Should we abolish Canada's Human Rights Commissions?

[bk59]

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".

Perhaps that is true. But I am OK with the occasional ad open only to Aboriginal people or people of a visible minority if it means that we are no longer pursuing an unofficial (or official) policy of whites only. After all, the law isn't there to make everyone happy 100% of the time. It is there to try to give everyone equal opportunities. Sometimes that means putting out ads such as the one you mentioned.

[CANADIEN]

Of course there would be a problem with that.

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.

I usually have problems with policies targetting specific parts of the population for hiring. In the case of law enforcement, the courts, and the education system, it is important that citizens dealing with these institutions be able to see themselves reflected. I am not talking about quotas or discrimination, but it is in the public interest that these institution at the very least engage in campaigns encouraging more applications from minority groups.

[Remiel]

The entire problem can be summarized as a question of whether you want to live with some injustice in the present so that you do not preserve an injustice in the future. Job aspirations are systemic; people have a tendancy to what their parents do, or what their role models so. So, if you have only a few women and minorities applying to join the force you have to give them an easier time of it so that down the line their children and other folks who look up to them will be more likely to want to join, and when that happens then you can do it purely on an ability basis, as it should be.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Remiel

[Oleg Bach]

The entire problem can be summarized as a question of whether you want to live with some injustice in the present so that you do not preserve an injustice in the future. Job aspirations are systemic; people have a tendancy to what their parents do, or what their role models so. So, if you have only a few women and minorities applying to join the force you have to give them an easier time of it so that down the line their children and other folks who look up to them will be more likely to want to join, and when that happens then you can do it purely on an ability basis, as it should be.

Human rights commissions are usually professional apologists for the Supreme Court who are to chicken to do their jobs justly...If you fail at the supreme level they instantly re-cycle you down ward to the Human Rights Triunal...it's a joke..they have make works project that include jerks that insist on smoking "medical pot" in public...as if smelling up the public air space is a human right. I say get rid of them and concentrate on justice and not the status quo as it stands and selfish legalism.

[maldon_road]

Here is the CHRC's spin on Section 13.

Section 13

One quote:

This amendment was included as part of a package of anti-terrorism measures introduced on October 15, 2001 in response to the events of 9/11. A government release issued at the time noted the following:

...These necessary measures target people and activities that pose a threat to the security and well being of Canadians. This is a struggle against terrorism, and not against any one community, group or faith.

[Oleg Bach]

Here is the CHRC's spin on Section 13.

Section 13

One quote:

Problem with 911 hysteria and "terrorism" from so called "extremist Muslim" sources is that we lacked faith and are Chicken Littles running around creating an industry out of fear...IF America had not turn it's back on it's faith and true Christian doctrine none of this foolishness would have happened...Firstly a real Christian nation would have instantly proclaimed to the world that the culprits that attacked America are forgiven...Then they should have practiced a bit of old fashioned isolationism and took all their military power and sealed the boarders instantly...lastly they should have let it be know that if there is another attack..that a small pre-emptive nuclear strike would follow on Mecca itself. Instead off we went chasing ghosts in order to show how tough we were...and by the way were is that Saudi Arabian adventuring friend of America - Osama Bin Laden? You would think with all this time and resourse they would have him if they want him..apparently he is protected.

[bush_cheney2004]

Problem with 911 hysteria and "terrorism" from so called "extremist Muslim" sources is that we lacked faith and are Chicken Littles running around creating an industry out of fear...IF America had not turn it's back on it's faith and true Christian doctrine none of this foolishness would have happened...

It never has before....why should it have done so for 9/11?

Firstly a real Christian nation would have instantly proclaimed to the world that the culprits that attacked America are forgiven...Then they should have practiced a bit of old fashioned isolationism and took all their military power and sealed the boarders instantly..

Again...your initial Christian premise is quite mistaken.

.lastly they should have let it be know that if there is another attack..that a small pre-emptive nuclear strike would follow on Mecca itself. Instead off we went chasing ghosts in order to show how tough we were...and by the way were is that Saudi Arabian adventuring friend of America - Osama Bin Laden? You would think with all this time and resourse they would have him if they want him..apparently he is protected.

What's with all this "we" stuff?

[Remiel]

Then they should have practiced a bit of old fashioned isolationism and took all their military power and sealed the boarders instantly...lastly they should have let it be know that if there is another attack..that a small pre-emptive nuclear strike would follow on Mecca itself.

Somehow I doubt that there is anything that could make someone who wants to start a serious war more happy that the sudden realization that they can get the entire Muslim world to take up arms against the United States if only they can manufacture an Islamic terrorist attack on the United States.

In fact, I would bet that you could distinguish quite handily between those two are just angry and those who really want jihad by who would make that sacrifice to mobilize the population, if only they would speak their true feelings. Give them their Pearl Harbour, and then cower as the Gates of Hell open wide.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Remiel

[bk59]

Human rights commissions are usually professional apologists for the Supreme Court who are to chicken to do their jobs justly...If you fail at the supreme level they instantly re-cycle you down ward to the Human Rights Triunal...it's a joke..

A joke indeed. Maybe you need to look at how the system works before criticizing it. If you fail at the Supreme Court level there is nowhere else to go. The Human Rights Tribunals are BELOW even the provincial courts. They are not above the Supreme Court.

[Argus]

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.

Very limited.

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.

You don't think we should have minimum standards for people we give guns to?

But I do not necessarily have a problem with trying to diversify the workforce by having temporary, slightly different standards.

Slightly? I'm not sure you quite realize how high the standards normally are, and how many white males apply for them due to our culture (Hollywood constantly emphasizing how exciting and heroic cop life is). Some people spend years taking training, volunteering and practicing before they even try to get into the RCMP. You can expect the differences between the scores of the top candidates to be minimal. Setting the bar 21 points lower for visible minorities gives them a huge advantage.

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.

Why? You're saying the cultures are going to change? Little girls are no longer going to want to play with dolls, Jewish mothers aren't going to pressure their kids to be lawyers and doctors and Asian kids will abandon their computers for six-shooters? Somehow I don't think so.

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.

All things being equal neither do I. The problem is all things aren't equal, and people keep forgetting that 75% of visible minorities are still newcomers to Canada from third world countries.

[bk59]

Very limited.

Do you have numbers showing how many white, male recruits there were in the years you are talking about? I am curious to see. My gut feeling is that "very limited" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but you may be right.

You don't think we should have minimum standards for people we give guns to?

Read what I wrote again. Actually, I will copy & paste for you:

Personally, I do think there should be minimum standards for everyone applying.

Slightly? I'm not sure you quite realize how high the standards normally are, and how many white males apply for them due to our culture (Hollywood constantly emphasizing how exciting and heroic cop life is). Some people spend years taking training, volunteering and practicing before they even try to get into the RCMP. You can expect the differences between the scores of the top candidates to be minimal. Setting the bar 21 points lower for visible minorities gives them a huge advantage.

No doubt this is an advantage. But this is only one factor that you have chosen to focus on. Many aptitude tests have been found to have ethnic biases. Think IQ tests written by old, white men. Is this a factor? Maybe.

Some people do spend years training, volunteering and practicing. What about those who are not able to spend that time? Think of an individual from a visible minority who, because of their socio-economic background, does not have the time or financial resources to prepare to that level before taking the initial tests. This individual may be just as good, or better, after completing RCMP basic training than the white man who spent years volunteering before being accepted to that same basic training.

One of the rationales for setting aside spots for people of visible minorities is because in some cases, these people must work much harder to reach the same point in life as a white male (for example). When looking at an individual's complete experience, your 21 point difference in test scores may not accurately reflect the difference between the candidates. Even at a 21 point difference, someone who has had to work harder to get where they are might be a better candidate.

As a side note, wanting to be a police officer because of a Hollywood movie is hardly helping your point. In fact, I almost think that wanting to be a police officer because of a movie should count against you. Almost.

Why? You're saying the cultures are going to change? Little girls are no longer going to want to play with dolls, Jewish mothers aren't going to pressure their kids to be lawyers and doctors and Asian kids will abandon their computers for six-shooters? Somehow I don't think so.

Do you see how racist you sound? [sarcasm] Obviously the little girls are going to want to play with dolls. Just like all women will want to stay at home, cooking in the kitchen and making babies, right? Women don't really want to vote either. [/sarcasm]

As role models appear in the police force, this will encourage others to join.

All things being equal neither do I. The problem is all things aren't equal, and people keep forgetting that 75% of visible minorities are still newcomers to Canada from third world countries.

75% eh? That sounds a bit high. And even if true, completely irrelevant. Where you come from does not determine whether or not you are fit to be a police officer.

[Argus]

The entire problem can be summarized as a question of whether you want to live with some injustice in the present so that you do not preserve an injustice in the future.

Preserve an injustice? What injustice? Excluding aborigines, 95% of visible minorities old enough to be cops are new to Canada. It's not like their grandparents were slaving away on the cotton farms, you know. Prior to the seventies they were back in their homelands.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Argus

[CANADIEN]

Preserve an injustice? What injustice? Excluding aborigines, 95% of visible minorities old enough to be cops are new to Canada. It's not like their grandparents were slaving away on the cotton farms, you know. Prior to the seventies they were back in their homelands.

A person is either competent to hold a job, or he/she is not. Where they were born has nothing to do with it.

People not born as Canadian citizens should be expected to take citizenship before they become cops, as they are enforcing Canadian laws. Otherwise, where they were born is irrelevant.

Any person who thinks otherwise is welcome to try to demonstrate how it is relevant.

[Oleg Bach]

A person is either competent to hold a job, or he/she is not. Where they were born has nothing to do with it.

People not born as Canadian citizens should be expected to take citizenship before they become cops, as they are enforcing Canadian laws. Otherwise, where they were born is irrelevant.

Any person who thinks otherwise is welcome to try to demonstrate how it is relevant.

That's about it and truer words have never been spoken. People wonder why the judicary in Toronto are make such horrific rulings when dealing with social issues that have a crimminal bent. We all assume that these lawyers and judges must be smart and competent..of course they must they are highly educated. The reality is that some if not most at this point in Canadian Judical History...is that some if not most are in-competent and inept in their daily approach to law giving and enforcement. Yesterday I mentioned that the RCMP was primarily a white royalist institution of well paid privledge and social perks. THAT it should be reserved for those from families that have earned their stripes by the amount of time and contribution they have donated to the nation.

Point being..I really don't like immigrants in positions of power that they have achieved artifically and rapidly..There are immigrant tax goons that love persecuting white people..there are immigrant cops that slowly learn white white trash is and hold them in contempt and loathing..even though these white trashers are the sons and grandsons of the men that established the infrastructure of this nation brick by brick...Johnny come lately types who size up the Canadian public and dis-respect the decendants of the first arrivals..are akin to a variety store owner who ripps off a little old white lady for her lottery winnings...I will say it again - family first ..then the immigrant. It's called politely standing in line and waiting for your tunn in a civilized respectful manner.

Try going to China town and wait at the butchers counter for your turn in the traditional British style..You will stand there for ever while they smile and butt in..the culture of "wait your turn must be preserved" I don't like pushy people..immigrant or not.

[charter.rights]

Rest of quote omitted as rubbish...

I don't like pushy people..immigrant or not.

Me neither. When are you leaving Canada?

[Oleg Bach]

Me neither. When are you leaving Canada?

That is very humorous...and very pushy...I am not leaving untill you push me - and of course you had better carry my bag to the airport..full of your lucre and I will go....

[Remiel]

Get a grip, Argus. I am talking about smaller injustices, not the tragedies of yesteryear. After all, it cannot be said that the people that get passed over because of preferrential hiring are being forced onto the cotton farms either.

Having a mostly white male police force, especially in an area like Toronto, is problematic. Psychologically, it promotes a feeling that justice is subservient to " The Man " , and even for the most altruistic police officer there are biases in judgement, that we all share (because they are biological), that can lead to certain minorities being unduly discriminated against. Preferrential hiring allows us to speed up the diversification of the force so that the arbitration of the law is more fair and less polarizing.

In the particulars of how " bad " the preferrence is, I agree that there is some cause for concern if the standards are particularly lax for one group, but you must consider if it is only the hiring standards or the on the job standards as well. The actual job performance standards should absolutely be the same for everyone. Hiring based on standardized testing, can be somewhat misleading in any case. If testing basically just produces a list of ordinal rankings in which people are hired from top to bottom it may seem fair in principle. However, ordinal rankings suffer in which they do not distinguish between what is good and what is bad, only who scored better than who on the list. Kind of like how it would be dumb to say that the person who comes last in the 100 metre race at this years in Olympics is slow. Relative to what?

Thus, when you look at the aptitude requirements for these kind of hiring tests, remember that there are only X number of jobs to fill, and the minimum requirements (the equilibrium point) are in part determined by the the number of applicants, Y. If there were substantially less applicants, the requirements would likely be lower. So the relevant question is, are the preferrential requirements lower than a theorized absolute minimum aptitude score. Because if they are higher, I believe that it can be justified on the diversification grounds that they exist at all.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Remiel

[myata]

Having a mostly white male police force, especially in an area like Toronto, is problematic. Psychologically, it promotes a feeling that justice is subservient to " The Man " , and even for the most altruistic police officer there are biases in judgement, that we all share (because they are biological), that can lead to certain minorities being unduly discriminated against. Preferrential hiring allows us to speed up the diversification of the force so that the arbitration of the law is more fair and less polarizing.

At issue is not that the problem doesn't exist but whether the approach, preferential treatment, is going to solve it, with the benefit to everybody. It's in the interest of the society to have all social groups represented in the government organizations; it is also essential that they operate with the appropriate standard of quality. I'm not sure that allocating workplaces based on ethnicity is going to result in net positive benefit.

There're many ways to promote public sector jobs among different groups, but lowering standard for some shouldn't be one of them; compromising the standard of service for better appearence is not what most of us want to see; even less, promoting of ethnic discrimination, whether white or not. What is needed it's an efficient oversight / complaint mechanism, to ensure that nobody has been passed over unfailry; that jobs were properly advertised and fair criteria attached (unlike ridiculous stories I keep hearing from my PS friends, of jobs made specially for particular candidate). Other than that, it should be, pure and simple, you get what you brought to the table; this country isn't one big charity for the world, that'd pass around goodies for free courtesy of our taxpayers.

Finally, I havent' seen those ads, but if they actually existed, they should be prime candidates to bring before those same Human Rights commissions; I can't find another word for it than ethnic discrimination.

[August1991]

This cartoon (Toronto Sun) is very good.

Check it out.

Edited June 11, 2008 by August1991

[August1991]

The Toronto Star weighs and argues that we should remove Section 13 from the federal law:

Canada's Criminal Code already provides for a two-year jail term for inciting or promoting hatred against identifiable groups. Libel laws can be invoked. And provincial press councils field complaints.

Does society need to cast more of a chill on press freedom in order to combat discrimination? Polemicists such as Steyn are better countered in the marketplace of ideas. Readers who feel ill-served are free to go elsewhere.

Parliament and the legislatures should rethink laws that have the effect of targeting opinions rather than actions.

As Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has argued on these pages, human rights commissions should concern themselves with discriminatory behaviour, not discriminatory opinion. "Generally, the answer to bad speech is good speech," he wrote. Wise words, from a respected rights advocate.

One might conclude that the English Canadian Left is deciding to retrench and give up some ground in order to defend more valuable property. OTOH, this New York Times article presented well another English Canadian Leftist view: the US is the odd man protecting free speech.

The United States’ distinctive approach to free speech, legal scholars say, has many causes. It is partly rooted in an individualistic view of the world. Fear of allowing the government to decide what speech is acceptable plays a role. So does history.

...

In Canada, however, laws banning hate speech seem to stem from a desire to promote societal harmony. While the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint against Maclean’s, it still condemned the article.

IOW, free speech was never part of the Canadian legal heritage.

I don't think there's any plan here except rank confusion. The Left doesn't quite know what to do. Like the Danish cartoons, the Left is twisting itself into a pretzel torn over its ideology of protecting victims.

Here's a link to the Babble thread on this issue. Understandably, it makes for slim reading. I suspect that the Left would prefer that this whole question simply go away. (I note that enmasse doesn't seem to have a thread on the topic.)

-----

Meanwhile, the debate is lively elsewhere.

Haroon Siddiqui, columnist in the Toronto Star, wrote this:

But freedom of speech is not absolute. "Except for the U.S., virtually every Western democracy has laws against hate," notes Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "Our anti-hate laws are probably the most underused."

The Supreme Court has upheld those laws. Jewish, gay and other groups have long advocated their use. Few Canadians complained. But now that Muslims are, many are.

"That's really what it's about," Farber told me. "When non-Muslims were using it, nobody really cared.

"People need scapegoats. It used to be Jews. Now it's Muslims, to a great extent. Tomorrow, it may be Bahais or somebody else ...

Kathy Shaidle, some blogger, responded:

Dear Mr. Siddiqui

The difference between what the Nazis said about the Jews and what people today are saying about radical Muslims is...

What we're saying about radical Muslims is true.

To pretend otherwise is to perform the intellectual equivalent of hiding Nazis in your attic during World War II.

If you want a good point and counterpoint, read both articles.

[JerrySeinfeld]

As a latecomer to the discussion, not sure if this has yet been brought in but, in my view, the American(?) Concept that any and all of these tyes of "offenses" should be subject to the free "marketplace of ideas" whereby people and free to say whatever they want and others are free to counter that. In a free and just society the truth (which by the way is NOT a defense in the human rights "court" in BC) will prevail amidst the freedom to have and express opinions.

This latest "human rights" farce in BC actually ties in very well to the Goldberg book (and concept) of "Liberal Fascism", which argues that fascism won't be coming to our countries in jackboots and tanks. It'll come with a smile on it's face, dressed up as "doing whats right" when really what it's doing is thinly veiled thought-policing.

"This is how we all talk"

"This is how we should all think"

"You're not allowed to talk or write or think that way"

Sounds alot like fascism to me. And this most recent farce is a perfect example of "creeping, smiley face left wing fascism".

My $0.02.

[Mr.Canada]

It's time we got rid of this. We tried an experiment and it failed. Time to do away with it and let people say or print whatever they want. No matter what. If the far right is so out of touch then why are they so worried about what they say?

[jdobbin]

Time to do away with it and let people say or print whatever they want.

I'm sure some would.

There has to be a balance between free speech and calling "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre.

[White Doors]

I'm sure some would.

There has to be a balance between free speech and calling "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre.

Agreed, but the CRHC chapter 13 sure isn't it.

We were in balance before the Human rights tribunals started to weigh in. They put us out of balance.

[August1991]

This video is remarkable.

This CTV "interview" defies belief. It is hard to imagine a better way to illustrate how Ottawa bureaucracy can be so tone deaf.