Should we abolish Canada's Human Rights Commissions?

[ToadBrother]

Apart from any endemic problems within such tribunals themselves, what I don't like is how they essentially violate the separation of powers, in this case judicial independence. Essentially these tribunals are legislatively-created pseudo-courts. Their powers, even the people who sit on the tribunals are entirely the creation of Parliament or the Provincial legislatures.

If we feel the need for human rights courts, then let's bloody well make human rights courts, with judges, proper standards of evidence, proper routes of appeal, and most importantly judicial independence.

Edited September 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

[jbg]

The Human Right Commission system isn't the problem, it's the extremely broad and powerful laws that it's armed with.

If we feel the need for human rights courts, then let's bloody well make human rights courts, with judges, proper standards of evidence, proper routes of appeal, and most importantly judicial independence.

The problem to me is that these are essentially tribunals that adjudicate people's alleged "right" not to have their feelings hurt. There is nothing objective about such a standard.

Indeed, that is the problem with any offense which is vague and amorphuous. The actor cannot know if he is violating any law or where the "line" is. That is why I defend even Anehenkaw's right to spout hateful nonesense about Jews.

[August1991]

Nobody thinks they would be investigated, and few *are* really. I think they are a good idea for mediating small disagreements but that they overstep their bounds sometimes.

The best way to "mediate small disagreements" is to cross the street and go elsewhere.

Choice is the best protection against idiocy. (I would go further. IMHO, a better definition of wealth is not how much money you have but how many choices you have. Who has more choices in life? Paris Hilton or Bill Gates?)

Of course, when it comes to government laws, you can't cross the street unless you leave the country and change citizenship. I think that Human Rights Commissions should only apply to government institutions - but then, that's why we have a Charter of Rights and a Supreme Court.

[Michael Hardner]

The best way to "mediate small disagreements" is to cross the street and go elsewhere.

Doing nothing, hoping that the problem goes away... that's the attitude that Democrats took in the deep south to segregation.

Of course, when it comes to government laws, you can't cross the street unless you leave the country and change citizenship. I think that Human Rights Commissions should only apply to government institutions - but then, that's why we have a Charter of Rights and a Supreme Court.

I disagree. Sometimes you have to lead the way.

[g_bambino]

Doing nothing, hoping that the problem goes away... that's the attitude that Democrats took in the deep south to segregation.

Are you insinuating that segregation was a small problem?

[August1991]

Doing nothing, hoping that the problem goes away... that's the attitude that Democrats took in the deep south to segregation.

Segregation in the US South was State-enforced. That is, private individuals or businesses did not enforce segregation; federal, state and local governments did.

For heaven's sakes Michael, what was the US Civil War all about?

----

To address properly your post, I would have to say the State is a seductive tool to effect change. The power of the State can do good, but also evil. Its power can appear to make changes, when in fact the genuflections are false.

The best way to help people is to give them more choices. And in general, the State can't do that.

[Michael Hardner]

Segregation in the US South was State-enforced. That is, private individuals or businesses did not enforce segregation; federal, state and local governments did.

For heaven's sakes Michael, what was the US Civil War all about?

It was something far more insidious - it was an ingrained cultural practice.

----

To address properly your post, I would have to say the State is a seductive tool to effect change. The power of the State can do good, but also evil. Its power can appear to make changes, when in fact the genuflections are false.

The best way to help people is to give them more choices. And in general, the State can't do that.

The US Federal Government appeared to do just that in 1965.

[ToadBrother]

Segregation in the US South was State-enforced. That is, private individuals or businesses did not enforce segregation; federal, state and local governments did.

For heaven's sakes Michael, what was the US Civil War all about?

It was supported at all levels. And the Civil War, well, sadly, Lincoln took a bullet and that inept dishonest bastard Johnson let Reconstruction fall apart, and it took Eisenhower sending in the National Guard to force desegregation in the heart of the South to finally start seeing the promise of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment even begin to be fulfilled, nearly a century after they were promulgated.

----

To address properly your post, I would have to say the State is a seductive tool to effect change. The power of the State can do good, but also evil. Its power can appear to make changes, when in fact the genuflections are false.

It's difficult to imagine how desegregation would have happened without the courts and legislation.

The best way to help people is to give them more choices. And in general, the State can't do that.

It sure gave African-Americans more choices, or to be more blunt, any choice at all.

[ToadBrother]

The problem to me is that these are essentially tribunals that adjudicate people's alleged "right" not to have their feelings hurt. There is nothing objective about such a standard.

Indeed, that is the problem with any offense which is vague and amorphuous. The actor cannot know if he is violating any law or where the "line" is. That is why I defend even Anehenkaw's right to spout hateful nonesense about Jews.

That's part of the problem, or more to the point, the rather selective way in which these tribunals go after people, and then drop the really high profile ones. The tribunals seem awfully terrified of the thought of actually having to defend themselves in the courts.

But if that's what Canada wants, then it should be done properly, and not with this mishmash of pseudo-court rules. It should be in a proper court.

[jbg]

But if that's what Canada wants, then it should be done properly, and not with this mishmash of pseudo-court rules. It should be in a proper court.

I don't think Canada should have a "speech court" at all.

[ToadBrother]

I don't think Canada should have a "speech court" at all.

Oh, I agree completely. I think bigots should be allowed to spew forth their hatred to the sky, and as long as the rest of us can, in our turn, cast our dispersions on them, then we have a healthy society. For some reason I cannot fathom, some people seem to think hatred will go away if it isn't heard in the commons. Of course, these are the same kind of people who think it's a legitimate use of state power to keep "Fox North" from broadcasting within our borders.

Some people are absolutely terrified of truly free speech, or any challenge to what they view as the orthodoxy.

What I'm saying is if Canadians decide they don't want free speech, then they should bloody well have the balls to make the courts the arbiters, and not faux courts, so they can excuse bad decisions. Let real judges mete out the punishments for unorthodox speech and we'll so how long society tolerates this sort of meddling cowardly nonsense.

Edited September 15, 2010 by ToadBrother

[refreshrefillrepeat1]

No- absolutely not

[August1991]

Bump.

I would have to say the State is a seductive tool to effect change. The power of the State can do good, but also evil. Its power can appear to make changes, when in fact the genuflections are false.

The best way to help people is to give them more choices. And in general, the State can't do that.

And vote.

Edited September 16, 2011 by August1991

[Oleg Bach]

Abolish the courts and re-new them - then we won't need some stupid Human Rights Commision..Justice will be done at a lower level and we can fire the blood sucking idealogs at the HRC.

[August1991]

Well, this is news:

“Our government believes Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combating hate propaganda. We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told the House of Commons during question period.

“I say to the opposition: get onside with the media, MacLean's magazine, National Post, and even the Toronto Star says this section should go.”

Toronto Sun

[Kiraly]

Well, this is news: Toronto Sun

Great news...

...and about time.

[Argus]

Well, this is news: Toronto Sun

It's a start. If they had any balls they'd simply do away with the HRCs entirely.

[Michael Hardner]

The thing is that HRCs were meant to address a void.

The store that refuses to serve gays, Christians, Muslims or whatever... do we want them charged with a crime ? If not, how to address these things ? I know many will say we should just let them continue engaging in prejudice but... what then ?

We will still have laws against hate speech if we don't have HRCs and it seems to me that charging them with crimes wouldn't be satisfying to the Levants of the world either.

[bush_cheney2004]

The thing is that HRCs were meant to address a void.

So were internment camps...but it was always a bad idea. I think it is a great step forward to understanding what "free speech" really means. Canada is growing up!

[August1991]

The thing is that HRCs were meant to address a void.

The store that refuses to serve gays, Christians, Muslims or whatever... do we want them charged with a crime ? If not, how to address these things ? I know many will say we should just let them continue engaging in prejudice but... what then ?

The quick and easy answer is that the government can't teach people good manners, and it shouldn't try.

----

If I don't want to have a male hairdresser, I am free to discriminate and choose a woman. If I want to promote black people in business, I am free to discriminate and hire a black accountant.

IOW, we can be (and we are) blatantly racist, sexist and discriminatory in our private choices. I know women who would never go to a male gynecologist and I know gays who would never shop in a store with a Christian crucifix on display.

Our human rights commissions are an offshoot of US civil rights legislation which originated in Kennedy's administration. The US federal government meant to get involved in the private choices of Americans. But it did this in a haphazard way since every private transaction involves two private citizens. The US civil rights laws typically applied to only one person, not both.

To choose a politically correct example, under US civil rights legislation, a black landlord cannot refuse to rent an apartment to a white couple but a tenant is free to refuse to live in a building owned by a black landlord.

[in fairness, US civil rights law also forced local state governments to cease discriminating too.]

Compare this with the US Bill of Rights, part of the US Constitution. The US Bill of Rights prevents the US federal government discriminating along certain lines. As now interpreted for example, the federal government cannot impose higher taxes on black people than on white people. This makes eminent sense. The State is a monopoly.

In the case of private transactions, we are millions/billions and we can choose. If you face a racist landlord, then walk down the street and find another landlord.

"Higher taxes on black people?" WTF? The US Bill of Rights did not prevent slavery. In fact, it was the US government that enforced such discrimination. IOW, it is the monopoly power of the State that must be circumscribed. In private transactions, our best defence against stupidity is the freedom to walk down the street and find someone else to deal with. Where could a black woman in 1850 North/South Carolina go? (For the record, I've been to North/South Carolina and I looked at the situation, and thought about it. If the local government actively discriminates, and the federal government doesn't stop it, then the only solution is to depend on private people to help you go to a place where government is not discriminatory.)

Indeed, this leads to an insightful (wise) conclusion. The State cannot stop private discrimination, and it shouldn't try. Rather, the State should ensure that it is not actively discriminating itself.

(Think of the CBC.)

-----

IMHO, the State has little or no business in controlling what individuals say to one another. In general, it should not be a criminal offense to offend someone else with words.

Landlords and tenants?

We all discriminate brazenly along racial, religious, linguistic or political lines in arguably the most important choice of our lives: our private choice of marriage partner, or sexual partner. The State has no business telling us who we should marry, or who we should sleep with. As one PM famously said, the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Michael, would you have Canada's human rights commissions extend their mandate to your choice of spouse? Or your choice of motel, no-tell sleeping partner?

If you happen to prefer blue-eyed people in bed, is that discrimination? Should a brown-eyed person have the right to seek compensation for your arbitrary preference?

Edited November 20, 2011 by August1991

[Shwa]

The quick and easy answer is that the government can't teach people good manners, and it shouldn't try.

Name me one government, in all of history, that has never paid attention to people's "manners." Just one August. Or does the concept of social animal complete elude you?

----

If I don't want to have a male hairdresser, I am free to discriminate and choose a woman. If I want to promote black people in business, I am free to discriminate and hire a black accountant.

IOW, we can be (and we are) blatantly racist, sexist and discriminatory in our private choices. I know women who would never go to a male gynecologist and I know gays who would never shop in a store with a Christian crucifix on display.

Human rights legislation pertains to public displays of discrimination, so your examples are irrelevant.

Our human rights commissions are an offshoot of US civil rights legislation which originated in Kennedy's administration. The US federal government meant to get involved in the private choices of Americans. But it did this in a haphazard way since every private transaction involves two private citizens. The US civil rights laws typically applied to only one person, not both.

To choose a politically correct example, under US civil rights legislation, a black landlord cannot refuse to rent an apartment to a white couple but a tenant is free to refuse to live in a building owned by a black landlord.

[in fairness, US civil rights law also forced local state governments to cease discriminating too.]

Compare this with the US Bill of Rights, part of the US Constitution. The US Bill of Rights prevents the US federal government discriminating along certain lines. As now interpreted for example, the federal government cannot impose higher taxes on black people than on white people. This makes eminent sense. The State is a monopoly.

In the case of private transactions, we are millions/billions and we can choose. If you face a racist landlord, then walk down the street and find another landlord.

"Higher taxes on black people?" WTF? The US Bill of Rights did not prevent slavery. In fact, it was the US government that enforced such discrimination. IOW, it is the monopoly power of the State that must be circumscribed. In private transactions, our best defence against stupidity is the freedom to walk down the street and find someone else to deal with. Where could a black woman in 1850 North/South Carolina go? (For the record, I've been to North/South Carolina and I looked at the situation, and thought about it. If the local government actively discriminates, and the federal government doesn't stop it, then the only solution is to depend on private people to help you go to a place where government is not discriminatory.)

Your analogy isn't applicable.

Indeed, this leads to an insightful (wise) conclusion. The State cannot stop private discrimination, and it shouldn't try. Rather, the State should ensure that it is not actively discriminating itself.

Now you get it. In fact, the state doesn't "stop private discrimination" and I am not sure why you think it has ever tried.

Think of the CBC.

OK, so cite some example cases where the CBC - a public broadcaster - has been taken to task by a HRC. This will show you one of two things depending on if you can find cites or not: a) if you can't, then you are simply getting a boner over the CBC. Again. Or that the HRC is working as it ought.

-----

the State has little or no business in controlling what individuals say to one another.

So conspiracy to commit murder is OK so long as it is only between "individuals?"

In general, it should not be a criminal offense to offend someone else with words.

In general, yes, but in specific instances where such offense has been proven to cause hatred to an identifiable group or to cause immanent danger to individuals and groups, that's not OK right?

Landlords and tenants?

We all discriminate brazenly along racial, religious, linguistic or political lines in arguably the most important choice of our lives: our private choice of marriage partner, or sexual partner. The State has no business telling us who we should marry, or who we should sleep with. As one PM famously said, the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Irrelelvant.

Michael, would you have Canada's human rights commissions extend their mandate to your choice of spouse? Or your choice of motel, no-tell sleeping partner?

Red herring.

If you happen to prefer blue-eyed people in bed, is that discrimination? Should a brown-eyed person have the right to seek compensation for your arbitrary preference?

Absurdity, since this is mere carry-over from your red-herring above.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Shwa

[Argus]

The thing is that HRCs were meant to address a void.

The store that refuses to serve gays, Christians, Muslims or whatever... do we want them charged with a crime ? If not, how to address these things ? I know many will say we should just let them continue engaging in prejudice but... what then ?

The HRCs are blatantly unfair in their application, run by often-biased people with little understanding of law. Merely taking someone to the HRC is usually more punishment than their actions deserved, for the cost and stress involved mean that everyone is guilty, whether they are or aren't. The addition of punitive fines into the tens of thousands of dollars - without any substantively fair trial is another noxious problem. No better example exists than this... Court overrules human rights tribunal

[Michael Hardner]

The HRCs are blatantly unfair in their application, run by often-biased people with little understanding of law. Merely taking someone to the HRC is usually more punishment than their actions deserved, for the cost and stress involved mean that everyone is guilty, whether they are or aren't.

Yes, we know about these cases and I have changed my mind because of them - going against HRCs... but what of the cases where the HRCs helped broker a solution without involving criminal courts ?

Will Levant be happier when he gets arrested for publishing something that a Crown Attourney decides is "hate" ?

[Argus]

Yes, we know about these cases and I have changed my mind because of them - going against HRCs... but what of the cases where the HRCs helped broker a solution without involving criminal courts ?

Will Levant be happier when he gets arrested for publishing something that a Crown Attourney decides is "hate" ?

Levant's happiness is not really my concern. If the HRCs broker things honestly I'm okay with it. I'm even okay with them giving orders, under certain circumstances. What I'm not okay with is the clear bias and lack of legal knowledge, and the clear lack of even-handedness in intervening in disputes between two individuals. Put that together with abilities to award punitive damages in the tens of thousands of dollars and I see an appalling opportunity for injustices, large and small. The good they might do, as presently constituted, seems outweighed by the danger they present to fundamental justice.

Remember that we only see the really big, outrageous cases where someone goes to the media, and where the courts intervene. How many people don't have ten grand to hire a lawyer and appeal the idiotic decisions made by some of these goofballs at HRCs? Small injustices which don't merit big headlines are still injustices. If someone is punished with a two hundred dollar fine and ordered to apologize - for doing nothing wrong, it isn't likely to make the media. But it's still an arm of our government committing gross injustice.

[August1991]

Amazing. But I'll really believe this when I see the CBC report the news.

On Wednesday, the federal Conservatives voted to repeal it on a largely party-line vote — by a margin of 153 to 136 — through a private member’s bill introduced by Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth. Following royal assent, and a one-year phase-in period, Section 13 will be history.

Jonathan Kay