CANADIEN

We are not talking about quotas. We are not talking about hiring people because of their skin colour or religion or sexual orientation. We are not talking about legetimate grounds, related to an employer or organization's nature and mandate, for hring members of specific groups. We are talking about the rental building manager of Korean descent who says to a White has applicant "sorry, just rented it"" then realizes that the appartment has not been rented after all when the guy's Korean schoolmate shows up ten minutes later. We're talking about an electronic stores chain that in the early 1990's was ordring its managers never to hire women as sales clerks. We're talking about restaurant or hotel woners that will not serve people of a certain skin color. Your attempt at confusing the two proves that your mind is on the disengaged mode.

If he didn't matter, the Globe and Mail would not have published his op-ed.

We are not talking about affirmative action here. Nor are we talking about people who will not hire somone based on legitime business needs or assessment of someone's skills. We are talking about racist and bigoted employers. And service providers. So quit finding excuses for them.

He does if his decision has nothing to do with your capacity to do the job or his business needs.. Deal with it.

And most illegal immigrants are not caught. I for one think we should put more resources into stopping them. Same her. Discrimination is an attack on a person's dignity as a human being. it's telling him/her "no matter what, you're not worthy enough". I am sure this is fine by you. Fortunately, most of society does not think so.

I doubt that there would be many people not willing to rent or sell to Jews only. But to let's say, Blacks? Considering how much you like the idea of having them as neighbours, I think we've just got example #1.

The "fine" example of homophobia aside... The moment our Government says "discrimination by the private sector is no business of the Government", there will be more businesses and employers discriminating. Not as much as the good old day when that kind of practices helped ensure that neighbourhood were white only, but it will happen. And you know it... you'd do it yourself at every opportunity.

Which is why I think the Human Rights Tribinals should become an investigative body and leave court proceedings to... the courts.

He's speaking for more than just himself. But until the government endorses his point of view with legislative action, I have no reason to state that it is the government position. Anyways, what is the most likely to happen, if the government move in that direction, is an attempt to remove section 13.1 from the perview of the commission.

Exactly. Noone here is arguing for no-limit "we don't ask any question" immigration. Criminals are not welcome here. Terrorists have no place here. And yes, we have right to expect from immigrant that they respect the laws of this country, that they abide by the basic rules we set for ourselves (nothing more, nothing else) and that they learn about this country's history and traditions. But there are people who would block some would-be immigrants just because they're from the "wrong" place, the "wrong religion, or the wrong skin colour.

Which is owned by Corus, the comany that also owns YTV. I may be tempted to give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt here. They may have just purchased publicity time from Corus, who then decided where to air it. YTV is still not an appropriate media for political advertising though.

How to reform Human Rights Commission: a) Abolish Human Rights Tribunals: regular courts can deal with violations of anti-discrimination statutes Transform the Human Rights Commission into a body studying and reporting on issues of human rights, not just discrimination, but without investigation and prosecuting powers in cases of alleged discrimination. Public education on huuan rights issues as well as the provision of legal information should be included in its mandate. c) Vest investigative and prosective powers into agencies similar to Ontario's new Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre (with a different name, mind you). They would investigate complaints and, if found reasonable, bring them before the courts as the plaintiff party. d) In cases where violation of freedom of speech or religion is alleged (as opposed to discrimination - thinking here about the Purolator or the Sikh bike helmet, for example), the role of the Commission should be only to provide legal information, and intervene as an expert body before the court, as opposed to being one of the parties. Unless there is resonable grounds to assume that the purpose of an employer or service provider's rule is to discriminate, issues of whether or not their rules or service policies are an unreasonable infringement of freedom of speech/religion/opinion can be resolved in regular court of law. e) clearly remove from the competency of the new agency any case involving alleged violations of the Criminal Code - specifically, hate crime and hate speech. If a violation of the criminal code has taken place, it should be dealt with in a criminal court. Period.

Did I say they were part of the justice system? Nope. Their mandate and procedures were set up by law. Different. They are about dealing with violation of the laws. And illegal discrimination is not covered under the Criminal Code. Feel free to argue that regular courts would be the best mechanism to pursue those cases - and I'll agree with you to a point. But to take an example that has nothing to do with discrimination, if you park illegally you may get to court and get a fine, but no criminal charges will ever be filed against you. Not the same as anti-discrimination legislation. What don't you tell us what you found? Starting with what those tribunals were and when they started, and ended? They operate within the laws regulating them. That's the problem.

And if anyone has been specifically told "you're not Chinese, I won't hire you", those businesses should be brought before the Commission.

I have not seen this time any hint that he wants to kill people... I'll grant that to you. But he still wants to non-white out, not just segregated. And the cr*p about racial superiority and his musings about "natural selection" sounds a bit more Nazi-like than apartheid-like to me.

The extension of the powers of Human Rights Commissions to the realm of speech was a result of legislative action EXTENDING its powers. You (and I) may not like that it happened, but this how it happens, not through the Commissions deciding to extend their powers unilaterally. As for cases like Levant and Steyn (whose belief in freedom of expression for others is likely little higher than my belief in Santa Claus - but that's another issue), they were found not to have violated any law. There are flaws in the system, but kangaroo courts? Yeah right.

Human Rights Commssions should never have been made to venture into the realm of speech - which should be limited only when libellous or advocating violent hatred through regular court of laws. And arguments could be made that Human Rights Commissions are not the best venue to address issues of illegal discrimination. But to argue that protection from unjust discrimination is not a fundamental human right? Nothing could be further from the truth. And even further from the truth is the contention that businesses, landlords or employers who disriminate will siffer economically. If anything, they would be flooded with potential clients, renters or employees just too happy to stay away from the "undesirables".

I just hope they'll be an improvement from Richler and Layton

And I wonder why they cannot set business anywhere in the country, including Quebec. In case you didn't notice, the Minsiter questioned the nature of the relationship beetween that fundation and the Air Forrce, NOT where it is located. But we both know that if the company had been located in Peterborough or Truro you would not even mention the story.

I think that too is a bit exaggerated. Not all aspects of all cultures are encouraged - polygamy is but one example.. And the tendency of recent immigrants to move where people from the culture live is nothing new, nor is the tendence of most groups to move out of there by the second or third generation (economic conditions permitting).

One of the issues, a surprising one, that faced the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was the reaction of various ethnic groups, and we are not just talking here about First Nations or groups of non-European origin. They did not recognized themselves in the idea of a bicultural country. That most have been a shcok for a poliical elite that have been convinced that, except for the First Nations and non-white immigrants, the country was bi-dimentional. The notion of official multiculturalism is borne out of that more than anything else. The fault of official multiculturalism is not in what it did, but what it failed to do - bring a definition of what it is to be Canadian that would transcend languages, ethnicities and cultures. Sorry, "being diverse" may be a good thing, but it is not an identity. That being said, and despite the problems (a system of immigration too lax on criminals, isolation of some groups, economic difficulties faced by certain immigrants, to new three), we have managed to avoid for the most part the racial violence that plagued the U.S. at various points in its history, or the race-related alienation and riots of some European countries. We could do better. But I think we have done a lot better than what many believe.

I would tend to disagree. Nooobody today is forcing anyone to live in ethnic enclaves. The experience of many immigrant communities before the 1960's, especially the non-Christian non-European groups, was of being segregated against, denied certain form of employments, denied citizenship and the right to vote, in effect forced to group themselves into enclaves - not through the force of law, but through the force of local population not wanting them around.

What an ignorant thing of you to say. The Black community in Nova Scotia dates back to the aftermath of the American Revolution. For most of the following 2 centuries, they were subjected to the same type of segregation that made the southern U.S. famous, minus the violence. In the 1830's, 1840's and 1850's, Irish immigrants were treated like third class citizens and relegated to the poorer areas of Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto, subjected to hatred from the general population. They were not the last immigrant group to suffer that fate. Chinese immigrants to B.C.m when not banned outright, where prohibited from occupying certain jobs. Jewish Canadians were virtually barred from certain professions until well into the 20th century (the University of Toronto did not lift his quotas on admission of Jewish students to its Faculty of Medecine until 1959). No ghettos in Canada before Trudeau? Think again.

There's a lot of things in this country, but chaos is not one of them.

The MAJORITY of immigrants are not criminals. The MAJORITY of immigrants do work for a livng. The MAJORITY of immigrants obey our laws. The MAJORITY of immigrants want to be Canadians.