers have persecuted is astonishing. She thinks she's David when she's Goliath.