Should we abolish Canada's Human Rights Commissions?

maldon_road · March 24, 2008

Maybe. I happened to pick four that have surfaced in the news. On a different thread, I listed about 10 others (all having nothing to do with Section 13) that I discovered after a cursory Google search.
IMV, it is the backlogs that damn these Commissions more than anything. (The Supreme Court ruled against Canada's medical system because of waiting lists.) In teh case of the Commissions, the backlogs are an indication that the Commission rules are open-ended. Anyone can find a way to file a grievance. As a result, the bureaucrats are under pressure to weed out cases unworthy of study. (Filing a case is not easy.) This makes their decisions arbitrary.

Any bureaucracy with a backlog is strong evidence that the bureaucracy is flawed. The Soviet Union collapsed because of backlogs.

In a sense, if we don't abolish these Commissions, they'll collapse under backlogs and their own incompetence. Unfortunately, before that happens, they can inflict alot of harm. They definitely need reform.

At the federal level as Section 13 decays and is used for political purposes there has been an improvement in vetting non-Section 13 complaints by the CHRC. It's still not good but some real crap is getting weeded out.

That "designer vagina" case is bizarre. I suspect the doctor was set-up.

Argus · March 24, 2008

It's beside the pojnt raised by the OP but I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for Levant. Muslims find this sort of thing objectionable and they have a right to prosecute their case just as Levant (a Jew) would have a right to prosecute a case against somebody who might deny the Holocaust.

I don't care if Muslims are offended, and I don't care if Jews are offended by people denying the Holocaust. There should be no criminal laws protecting people from being offended.

Argus · March 24, 2008

What is legitimate speech? Canadian legislation does not define a hate offense in absolute terms, but in terms of the perception of the offended party. I'm sure you are a very good person, but this is the sort of defense that the white supremcists have been trying to raise for some time.

That white supremacists raise that as a defense does not make that defense any less legitimate.

Argus · March 24, 2008

Denying the Holocaust can be brought before the courts because those who are offended by such can claim it as an act of hate. That is Canadian law. Personally I think that it is a good law because it forces such issues into the courts. Whether or not I agree with it is immaterial. The importat thing is to bring these issues before the courts.

Why is that important? What does it matter if someone denies a historical fact ever happened?

jbg · March 24, 2008

Any bureaucracy with a backlog is strong evidence that the bureaucracy is flawed. The Soviet Union collapsed because of backlogs.

In my humble opinion, a bureaucracy with a backlog is symptomatic of a goal that looks good on paper but no one takes very seriously.

A perfect example would be personal injury actions in the trial court of New York State, labeled "Supreme Court" (the appellate courts are called "Appellate Division" and "Court of Appeals"). In theory, everyone cares about getting injured personal injury plaintiffs their "day in court". In practice, the Supreme Court has programs that push commercial cases to the "front of the line" and fosters prompt trials with competent judges in those matters. That relegates the remaining caseload of Supreme Court, namely personal injury matters (matrimonial/divorce cases also have their own judges) to the back of the line. Thus, after discovery is completed, a matter can easily wait in excess of 2 years for a trial. Thus, from the time of the commencement of the lawsuit a trial is realistically 4 or more years away, unless the plaintiff is over 70 years old. This to me bespeaks an unspoken, unwritten view that many of these actions have little merit and are generated by greedy, seedy personal injury lawyers.

Another example would be immigration. The backlogs there are horrific, since once the potential immigrant is in America they are usually working, whether legally or illegally, and making their contribution to our society. Thus, the timetable upon which their status as citizens or permanent residents is an unimportant datum. I personally feel the best way through the immigration mess that politicians and people like Tancredo and Dobbs periodically rail about would be to fund a clearing of the backlog, and promptly determine whether a person stays, goes or somewhere in between. That, of course, would take money and lots of it. It is easier to pass laws than to appropriate money. Thus, this is another example of an area that on paper people care about but in reality no one does.

Both examples have one thing in common; massive backlogs.

Rue · March 24, 2008

It's beside the pojnt raised by the OP but I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for Levant. Muslims find this sort of thing objectionable and they have a right to prosecute their case just as Levant (a Jew) would have a right to prosecute a case against somebody who might deny the Holocaust.
Levant is a publisher. He must have known what he was getting into.

No you do not have the right to prosecute someone in Canada for denying the holocaust. You are wrong. Prosecutre refers to a criminal code proceeding. It is not a criminal act to deny the holocaust. It might be a criminal act to use any words in a context to encourage others to engage in an assault or battery, property vandalism or other criminal consequence. Just stating something contraversial does not make it criminal.

Criminal law requires the Crown to show there was a deliberate intent to commit a crime or assist in the committing of a crime and that is why the criminal code is very rarely used in hate crimes prosecutions.

More to the point someone denying the holocaust and someone drawing a political cartoon are NOT the same thing at all. One is a denial of a fact that may offend some, the other an act of political expression that does not deny a fact, but also may offend some.

Even more to the point, this is not about allowing people to censor others because they don't agree with them.

The point Levant was making as a Canadian citizen and NOT A JEW is that censoring anyone's political views, including Nazis or racists, may not be the appropriate way to do it.

That was the point.

You reduce it to the feelings of some Muslims. Its not about feelings. The law is about maintaining a set of rules that can not acknowledge one group's feelings at the expense of another's but has to walk a fine line and try allow everyone the same right to express feelings.

As a Jew I do not think censoring Nazis through a Human Rights Commission is the way to do it. I don't think censoring them is the way to do it at all.

In the case of Jim Keegstra teaching holocaust denial in schools, yes that had to be stopped because its not appropriate in a school. If he wanted to preach that crap outside school it would be a different story.

With Ernst Zundel, he disseminated hate messages on the telephone through his answering machine, and on the inter-net which made it federal jurisdiction.

The feds stepped in reluctantly because it was shown he was also involved inciting physical attacks against persons, vandalizing property and engaging in criminal activities and the encouraging of criminal activities and technically he was not a citizen of Canada and so was violating Immigration laws.

The on-going legal case against the aboriginal chief in Saskatchewan in my opinion as a lawyer was deliberately anti-semitic but he did not encourage people to commit a crime, he just stated ignorance and hatred. The best way to deal with that is to openly challenge him and call him out on it. Its not a criminal matter.

It would be a criminal matter if he had said at the end of his speech go out and beat up Jews. Its a fine line. Some people believe his words automatically can be inferred to say that.

The problem is, what if in another case we are wrong with the inference? if we can use presumed inferences to prove a crime, that becomes subjective and for a law to work it can not be subjective it must remain objective and not based on emotional reaction but logical reasoning.

My attitude is if you can't handle a political cartoon don't read it and openly debate it. When Levant produced these cartoons it was in a clear context of challenging freedom of speech and the human rights tribunals and was not done to encourage hatred.

If some idiot newspaper wants to produce anti-semite cartoons, and many have over Israel, then I have the choice to debate them openly and write editorials to the paper and hell go out on the street with a placard and have a tantrum and ask people to not buy the paper. That is how freedom works.

This isn't even about Muslims and their religion as far as I am concerned. That cartoon could have been about any one. The principles remain the same regardless. My comments are made in general and not specifically to the poster I am responding to-I am just talking rhetorically. I respect the poster's opinion.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Rue

Rue · March 24, 2008

I think the best way to deal with freedom of expression disputes is openly outside government involvement when possible.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Rue

eyeball · March 24, 2008

QUOTE(eyeball @ Mar 23 2008, 02:11 PM)
No we shouldn't. If we do it won't be long until someone starts asking if we should abolish human rights too.

We have no need for Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals.
We can as easily provide a section of the regular courts, similar to a small claims court to assist those with a legitimate grievance under the CHRA.

CHRA Section 13 has to go. It is very bad law, improperly written using undefined terms and allowing conjecture.

The same courts that are to be shackled with things like mandatory sentencing and elected judges? No thanks.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. A beef about one section of the CHRA is prompting calls for scrapping the Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals that protect and promote human rights. Mark my words, get rid of these and just as soon as somebody has a beef with someone's human rights, they'll suggest we have no need for someone's human rights.

We need more commissions not less. That said we need more human rights too - as far as I'm concerned we're only just scratching the surface.

Wilber · March 24, 2008

We need more commissions not less. That said we need more human rights too - as far as I'm concerned we're only just scratching the surface.

We definitely need a commission to look into the conduct of Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals. Form enough politically appointed commissions with the power to impose penalties and we will no longer need courts. I'm at a loss to see how this results in more human rights.

August1991 · March 25, 2008

This is an example of what I'm talking about. A beef about one section of the CHRA is prompting calls for scrapping the Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals that protect and promote human rights. Mark my words, get rid of these and just as soon as somebody has a beef with someone's human rights, they'll suggest we have no need for someone's human rights.
We need more commissions not less. That said we need more human rights too - as far as I'm concerned we're only just scratching the surface.

Once again, eyeball, I ask you: what do you mean exactly by "human rights"?

The Charter of Rights explicitly (and solely) protects you against the State. The Charter does not apply to the activities of individuals. It only restricts the activities of the federal and provincial governments. (Before the Charter, Canada had a large body of common law that formed an equivalent to the Charter.)

If this is what you mean by Human Rights, then I am all in favour. But we are not discussing here restrictions on what the State can or cannot do.

Canada's Human Rights Commissions supposedly adjudicate the private dealings between individual Canadians. For example, should you have the right to refuse to marry someone outside of your religion or not? Or, on what basis should you have the right to refuse to rent a basement apartment in your house to someone?

IOW, we are not discussing State discrimination (i.e. the government imposing a higher tax on men than on women, or refusing to grant a marriage license to two men but not a mixed couple). We are discussing private discrimination between individuals. Should you have the right to discriminate in your private choices? Is that not a "human right"?

capricorn · March 25, 2008

Canada's Human Rights Commissions supposedly adjudicate the private dealings between individual Canadians. For example, should you have the right to refuse to marry someone outside of your religion or not? Or, on what basis should you have the right to refuse to rent a basement apartment in your house to someone?

Exactly. The simple fact is that human rights commissions have lost their way and have been allowed to stray into areas they were not initially intended to delve into. They have overstepped their jurisdiction and have to be stopped in their tracks.

eyeball · March 25, 2008

Once again, eyeball, I ask you: what do you mean exactly by "human rights"?
The Charter of Rights explicitly (and solely) protects you against the State.

The Charter does not apply to the activities of individuals. It only restricts the activities of the federal and provincial governments. (Before the Charter, Canada had a large body of common law that formed an equivalent to the Charter.)

If this is what you mean by Human Rights, then I am all in favour. But we are not discussing here restrictions on what the State can or cannot do.

There seems to be lots of people who want to get rid of the Charter too. What's left to protect me from the state if they ever manage to get the upper hand, politicians? Forget it.

Canada's Human Rights Commissions supposedly adjudicate the private dealings between individual Canadians. For example, should you have the right to refuse to marry someone outside of your religion or not? Or, on what basis should you have the right to refuse to rent a basement apartment in your house to someone?
IOW, we are not discussing State discrimination (i.e. the government imposing a higher tax on men than on women, or refusing to grant a marriage license to two men but not a mixed couple). We are discussing private discrimination between individuals. Should you have the right to discriminate in your private choices? Is that not a "human right"?

The issue seems to be a backlog due to a high number of frivolous cases and CHRC employees allegedly overstepping their authority, can't these be fixed without throwing the CHRC out? I think our country is becoming increasingly right-wing, corporatist and authoritarian and I want as many layers of protection from these as possible. I regard these commissions as being like the collection of diverse malware programs I use to protect my computer. You need more than one kind and sometimes a few of the same kind to ensure you keep all the bugs out.

By the way, what's to protect a human from a corporation in the absence of a HRC? The nanny-state? I don't think so.

Edited March 25, 2008 by eyeball

maldon_road · March 25, 2008

Exactly. The simple fact is that human rights commissions have lost their way and have been allowed to stray into areas they were not initially intended to delve into. They have overstepped their jurisdiction and have to be stopped in their tracks.

Most of that is because we have had foolhardy amendments to human rights law ( eg, Section 13 of the CHRA), appointees who are advocates rather than impartial administrators and governments not prepared to correct the excesses. The La Forest Report of 2000 would have corrected some of the problems in the CHRA but the government of the day did not act on its recommendations.

As somebody who has worked with the CHRC for a long time I want to see reform, not useful law scrapped.

fellowtraveller · March 25, 2008

It's beside the pojnt raised by the OP but I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for Levant. Muslims find this sort of thing objectionable and they have a right to prosecute their case just as Levant (a Jew) would have a right to prosecute a case against somebody who might deny the Holocaust.
Levant is a publisher. He must have known what he was getting into.

You do not understand the process then......

'Objectionable' does not equate to actionable(or should not in a democracy), and doubly so when "Muslims" do not have to prosecute anything themselves or face any jeopardy whatsoever for bringing the most frivolous actions against anybody they decide has offended their delicate sensibilities. They do not have to pay a cent to accuse, to bring a serious and expensive complaint, and are represented - for free- at every stage by the HRC itself. The defendant is obliged to defend himself at his own expense, and is often unable to confront his accusers. Sickening.

And you endorse this?

jbg · March 25, 2008

You do not understand the process then......
'Objectionable' does not equate to actionable(or should not in a democracy), and doubly so when "Muslims" do not have to prosecute anything themselves or face any jeopardy whatsoever for bringing the most frivolous actions against anybody they decide has offended their delicate sensibilities. They do not have to pay a cent to accuse, to bring a serious and expensive complaint, and are represented - for free- at every stage by the HRC itself. The defendant is obliged to defend himself at his own expense, and is often unable to confront his accusers. Sickening.

And you endorse this?

I think any deviation from the adversarial process created by English common-law and in use in every first-world English-speaking country is alarming. Indeed, one of the things that distinguishes the First World from the Third World is the rule of law and predictability of adjudications.

Sean Hayward · March 25, 2008

The great irony here is that the so-called Human Rights Commissions, dedicated to the cause of human rights, are, unintentionally, one of the most restrictive and abusive forces on human rights in this country.

August1991 · April 12, 2008

Wow.

Readers had good reason to be repelled by The Future Belongs to Islam, a Mark Steyn book excerpt published by Maclean's magazine in 2006. Steyn described many Muslims as "hot for jihad," argued that their high birth rate ensures that in Europe a "successor population" already is in place, and announced "the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be." It was an Islamophobic polemic.
That said, Maclean's should not have been hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Commission by complainants who felt their human rights had been violated by the article's content.

As the commission ruled this week, it lacks jurisdiction. The carefully drafted Ontario Human Rights Code covers discrimination only with respect to such things as housing, employment and the provision of goods and services. It doesn't cover the media. Nor should it.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, however, does prohibit exposing people to hatred or contempt on the Internet. And the B.C. code bans hateful statements and publications. Complaints against Maclean's have also been filed under those codes, so this case isn't over yet.

And while the Ontario commission rightly ruled itself out of the specific issue of the Maclean's article, it did not stop there. The commission served notice it intends to foster a "constructive debate" on "Islamophobia in the media" and how it can be addressed.

That has an ominous ring. Canada's Criminal Code already prohibits publicly inciting hatred through the media or other means. The libel laws also provide an outlet. And readers of newspapers such as the Star can complain to the Ontario Press Council. Surely that is protection enough in a society that cherishes freedom of the press.

Human rights commissions, federal and provincial, should stick to policing hateful acts, not words.

The Toronto Star

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, an intellectual with the right mixed name, copied Americans and started this so-called Human Rights system in Canada. For the (English Canada) Toronto Star to question French Canada's Pierre Trudeau, there is a change a foot. What is it?

Edited April 12, 2008 by August1991

August1991 · April 12, 2008

There seems to be lots of people who want to get rid of the Charter too. What's left to protect me from the state if they ever nage to get the upper hand, politicians? Forget it.

The Charter supposedly protects us (individuals) against the State. In fact, under common law, an individual was probably better protected against governments before Trudeau's Charter.

Canada's Human Rights legislation (American-inspired, contrary to Canadian history) touch private relations between Canadians. The State is now involved in our personal choices.

----

In 1919, America changed its Constitution and adopted Prohibition. English Canadians, ever practical, imitated the Americans. French Canadians, wise about such matters, didn't.

Political Correctness is like Prohibition, and it will have the same end.

jbg · April 13, 2008

In 1919, America changed its Constitution and adopted Prohibition. English Canadians, ever practical, imitated the Americans. French Canadians, wise about such matters, didn't.
Political Correctness is like Prohibition, and it will have the same end.

Your lips to G-d's ears. And that is the only part of the Constitution ever directly repealed.

eyeball · April 13, 2008

The Charter supposedly protects us (individuals) against the State. In fact, under common law, an individual was probably better protected against governments before Trudeau's Charter.
Canada's Human Rights legislation (American-inspired, contrary to Canadian history) touch private relations between Canadians. The State is now involved in our personal choices.

----

In 1919, America changed its Constitution and adopted Prohibition. English Canadians, ever practical, imitated the Americans. French Canadians, wise about such matters, didn't.

Political Correctness is like Prohibition, and it will have the same end.

You've lost me. How is political correctness the same as Prohibition and where did you ever get the idea that Prohibition has ended here or in the US?

August1991 · April 14, 2008

You've lost me. How is political correctness the same as Prohibition and where did you ever get the idea that Prohibition has ended here or in the US?

The people promoting political correctness bear a striking resemblance to the women's Christian temperance movement of the last century. They share a similar smug puritanism, tend to be humourless and have a similar motivation to make other people "better" human beings. It's a pertinent sidepoint that the term "political correctness" has no easy translation into French or other languages.

As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality.

We have another thread on the issue of political correctness and I'm sorry for hijacking this thread about the HRC.

jdobbin · April 14, 2008

As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality.

You can't? When is the Harper government going to stop criminalizing prostitution? Are they are about to allow cigarette advertising?

I think the answer is that governments can and do legislate morality.

If you think they shouldn't, you are probably libertarian rather than Conservative.

jbg · April 14, 2008

You can't? When is the Harper government going to stop criminalizing prostitution? Are they are about to allow cigarette advertising?
I think the answer is that governments can and do legislate morality.

If you think they shouldn't, you are probably libertarian rather than Conservative.

Is everything you post about Harper?

eyeball · April 14, 2008

The people promoting political correctness bear a striking resemblance to the women's Christian temperance movement of the last century. They share a similar smug puritanism, tend to be humourless and have a similar motivation to make other people "better" human beings. It's a pertinent sidepoint that the term "political correctness" has no easy translation into French or other languages.
As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality.

We have another thread on the issue of political correctness and I'm sorry for hijacking this thread about the HRC.

Don't be sorry, I think pointing out the interconnectedness of things is a good thing and the issues people have with cross-posting get a little anal sometimes.

Is it safe to assume you think political correctness, the Prohibition (of alcohol) and the legislation of morality are strictly socialist impulses? Do you think the prohibition of pot is a social engineering project or a moral engineering project? What would the difference be?

How do these sorts of questions relate to human rights? If there is one thing above all others that humans should have a right to its consistency in the principles and political ideologies that governments use to govern them.

Edited April 14, 2008 by eyeball

jbg · April 15, 2008

Don't be sorry, I think pointing out the interconnectedness of things is a good thing and the issues people have with cross-posting get a little anal sometimes.

At last, we see eye(ball) to eye on something. Talk to your fellow syncophant who tried to get banned over that.