Should we abolish Canada's Human Rights Commissions?

Canadian Blue · April 15, 2008

I'd argue in favour of getting rid of the HRC. Even though I find the opinions of some hate mongers [aryan nations, KKK, nation of islam, etc] to be sickening, I have no right to restrict their speech. The best that can be done is to confront such people with their bullshit, like we usually do with any creationist or conspiracy theorist.

Zachary Young · April 20, 2008

Abolish it. The censorship of controversial opinions is not something we should allow in a free society.

jbg · April 20, 2008

Abolish it. The censorship of controversial opinions is not something we should allow in a free society.

Or let them focus only on their charge, real discrimination. I have no problem with workers going undercover to landlords or employers and filming them refusing to rent to or hire minorities just because of their status.

fellowtraveller · April 20, 2008

Or let them focus only on their charge, real discrimination. I have no problem with workers going undercover to landlords or employers and filming them refusing to rent to or hire minorities just because of their status.

I have a problem with that, given their demonstrated and fiercely defended methods and procedures, they should be abolished. The rule of law must be absolute and every accused must have due process, a critical element lacking in HRC processes. And if it is applied as it should, there is no reason for the HRC to exist as it would be part and parcel of the criminal law system, which is where it all belongs in any event.

Zachary Young · April 20, 2008

Or let them focus only on their charge, real discrimination. I have no problem with workers going undercover to landlords or employers and filming them refusing to rent to or hire minorities just because of their status.

I disagree, I feel there should be no law against discrimination. The government has no business telling people how they can use their property, so long as that property is not used in a violent manner against another. If a business does not want to hire someone, for any reason, that is there business - the claim otherwise contains within it the assumption that the business is actually the property of the government, a claim which I find abhorrent. Property rights (including self ownership) are absolute - indeed they are the only right, and from which all other rights are derived.

jdobbin · April 20, 2008

I disagree, I feel there should be no law against discrimination. The government has no business telling people how they can use their property, so long as that property is not used in a violent manner against another. If a business does not want to hire someone, for any reason, that is there business - the claim otherwise contains within it the assumption that the business is actually the property of the government, a claim which I find abhorrent. Property rights (including self ownership) are absolute - indeed they are the only right, and from which all other rights are derived.

Sounds good. I am going to sell meth inside schools. It is my property and it isn't violent.

Edited April 20, 2008 by jdobbin

Zachary Young · April 20, 2008

Sounds good. I am going to sell meth inside schools. It is my property and it isn't violent.

Sure, that's fine by me once you get permission from the property owner of the school.

Remiel · May 18, 2008

Property rights (including self ownership) are absolute - indeed they are the only right, and from which all other rights are derived.

You are going to have to explain to me how my right to be free is derived from my " right " to property. Or my right to be recognized as a person before the law. Or my right to protected from arbitrary attacks upon my honour or reputation. Or my right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries. Or my right to have a family. Or my right to freedom of association. Or my right to work. Or my right to join a trade union. Or my right to a reasonable limitation of working hours. Or my right to choose the education of my children. Or any number of other things that cannot be reasonable derived from a definition of a " right " to property without a hefty amount of equivocation.

CANADIEN · May 18, 2008

I disagree, I feel there should be no law against discrimination. The government has no business telling people how they can use their property, so long as that property is not used in a violent manner against another. If a business does not want to hire someone, for any reason, that is there business - the claim otherwise contains within it the assumption that the business is actually the property of the government, a claim which I find abhorrent. Property rights (including self ownership) are absolute - indeed they are the only right, and from which all other rights are derived.

Is the right to vote derivated from ownership rights, ZY? How about freedom of expression, is it too? And what then of those who have no property - are they to be deprived of due process, freedom from persecution, and all the other basic rights?

The preamble of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is clear that human dignity, not ownership, is the foundation of all himan rights. It places the right to life, liberty and security as the basis for all other rights, including ownership rights.

Discrimination, that is refusal or employment or services for reasons that have nothing with the job or service is a violation of a person's dignity. In a democratic society, the government is not only justified to prevent it to happen, but it is its responsibility.

Edited May 18, 2008 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · May 18, 2008

Our Human Rights Commissions have lost track of what their task should be. They should be concerned about attack on the dignity, life, liberty and security of members of society.

That is:

- discriminatory practices in employment and the provision of services

- speech that promotes violence against identifiable groups

Bryan · May 18, 2008

Our Human Rights Commissions have lost track of what their task should be. They should be concerned about attack on the dignity, life, liberty and security of members of society.
That is:

- discriminatory practices in employment and the provision of services

- speech that promotes violence against identifiable groups

Even those are unacceptable.

Employers are always discriminatory when they hire, that's why there are interviews. If the owner of a company doesn't like me because of the color of my eyes, my skin, my religion (etc), tough poopy for me, go find a different job. No commission should have the right to tell an employer who he must hire.

"Promoting" violence is far too vague. If actual violence ensues as a result of direct incitement, that's already covered under the criminal code. Again, no reason for the HRC to have any involvement (or to even exist).

bk59 · May 18, 2008

Employers are always discriminatory when they hire, that's why there are interviews. If the owner of a company doesn't like me because of the color of my eyes, my skin, my religion (etc), tough poopy for me, go find a different job. No commission should have the right to tell an employer who he must hire.

That is fine logic if you assume there is another job out there. This may not always be the case. In your world it would be fine for an entire profession (for example, doctors) to say that from here on out no one will hire any more women. In your world it would be perfectly fine for society to create a de facto class system where entire professions, and therefore things like economic status, could be based on skin colour, religion, etc.

I prefer a world where everyone is given reasonable equal opportunities. And if we have to take an active role and say that people should be hired based on their ability to do the job in question, rather than their skin or eye or hair colour, then so be it.

maldon_road · May 18, 2008

Even those are unacceptable.
Employers are always discriminatory when they hire, that's why there are interviews. If the owner of a company doesn't like me because of the color of my eyes, my skin, my religion (etc), tough poopy for me, go find a different job. No commission should have the right to tell an employer who he must hire.

I guess the extension of that is that businesses can choose their customers. If I go into a store for a pint of milk and the owner doesn't like the color of my eyes he can refuse to serve me.

I think people accept the need for laws prohibiting discrimination. The current debate is whether human rights commissions have pushed the law to the absurd, finding "discrimination" where in fact none exists.

CANADIEN · May 18, 2008

Even those are unacceptable.
Employers are always discriminatory when they hire, that's why there are interviews. If the owner of a company doesn't like me because of the color of my eyes, my skin, my religion (etc), tough poopy for me, go find a different job. No commission should have the right to tell an employer who he must hire.

"Promoting" violence is far too vague. If actual violence ensues as a result of direct incitement, that's already covered under the criminal code. Again, no reason for the HRC to have any involvement (or to even exist).

We are not talking about the "discrimination" that consists in choosing the most qualified person. We are talking about the discrimnation that consists in employment and service practices based on hatred and prejudice. The "go find another job" argument and its cousin "go by your milk elsewhere" is flawed for a fundamental reason - the newspaper ad that says "Chinese need not apply" and the store clerk who says "No N**ger in here" are unlikely to be the only ones doing so. In fact, it's likely to be the norm, and those who do not do it are likely to pay the price in their business, and sometime even their physical security. When everyone does it, even the State does it. And it can go to laws that IMPOSE discrimination, even legislation governing who can marry whom (and I am talking about skin colour here, not gay marriage, polygamy or underage).

Don't believe it? That's what they had in the US southern states before the 1960's. That's what we had here too, despite any claim we have that we were better.

This violates a fundamental right even more precious than a business owner's right to run their business the way they see fit - the right of every human being to respect for their dignity as human being. Those who violate that right are stealing other people's dignity. We rightly punish thieves, and these people are no different.

CANADIEN · May 18, 2008

"Incitement of hatred" is such a general term that it is impossible to define. That alone is sufficient reason why it should be stripped of the list of criminal offenses.

Inciting people to commit acts of violence is a different story. Our criminal code rightly define "counselling someone to commit an indictable offense" as a crime in itself, even if the crime that is counselled is not committed. Surely, if a drug dealer can be arrested, tried and sentenced for telling to his cohorts "we should kill XYZ" even if XYZ is not harmed, someone can be arrested, tried and sentenced for telling to a gathering "let'''s kill the Jews".

Argus · May 18, 2008

That is fine logic if you assume there is another job out there. This may not always be the case. In your world it would be fine for an entire profession (for example, doctors) to say that from here on out no one will hire any more women.

Actually, any number of public service areas have, more or less, stated they will not hire any white men, and no one seems to have a problem with that. Try getting hired on to the RCMP if you're a white Anglo male. Good luck!

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2008

Actually, any number of public service areas have, more or less, stated they will not hire any white men, and no one seems to have a problem with that. Try getting hired on to the RCMP if you're a white Anglo male. Good luck!

Are you saying that even the macho RCMP has succumed to being bossed about by hetro fag liberals that pressure real men into being girly men that hire people they do not really want? In other words has the bulk of the high ranking RCMP become so demasculated that it is a sin to have a will of your own..and if you wish to NOT hire a turban instead of a hat - you cower for the sake of preservation of a paycheque..What would happen if the head of the RCMP said. This has always been a white police force and we are not hiring any one that is not European or Anglo...what would they do..demand his resignation? And for what? Racism? That's not racism..the RCMP is entitled in a free society to maintain it's heritage and culture without having it tained into a non-culture..mulit-culturalism is utlitarianism and socialism..that is not what the RCMP is about..they are an elite royal guards and law enforcement. This is not the former British colony of India..this is Canada..the Crowns holdings.

CANADIEN · May 18, 2008

Actually, any number of public service areas have, more or less, stated they will not hire any white men, and no one seems to have a problem with that. Try getting hired on to the RCMP if you're a white Anglo male. Good luck!

Reversed discrimination is discrimination. The fact that it has a different motivation (a wrong sense of what diversity means as opposed to prejudice) does not change the fact.

There may be a narrow - and I mean very narrow - set of circumstances where hiring a person or refusing employment on the basis of a person's skin colour, ethnic origin etc. can be justified. It would up to the employer, though to justify it.

If the government thinks that there is justification for seeking police recruits from specific ethnic backgrounds, it should be able to provide it. BTW, I work three blocks from the Toronto main police station, and when I pass by it I don't get the impression there's a shortage of white policemen.

CANADIEN · May 18, 2008

Are you saying that even the macho RCMP has succumed to being bossed about by hetro fag liberals that pressure real men into being girly men that hire people they do not really want? In other words has the bulk of the high ranking RCMP become so demasculated that it is a sin to have a will of your own..and if you wish to NOT hire a turban instead of a hat - you cower for the sake of preservation of a paycheque..What would happen if the head of the RCMP said. This has always been a white police force and we are not hiring any one that is not European or Anglo...what would they do..demand his resignation? And for what? Racism? That's not racism..the RCMP is entitled in a free society to maintain it's heritage and culture without having it tained into a non-culture..mulit-culturalism is utlitarianism and socialism..that is not what the RCMP is about..they are an elite royal guards and law enforcement. This is not the former British colony of India..this is Canada..the Crowns holdings.

You said it... the role of the RCMP is to provide law enforcement. I would ask you to prove that wearing a turban of having a black skin has something to do with the capacity to do that job, but like most people on these threads I do not expect you to post anything but gibberish for the sake of posting gibberish.

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2008

You said it... the role of the RCMP is to provide law enforcement. I would ask you to prove that wearing a turban of having a black skin has something to do with the capacity to do that job, but like most people on these threads I do not expect you to post anything but gibberish for the sake of posting gibberish.

OK so you want value from me do you? As you may not realize - law enforcement is a position of power and privledge. Sure a person with black or brown skin etc. can do the job. That is not the point. The point in maintaing the status quo..or the loyality to the family in order to keep having a privledged position earned over a number of generations...inheritance is important..this is about keeping the wealth in power in the hads of the families that have paid their dues and earned their positions over time..when a new arrival comes wandering into Canada..and it took your family 200 years to build itself up..and some guy and I am sure he's nice..wants a position of authority instantly with all the perks...I say no - not yet..We are so stupid that we hand over our inheritance to those that are from inferiour nations..would they give you their familiar hard earned intergenerational wealth? I think not..but they are willing to take yours...I am loyal to my kids..end of story.

CANADIEN · May 18, 2008

OK so you want value from me do you? As you may not realize - law enforcement is a position of power and privledge. Sure a person with black or brown skin etc. can do the job. That is not the point. The point in maintaing the status quo..or the loyality to the family in order to keep having a privledged position earned over a number of generations...inheritance is important..this is about keeping the wealth in power in the hads of the families that have paid their dues and earned their positions over time..when a new arrival comes wandering into Canada..and it took your family 200 years to build itself up..and some guy and I am sure he's nice..wants a position of authority instantly with all the perks...I say no - not yet..We are so stupid that we hand over our inheritance to those that are from inferiour nations..would they give you their familiar hard earned intergenerational wealth? I think not..but they are willing to take yours...I am loyal to my kids..end of story.

As I said, gibberish for the sake of gibberish. End of story indeed.

jbg · May 18, 2008

Actually, any number of public service areas have, more or less, stated they will not hire any white men, and no one seems to have a problem with that. Try getting hired on to the RCMP if you're a white Anglo male. Good luck!

I think non-discrimination laws should apply to protect minorities and the majority.

Argus · May 18, 2008

If the government thinks that there is justification for seeking police recruits from specific ethnic backgrounds, it should be able to provide it. BTW, I work three blocks from the Toronto main police station, and when I pass by it I don't get the impression there's a shortage of white policemen.

There is no shortage of white policemen. Even when the job paid poorly there was never a shortage of men who were eager to do it. But the job has never been seen as that attractive by women (in general) or by members of other nation's cultures, ie, the cultures from which our visible minorities come from. In many of those cultures, in fact, being a cop is considered menial and low status. The police have had to work very hard to entice people from these backgrounds to apply, and have had to lower standards and bump women and minorities above those who fare better on testing - ie, all those eager, pale faced men who want the job.

But you will find the overwhelmingly white male police force declining, percentage wise, as their ages decrease. All the older cops are white males. Most of the middle aged ones too, but not so much among those who have been graduating from training these last some years. The RCMP have been scouring every nook and cranny and begging visible minorities to apply.

While brass deny it, for a time in the mid-1990s the RCMP had a "no white males" policy. Some recruiters admitted to applicants that the force had a five-year backlog of Caucasian men and wouldn't consider any more until it had reached its gender and racial hiring goals. Just to get an interview, white males needed a score of 115 on the police aptitude test, women needed a 96 and visible minority candidates an 86. National Post June 27, 2005

maldon_road · May 18, 2008

I think non-discrimination laws should apply to protect minorities and the majority.

It's pretty hard not to be cynical about "human rights" when you see ads for Public Service jobs with the tag, "This competition is only open to aboriginal peoples and people of color".

bk59 · May 18, 2008

Actually, any number of public service areas have, more or less, stated they will not hire any white men, and no one seems to have a problem with that.

Of course there would be a problem with that.

But you will find the overwhelmingly white male police force declining, percentage wise, as their ages decrease. All the older cops are white males. Most of the middle aged ones too, but not so much among those who have been graduating from training these last some years. The RCMP have been scouring every nook and cranny and begging visible minorities to apply.
While brass deny it, for a time in the mid-1990s the RCMP had a "no white males" policy. Some recruiters admitted to applicants that the force had a five-year backlog of Caucasian men and wouldn't consider any more until it had reached its gender and racial hiring goals. Just to get an interview, white males needed a score of 115 on the police aptitude test, women needed a 96 and visible minority candidates an 86. National Post June 27, 2005

But as your quoted text shows, it wasn't that they were not hiring white men. It was that they were trying to hire a more diverse workforce and they had more than enough white men applying for a limited number of positions. Now we can debate the mechanics of how one should go about hiring a diverse workforce, but the example you have given was not one of "no white men allowed". Personally, I do think there should be minimum standards for everyone applying. But I do not necessarily have a problem with trying to diversify the workforce by having temporary, slightly different standards. Over time, as the police force becomes more reflective of the population, it will become easier to recruit and the same standards can then be used.

Percentage wise, the Canadian population has become less white. I do not see a problem with wanting our national police force to reflect the Canadian population.