Canadian 'Human Rights Commission' decides review needed:

will perform 'independent' review' itself.
OTTAWA - Amid mounting public and political controversy, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has launched an independent review of the way it deals with hate speech on the Internet.

Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch announced Tuesday she has asked Richard Moon, a leading constitutional expert at the University of Windsor, to conduct the study. His report, expected this October, will help shape the commission's position on whether Internet hate laws should be changed, she said.
...
Lynch played down the controversy stirred up by the Maclean's complaints or the ensuing parliamentary manoeuvres as triggers for the review.

"We've been working on this for a long time internally," she said, adding she identified it as an issue last summer, soon after taking over as chief commissioner.

That said, she conceded that the "velocity" of the public debate "took all of us by surprise. It's clear the public want to have the debate. Our job really is to animate and lead on the debate."

Lynch said she isn't "the least bit concerned" that the current law blurs the lines between hate speech and speech that is merely offensive.

Lots of bureaucratic "We have done nothing wrong", etc., "Oh no, the fact that people are calling us what we are(which isn't very nice and we may sue you for it) has NOTHING to do with our review of ourselves", etc.

This is just like a lot of the crap we've got down here, in that The Human Rights Act allows the commission to draft binding guidelines - similar to statutory regulations - that can set out the application of the act.

"We have learned how to work within our legislative mandate and modernize," she said.

"If it's possible to do so, it's more practical not to have legislative amendments, because that takes a long time to do." , which means "We'll make our own rules, so please get the politicians to stop trying to pass laws." Like ATF giving people letters saying "This is legal", then- after they've invested a lot of time and money on the basis of the letter- writing another letter saying "Nonono, that's not legal and you can't do it!" Which is bullcrap and needs to be dealt with here, too.

Short version, the Commission is feeling the heat and trying to get the spotlight off their actions and rules. Hopefully, it won't work and they'll get the 'review' they really need: being put out of business.