Should we abolish Canada's Human Rights Commissions?

[Michael Hardner]

Then you've just made the argument that the HRCs are pointless.

There are other advantages to HRCs, though. They're expounded on elsewhere in the thread.

[Michael Hardner]

No. This is not a case where the human rights commision attempts to "arbitrate" a complaint. No effort was made in the more obvious cases to "arbitrate". The state takes the side of the person who lodged the complaint and then attempts to prosecute the identified defendant. The difference from a legal case in a real court is that the defendant in this case has no access to state supplied attornies. Nor does he have remedy if the commission decides the case has no merit, to recover his own legal costs.

I wasn't aware of those differences.

Likewise, in a private lawsuit, the plaintiff has to go through considerable effort and expense, and if the suit is spurious, he not only loses those expenses but may be ordered to rimburse the defendant for his own legal costs. In the case of the HRCs, the plaintiff gets a free ride, leaving the process much more open to abuse by those with an axe to grind.

True, but that's not likely in the 'libel chill' cases we've seen. Also, it seems to me that it would cost less to defend onesself at the HRC versus court.

Keep in mind that this side discussion is about the 'chill effects' of HRC complaints, which to me are almost the same as for lawsuits. The differences you pointed out are: the inability to recover costs, and it's more difficult for the plaintiff to pursue their complaint.

[Topaz]

Questions for anyone, wouldn't the telephone company have more say, since most of us are using the telephone lines to get ON the internet?? They must have their own rules or do they?

[Michael Hardner]

I doubt it. Zundel's hate line needed the courts to shut it down. Bell didn't do it.

[g_bambino]

There are other advantages to HRCs, though. They're expounded on elsewhere in the thread.

I believe there were advantages to the HRCs. They seem to have long ago outlived their purpose; or, at least, there's no need for their systems of bureaucracy and scopes of jurisdiction to be so wide.

[ironstone]

Yes.

[Smallc]

After reading about it, I don't think so. We just have to make sure they stick to what they're supposed to do.

[bush_cheney2004]

After reading about it, I don't think so. We just have to make sure they stick to what they're supposed to do.

Pretty simple....if the perp drowns - not guilty. If they float - guilty.....burn at the hate speech stake.

[Argus]

After reading about it, I don't think so. We just have to make sure they stick to what they're supposed to do.

Which is what? I think we can say that ensuring the state doesn't treat people unfairly is a worthwhile objective. But just why do we need to ensure individuals don't treat other individuals unfairly? Or to point a finer point on it - why do we give a damn if a landlord doesn't want to rent to a gay couple? Are there a lot of homeless homosexuals out there due to the habitualness of this happenstance? Does anyone seriously think, absent the HRC, there would be?

Why do we need a grand commission because now and then someone behaves boorishly or offends someone else?

[Smallc]

Or to point a finer point on it - why do we give a damn if a landlord doesn't want to rent to a gay couple?

Because that's unacceptable in this society. People cannot discriminate based on that type of things anymore.

[Argus]

Because that's unacceptable in this society. People cannot discriminate based on that type of things anymore.

Why not? What possible difference does it make to society if the occasional person doesn't want gays in their building?

And do you really think 99.99% of them can't find a perfectly valid excuse not to rent to gays anyway?

[Smallc]

Why not? What possible difference does it make to society if the occasional person doesn't want gays in their building?

Why should we let such a thing continue when it's no longer accepted in this society. It's not like having to rent to gays somehow infringes on someone's rights.

[g_bambino]

Why should we let such a thing continue when it's no longer accepted in this society. It's not like having to rent to gays somehow infringes on someone's rights.

It's not accepted amongst the majority of society, maybe; but a minority certainly believes it is correct and according to their religious values to refuse accommodation to people who call themselves gay. As much as I disagree with their attitude, why would I, or anyone other than perhaps offended gays, expect agents of the Crown to force people to change their behaviour and governing beliefs when neither are causing anyone any harm beyond hurt feelings?

My application for a fantastic apartment was once turned down on the grounds that I am a man; the landlady told me this directly. By HRC standards, it was definitely discrimination based on gender; but I felt I had to respect her right as a private proprietor to rent her property to whomever she found most desirable, no matter how unfair or inane I thought her justification to be. There were certainly other properties I could rent, and did.

[c/e]

Edited March 22, 2010 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, I'm not sure that such behaviour should be allowed. A gay renting an apartment isn't really a violation of religious freedoms.

[Argus]

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, I'm not sure that such behaviour should be allowed. A gay renting an apartment isn't really a violation of religious freedoms.

Private individuals make all kinds of subjective decisions when deciding on who they want to do business with. Some of those decisions are based on silly thoughts (she looks like she might have a lot of parties... he has shifty eyes... I don't trust him somehow...). I just don't see why the government needs to step in to try to regulate such nonsense. If someone doesn't want to do business with you, so be it. Find someone who will. It's not like this society is short on variety. And it's not like anyone has trouble finding rooms to rent or people to print up their stationary or comedy shows where they won't insult you if you heckle... uhm, well....

[Sir Bandelot]

Free speech is a very difficult issue to deal with. We certainly don't have free speech in Canada, since we deport people for things like writing pamplets that question the holocaust. On the other hand, Adolph Hitler was an excellent orator, if you know what I mean. Speech or ideas through words is very powerful, and the right techniques used in the media can swing the opinion of many people. Thus totally free speech could eventually be a threat to the continuance of the state as we know it.

[Michael Hardner]

And it's not like anyone has trouble finding rooms to rent or people to print up their stationary or comedy shows where they won't insult you if you heckle... uhm, well....

Most of us see government as having a role in protecting people from being unfairly discriminated against. Your assertion that there are always alternative rooms to let or other ways around it just doesn't sit with how we see Canada.

Certainly, you see the government as having a role in legislating fair behavior on some levels, so why not this too ?

[Argus]

Most of us see government as having a role in protecting people from being unfairly discriminated against. Your assertion that there are always alternative rooms to let or other ways around it just doesn't sit with how we see Canada.

Certainly, you see the government as having a role in legislating fair behavior on some levels, so why not this too ?

I see government intervention as being acceptable where it is necessary, not merely where it might be desirable on some level. I think that government should be extremely reluctant to intervene in actions or relationships between private individuals where there is little or no demonstrable harm. If Minto and a number of other large landlords had a policy of not renting to blacks or gays, for example, I would consider that a demonstrated need for intervention at some level. That Joe Schmoe doesn't want to rent the second half of his duplex to a gay couple would not cause me much concern.

[Argus]

Free speech is a very difficult issue to deal with. We certainly don't have free speech in Canada, since we deport people for things like writing pamplets that question the holocaust. On the other hand, Adolph Hitler was an excellent orator, if you know what I mean. Speech or ideas through words is very powerful, and the right techniques used in the media can swing the opinion of many people. Thus totally free speech could eventually be a threat to the continuance of the state as we know it.

Incitement is different from ordinary speech. Granted, there can be a fine line there, but most of what I've seen described as "hate speech" doesn't appear capable of inciting people to do anything but snicker at the authors.

[Gabriel]

Free speech is a very difficult issue to deal with. We certainly don't have free speech in Canada, since we deport people for things like writing pamplets that question the holocaust. On the other hand, Adolph Hitler was an excellent orator, if you know what I mean. Speech or ideas through words is very powerful, and the right techniques used in the media can swing the opinion of many people. Thus totally free speech could eventually be a threat to the continuance of the state as we know it.

I agree, it's an extremely difficult balancing act between freedoms and security. It's very naive to think that wholesale free speech doesn't entail serious risks, but on the other hand there is a risk that restrictions on free speech (i.e. HRC as an governmental entity) can be politicized improperly. In other words, those charged with enforcing limits placed on free speech must be trusted not to abuse their power. I do believe that we need limitations on free speech beyond the obvious crimes of uttering threats and slander, in order to restrict speech that advocates against core values and freedoms - which I concede are broad concepts. Using broad terms, however, gives flexibility to those enforcing restrictions on free speech. The challenge, obviously, is selecting the right people for the job.

I'm just not comfortable with the assertion that absurd and horrendous statements will be rejected by the majority of our society without the need for regulatory mechanisms. Perhaps I just don't have the same trust in the common person that some of your hardline free speech advocates have. I just don't have faith that the common man and woman will necessarily know an absurd claim when they see one. We need some form of Big Brother.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Gabriel

[August1991]

So we have a tribunal trying to resolve a complaint between parties in the area of human rights.

That's disingenuous, Michael.

The State in effect pays for all the complainant's costs while the defendant is left to fend alone. In some cases, the defendant is not even allowed to assist at proceedings or hear the evidence. It should be no surprise that many defendants brought before HRT are poor and poorly educated people. The rich and educated know how to organize their defence.

In any case, following your logic, we have an extensive civil court system (and a long history of jurisprudence) to resolve disputes between private parties.

Edited March 24, 2010 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

That's disingenuous, Michael.

The State in effect pays for all the complainant's costs while the defendant is left to fend alone. In some cases, the defendant is not even allowed to assist at proceedings or hear the evidence. It should be no surprise that many defendants brought before HRT are poor and poorly educated people. The rich and educated know how to organize their defence.

Can I have a link on the study on those accused by the HRT ?

As for the rest, it was discussed already earlier in the thread.

[jbg]

Free speech is a very difficult issue to deal with. We certainly don't have free speech in Canada, since we deport people for things like writing pamplets that question the holocaust.

I would defend to my death the right of Holocaust Deniers to disgrace themselves and make fools of themselves.

On the other hand, Adolph Hitler was an excellent orator, if you know what I mean. Speech or ideas through words is very powerful, and the right techniques used in the media can swing the opinion of many people. Thus totally free speech could eventually be a threat to the continuance of the state as we know it.

I still think that speech should be virtually unrestricted. Sedition, or urging violent overthrow of the government is a different story. As is advocating actual commission of crimes.

[g_bambino]

I would defend to my death the right of Holocaust Deniers to disgrace themselves and make fools of themselves.

That's typically the reflexive response I have as well. However, reflecting further on it, some individuals in history have, with free reign to speak, managed to persuade a helluva lotta people into believing some pretty nasty shit.

[Argus]

I'm just not comfortable with the assertion that absurd and horrendous statements will be rejected by the majority of our society without the need for regulatory mechanisms. Perhaps I just don't have the same trust in the common person that some of your hardline free speech advocates have. I just don't have faith that the common man and woman will necessarily know an absurd claim when they see one. We need some form of Big Brother.

Because you think most people aren't as smart as you?