Should we abolish Canada's Human Rights Commissions?

[g_bambino]

This video is remarkable.

That is pretty shocking.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is good legislation being handled by bad bureaucrats.

[Borg]

That video needs to be seen by every canadian

CHRC is one of the most dangerous and powerful organizations in canada

The people who head this up WILL have an extreme impact upon our lives within the next ten years

Borg

[Borg]

That is pretty shocking.

Frightening is more like it

Borg

[Oleg Bach]

That video needs to be seen by every canadian

CHRC is one of the most dangerous and powerful organizations in canada

The people who head this up WILL have an extreme impact upon our lives within the next ten years

Borg

Once we had a visit from Barbara Hall - when she was mayor of Toronto...she came to the film set - she had lipstick smeared all over her front teeth - not a very astute or aware indiviual - but we all know that anyone connected to the lefty right wing extremists that are city council - or mayor are mostly twits...to have Hall presiding over the CHRC - is like having todays Toronto city coucil and Mayor Miller being prime minister - simply not exceptable - and simply not an exectable level of intelligence...you can not have the most stuified idealogs having so much power over the emerging Canadian social fabric. AND I love saying this - when you have nut bars in power - it says something of us - we are overly tolerant of idiots - and I can not figure out why we allow - the stupid to steer the ship?

[DogOnPorch]

Frightening is more like it

Borg

The beat goes on it seems.

The GESTAPO started small...run by fellows just like Philippe Dufresne and using 'complaints' to get their work done. At its height, the GESTAPO was only around 5,000 strong with strong civilain participation. I wonder if comparing what the CHRC (does) to the GESTAPO will get me hauled up due to hate on the internet?? Wish me luck.

Edited June 14, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[Oleg Bach]

The beat goes on it seems.

The GESTAPO started small...run by fellows just like Philippe Dufresne and using 'complaints' to get their work done. At its height, the GESTAPO was only around 5,000 strong with strong civilain participation. I wonder if comparing what the CHRC to the GESTAPO will get me hauled up due to hate on the internet?? Wish me luck.

It is the vacarious and controling types that seek to lable indepedants and non-compliants as haters - and persecute those that refuse to be part of the insect like collective run by a few wanna be power mongers...If people want control over a society - first rule CONTROL YOURSELF AND STOP CONTROLING OTHERS.. Those that seek to control others - have no personal emotional disipline.

[Smallc]

As I said, they're overstepped their bounds...despite their assertions that they haven't.

[DogOnPorch]

As I said, they're overstepped their bounds...despite their assertions that they haven't.

Next it'll be against the law to complain about the CHRC.

[Smallc]

[Oleg Bach]

Next it'll be against the law to complain about the CHRC.

It will in time be against the law to offend and hurt the feelings of the CHRC. In fact it is aready like that - if you bring up a matter that they find offensive personally - the matter is not heard - Just like the Supreme Court of Canada - if you bring up a matter that is unjust and harming people - IF that matter does not fit the needs of the status quo - the matter is said "not to be of national interest - or in the best interest of the people ---- that means - if it brings the rich and powerful into a state of disrepute...when they are caught behaving badly - then you are shut down -------------------------------and --------------------cycled downwards to the CHRC...where idiots......will mull over what the SCOC did not have the balls to deal with...They understand that the CHRC - is just a spider web where we are tossed into to be disposed of though politcal correctness inflicted by those drowning in self importance...

[Argus]

That video needs to be seen by every canadian

CHRC is one of the most dangerous and powerful organizations in canada

The people who head this up WILL have an extreme impact upon our lives within the next ten years

Borg

Only if the Liberals get back into power - especially if they're a minority (likely) which needs NDP support. I think it's HIGHLY unlikely the tories would act on any of the recommendations of this report, but the NDP, not just the caucus but rank and file, including here on this site, have made it pretty clear that they put a pretty low priority on things like freedom of speech and expression when compared to the freedom to not be offended.

[Smallc]

The NDP may wish to act on this, but the Liberals are just as much for freedom of speech (with a few exceptions) as the Conservatives are.

[Oleg Bach]

Only if the Liberals get back into power - especially if they're a minority (likely) which needs NDP support. I think it's HIGHLY unlikely the tories would act on any of the recommendations of this report, but the NDP, not just the caucus but rank and file, including here on this site, have made it pretty clear that they put a pretty low priority on things like freedom of speech and expression when compared to the freedom to not be offended.

:"The freedom not to be offended" - That would be a protectoral - put in place to defend those that do evil on the population. It's like having the right to kick a dog....and making it illegal for the dog to bite you....and that dog is so conditioned to abuse that it is excepting of it. And once that dog does figure out that it is being abused - can not articulate it - and when it finally does - that intelligent articulation and explanatory is considered an offence on the abuser.

[August1991]

Only if the Liberals get back into power - especially if they're a minority (likely) which needs NDP support. I think it's HIGHLY unlikely the tories would act on any of the recommendations of this report, but the NDP, not just the caucus but rank and file, including here on this site, have made it pretty clear that they put a pretty low priority on things like freedom of speech and expression when compared to the freedom to not be offended.

You are probably right Argus but it remains that Stephen Harper appointed Jennifer Lynch to her position. Either she deceived him or he has some other agenda. (I personally think that this is a minor sideshow with a lottery chance to explode. Harper realizes that he can't push this issue at all on to the public stage. It has to get there on its own.)

BTW, here's what Lynch wrote recently:

However, I believe critics of human-rights commissions and tribunals are manipulating information and activities around rights cases and freedom of expression to further a new agenda. This agenda posits that rights commissions and tribunals, and the attendant vigilance over all the rights and freedoms Canadians now enjoy, no longer serve a useful purpose. In this way, the debate over freedom of expression has been used as a wedge to undermine and distort our human-rights system.

Ironically, a debate about balancing rights has not itself been balanced.

G&M

Balanced? In effect, she is claiming that people who oppose the CHRC are not engaging in balanced debate.

We have a problem when someone who has the power to limit free speech on grounds of hatred uses her position to cast her opponents as "unbalanced".

Edited June 14, 2009 by August1991

[Oleg Bach]

When an idiot pot smoker wants to offend people by openly smoking pot and blowing the smoke in the face of children and those attempting to enter an establishement - AND the human rights commission agrees to hear the matter - that proves they are useless - over and out!

[August1991]

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on Wednesday ruled that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression because it carries the threat of punitive fines.

NP Brean

I'm not sure what this decision means. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Section 13 is constitutional but that was almost 20 years ago and the "living tree" doctrine implies that these things can change.

I suspect that the CHRC will appeal this tribunal ruling.

[lictor616]

Finally, even the woeful Canadian Human Rights Tribunal had to admit: "that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression because it carries the threat of punitive fines."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1954734

its a baby step towards returning to sanity and reason again. Although I'm sure NDP'ers and liberals will use this in their war against the non-leftist socialist elements of our country.

This was the Opening Post of a redundant thread titled: "Hate speech law unconstitutional:" rights tribunal

Edited September 4, 2009 by Charles Anthony
merged thread

[justme]

Finally, even the woeful Canadian Human Rights Tribunal had to admit: "that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression because it carries the threat of punitive fines."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1954734

its a baby step towards returning to sanity and reason again. Although I'm sure NDP'ers and liberals will use this in their war against the non-leftist socialist elements of our country.

Even Noam Chomsky has said that being for free speech means being for the right of others to say what you do not agree with and that even the worlds worst dictators were for speech that they agreed with.

The best way to deal with hate speech is to debunk it with facts rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist.

[lictor616]

Even Noam Chomsky has said that being for free speech means being for the right of others to say what you do not agree with and that even the worlds worst dictators were for speech that they agreed with.

The best way to deal with hate speech is to debunk it with facts rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist.

what do you mean "EVEN" noam chomsky? He's probably the only left wing (with a good amount of libertarian in him which I enjoy) irreconcilable that I admire and enjoy reading and often even agree with.

His attitude towards free speech is the ONLY rational one a person could have. Leftists often say that he is "contreversial" on this question.. i don't see what they mean really. There is no such thing as "checks on free speech"... free speech is either integral or inexistent.

now if only univerisities were this forward thinking!

and if only if the liberals in the US could be more tolerant!

Barack Obama prioritized passage of the freedom-stealing Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act a few months ago... which makes criticism or verbal dislike of such groups as Homosexuals or Blacks "ILLEGAL"!

Canada is on the way to making non-whites, Jews and homosexuals federally protected groups...

If anything it makes our minority groups look much worse... since their presence is costing us precious freedoms....

Edited September 4, 2009 by lictor616

[waldo]

the non-binding opinion of one CHRT adjudicator... will the Harper Conservatives appeal?

[Bonam]

The problem with hate speech laws is that as real hate speech is eliminated, activists move on to target what before would have been considered normal speech. It's a never ending constriction of freedom that slowly clamps down on people's ability to express any criticism, as society's sensitivities grow and grow. For this reason there can be no law that restricts speech, in my opinion. Even the most hateful, ridiculous lies would be best confronted with rational rebuttal rather than repression, which only gives them greater apparent validity.

[August1991]

Lictor, IMHO, you are an ego-centric idiot and should be banned from this forum.

Why?

its a baby step towards returning to sanity and reason again. Although I'm sure NDP'ers and liberals will use this in their war against the non-leftist socialist elements of our country.

Baby steps?

Gerald Tremblay, mayor of Montreal, simply ignored a Tribunal decision. (See the OP of this thread.)

----

Ages ago, I started this thread on this very topic, with detailed references to Marc Lemire's case. There's even a poll so posters can express their opinion on Section 13. Given the recent Tribunal decision, I even bumped this thread.

But Lictor, ever the ego-centic idiot, you notice nothing - except your tag, your spray paint grafitti. Like a schizophrenic or Hollywood star, obsessed with yourself, you miss the whole point.

Edited September 4, 2009 by August1991

[lictor616]

Lictor, IMHO, you are an ego-centric idiot and should be banned from this forum.

Why?

Baby steps?

Gerald Tremblay, mayor of Montreal, simply ignored a Tribunal decision. (See the OP of this thread.)

----

Ages ago, I started this thread on this very topic, with detailed references to Marc Lemire's case. There's even a poll so posters can express their opinion on Section 13. Given the recent Tribunal decision, I even bumped this thread.

But Lictor, ever the ego-centic idiot, you notice nothing - except your tag, your spray paint grafitti. Like a schizophrenic or Hollywood star, obsessed with yourself, you miss the whole point.

I'll gloss over the fact that you're using ad hominem abusives to make your point....

What do you mean by egocentric ? How do I fit the bill specifically?

What does marc lemire have to do with my comment on hate speech legislation?

It'd be nice if you could respond without the hysterical theatrics, it doesn't impose on me very much anyway... it just makes your comment needlessly longer..

Edited September 4, 2009 by lictor616

[Oleg Bach]

What good is an organization that insists that a pot head has the right to take his supifying habit and smoke dope on the street on front of a bar? What a waste of time and energy - What the Human Rights Commission is - is a down ward recycling of issues that the Supreme Court does not want to deal with because, some issues to not please those that appointed the creeps that sit on the bench - Human rights are protected by one thing only - buy one single human being sticking up for their own rights - you do not need an organization that diverts real issues away from the courts and deals with useless cases of so-called human abuse - I want to marry my dog...and the church will not sucumb to my deviancey - call in the Commision --- Or when a parent insists that his 14 year old daughter not have sex as if it is some on going recreational thing - and this PARENT is then attacked by the Human Rights people for denying their daughter an avenue of reckless sexuality ... Or maybe they can take on an issue - about my right to detest crack heads - who are involved in the harm reduction program?