Should we abolish Canada's Human Rights Commissions?

[Argus]

However, I subsequently wonder if, without hate speech laws, there could actually come a point when, for whatever reason, people are taking more seriously those who were once considered kooks.

Shudder. Back to the bad old days of 1977 when Nazis ran rampant through the streets burning Jews and breaking windows!? Oh no!

[ToadBrother]

Shudder. Back to the bad old days of 1977 when Nazis ran rampant through the streets burning Jews and breaking windows!? Oh no!

No kidding. You'd think there were crosses burning all over Prince George before human rights tribunals came along.

To my mind, if a case doesn't have sufficient weight or likelihood of success in a court of law, then that should be the end of it, right there.

[ToadBrother]

Not entirely to my question, though, of how much freedom hate spewers should be given. You seemed to advocate giving them absolute freedom, expecting that they'll be quieted by the rational majority of the population. However, as I keep reiterating, there seem to be examples of otherwise sensible populations being won over by hate mongers. So, should we have legal limitations on speech in order to prevent eloquent lunatics from ever exploiting unstable economic and/or governmental circumstances in the future, or not? As I said, my reflexive thought is to simply let morons like Holocaust deniers speak their minds; the vast majority of the country simply won't pay them any real attention. However, I subsequently wonder if, without hate speech laws, there could actually come a point when, for whatever reason, people are taking more seriously those who were once considered kooks.

In other words, you want certain kinds of unpopular speech banned because, well, somehow it will become dangerous.

If you're going to bring up the Nazi example, which I'm assuming you already have (I've been away for a few days), it's useful to outline a couple of things about Germany; first and foremost that Germany as an actual democratic state had been in existence for less than fifteen years when Hitler became Chancellor. Second, and probably more cogent, was that Germany, along with much of Europe, had had a long history of anti-Semitism, so it's not as if the German people woke up one morning in 1933 and decided the Jews had to be dealt with. They weren't talked into any of this so much as Hitler gave voice to prejudices that were centuries old.

So far as I can tell, the US, despite having probably the weakest constraints on free speech of any country on the planet, has steadily since its inception moved towards greater liberties. The fact that a Neo-Nazi parade can march down Main Street, USA has not, it seems, saw the building of gas chambers and ovens to kill and dispose of all the Jews, nor is having David Duke repeatedly try to run for public office seen black civil rights repealed, in fact, the US elected its first black president.

Can ideas be dangerous? No doubt about it. But you do not destroy ideas by banishing them from the commons. You, in fact, give them a much greater mystique. I can well understand, for instance, the anti-Nazi laws in West Germany and Austria after the war, mainly to assure that nascent Nazi elements within Germany didn't retake government (a legitimate fear in the ten or fifteen years after the war), but I'd argue now, with the Neo-Nazi movements, even in the former East Germany, being an extreme minority who really don't pose any meaningful risk of overthrowing the democratic republic and installing a new Fuhrer, that the laws are anachronisms and unjustifiable infringements on free speech.

Besides, I don't want the courts or the government telling me what I can or cannot say. That's just censorship.

[wyly]

I guess I have to repeat myself. Those kind of prohibitions may be needed in countries and cultures without the traditions of robust debate. Perhaps modern day Germany and Poland, countries whose democratic histories go back 20 years (or maybe 60 years in the former West Germany) as opposed to the thousands of years in the English-speaking cultures. I think the development of a robust Nazi movement would be most unlikely in our culture.

An example is the KKK. The KKK, granted, is illegal since it not only advocates but participates in violence. In the U.S. its ideology gains little or no traction. When the Nazis fought a long, well-publicized legal fight to march in Skokie, Illinois (a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago) I believe less than a dozen came to the march.

Are hate laws really needed to deal with this kind of marginalia?

not a history major obviously..."as opposed to the thousands of years in the English-speaking cultures" the only english speaking country a thousand years ago was a kingdom and not a democracy nor was it anything resembling a democracy for hundreds of years...first full democratic state was New Zealand, late 19th century...

"I think the development of a robust Nazi movement would be most unlikely in our culture." Nazi's came to power through a democratic process...it can happen anywhere...

[ToadBrother]

"I think the development of a robust Nazi movement would be most unlikely in our culture." Nazi's came to power through a democratic process...it can happen anywhere...

The actual history of how the Nazis came to power is significantly murkier than that. At the end of the day, they came to power in part through thuggery, murder, dirty tricks and ultimately because Paul von Hindenburg was a weak, senile old fool who thought if he made Hitler Chancellor he could somehow control him.

Saying that the Nazis won a democratic election, even ignoring how they did it in many cases, is a gross oversimplification.

[g_bambino]

In other words, you want certain kinds of unpopular speech banned because, well, somehow it will become dangerous.

I'm not entirely sure how you misinterpreted my thinking out loud with holding an absolute stance, or even how you came to assume I brought up Nazi Germany. Maybe you need to be more familiar with the thread?

[+]

Edited March 25, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Shudder. Back to the bad old days of 1977 when Nazis ran rampant through the streets burning Jews and breaking windows!? Oh no!

Looks like you wandered off the trail, too.

[Gabriel]

not a history major obviously..."as opposed to the thousands of years in the English-speaking cultures" the only english speaking country a thousand years ago was a kingdom and not a democracy nor was it anything resembling a democracy for hundreds of years...first full democratic state was New Zealand, late 19th century...

"I think the development of a robust Nazi movement would be most unlikely in our culture." Nazi's came to power through a democratic process...it can happen anywhere...

Epic reading comprehension fail.... clearly what jbg is saying is that the tradition in English-speaking countries goes back thousands of years - in other words, the tradition in English-speaking countries predates the language itself. Stop trying so hard to score points.

[Topaz]

Harper has closed three CHR Commision offices in Canada, Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver and these have 70% of all complaints in this country. http://www.straightgoods.ca/2010/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=362&Cookies=yes

[Oleg Bach]

FIRST abolish the Supreme Court and then abolish the Human Rights Commission. THEN - perhaps create a real judging system where we actually have judges that actually judge and are not stool pigeons to the ones that quietly appoint them..At present we do not have a system that judges between right and wrong and good and evil..instead we have a bureaucracy that only adheres to policy.A policy that only enhances the power and position of the long established status quo...If we had a fair and just system of law for all.................we would not need a high court or a court of appeal or a damned human rights quasi court that simply recycles issues downwards and outwards into oblivion.

[Wilber]

Harper has closed three CHR Commision offices in Canada, Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver and these have 70% of all complaints in this country. http://www.straightgoods.ca/2010/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=362&Cookies=yes

Good, time to get rid of the one in Ottawa as well. They may have started off with a useful purpose but now they are just as likely to stomp all over a person's rights as protect them.

[Oleg Bach]

Good, time to get rid of the one in Ottawa as well. They may have started off with a useful purpose but now they are just as likely to stomp all over a person's rights as protect them.

When the tell a chronic pot head that he can puff away in the door way of some establishment ruining the owners living..then it is time for the commission to get real useful jobs and stop being henchmen for some experimenting demented men that tore the wings off of flies as boys.

[jbg]

No kidding. You'd think there were crosses burning all over Prince George before human rights tribunals came along.

Wasn't it Sheila Copps' or Hedy Fry's heroism that stopped the madness in PG?

[jbg]

The actual history of how the Nazis came to power is significantly murkier than that. ********Saying that the Nazis won a democratic election, even ignoring how they did it in many cases, is a gross oversimplification.

Quite true.

From what I am aware, the political "debate" in Weimar Germany, such as it was, degenerated into constant, open warfare between Communist and Nazi thugs. Nominally power was seized at the ballot box. The country in fact had been rendered ungovernable, largely by the Nazis.

[ToadBrother]

Quite true.

From what I am aware, the political "debate" in Weimar Germany, such as it was, degenerated into constant, open warfare between Communist and Nazi thugs. Nominally power was seized at the ballot box. The country in fact had been rendered ungovernable, largely by the Nazis.

Hitler achieved power because that senile old fool, Hindenburg, lost whatever nerve he had.

[jbg]

Hitler achieved power because that senile old fool, Hindenburg, lost whatever nerve he had.

That was just the final step. The country was in fact riot and strike torn for years before and the Reichstag, or Parliament, had more or less stopped functioning. The country was operating through their equivalent of Orders in Council for about four years prior to Hitler's assent. Things couldn't go on that way for long.

[Argus]

Good, time to get rid of the one in Ottawa as well. They may have started off with a useful purpose but now they are just as likely to stomp all over a person's rights as protect them.

Getting rid of or substantially reforming the HRCs would take a level of political courage the Tories have not evidenced of late.

[jbg]

Getting rid of or substantially reforming the HRCs would take a level of political courage the Tories have not evidenced of late.

How would doing that fly if it triggered an election?

[Argus]

How would doing that fly if it triggered an election?

I don't know that it would trigger an election. I believe they'd need to pass legislation in the House - which would fail - but it's not a money bill so that doesn't automatically trigger and election.

However, it would give the gleeful opposition and media to gleefully dredge up each and every instance in the past of accusations against the Tories of "intolerance" against minorities and immigrants, and slander the party as wanting to allow human rights violations. It wouldn't play among conservative supporters, but it would resonate among the lefties and energize them, and could have an affect in the middle - most of whom still know little or nothing about human rights commisions and how they behave. It's just a big pale of worms the Tories are afraid to deal with. I think the Tories could, with a decent communication strategy, actually make it into a vote-winner, but the Tories haven't had a decent communciations strategy since Diefenbaker.

When it comes to communications and marketing the Tories make the NDP's economic abilities look toweringly impressive. Their ability to get elected even under the handicap of a consistently horrible, laughable, inept and very often counter-productive communications strategy is one that political scientists really ought to be studying.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Argus

[bloodyminded]

I don't know that it would trigger an election. I believe they'd need to pass legislation in the House - which would fail - but it's not a money bill so that doesn't automatically trigger and election.

However, it would give the gleeful opposition and media to gleefully dredge up each and every instance in the past of accusations against the Tories of "intolerance" against minorities and immigrants, and slander the party as wanting to allow human rights violations. It wouldn't play among conservative supporters, but it would resonate among the lefties and energize them, and could have an affect in the middle - most of whom still know little or nothing about human rights commisions and how they behave. It's just a big pale of worms the Tories are afraid to deal with. I think the Tories could, with a decent communication strategy, actually make it into a vote-winner, but the Tories haven't had a decent communciations strategy since Diefenbaker.

When it comes to communications and marketing the Tories make the NDP's economic abilities look toweringly impressive. Their ability to get elected even under the handicap of a consistently horrible, laughable, inept and very often counter-productive communications strategy is one that political scientists really ought to be studying.

You may be right that this could be the wrong time (politically) to go against it, but that time may well be coming. My impression is that reforming these bizarre and misguided HRC's may well gain real popular capital.

Then again, "my impression"......not the most perfect horse to bet on, maybe.

But look at it this way: let's say, for the sake of argument, that I personally am not an insightful genius. (Stretch your imagination.) Let's also say that I am some sort of radical lefty. (Though I don't consider this accurate, for long-winded reasons I won't go into here.) Ok: so as recently as six months ago, these perversities seemed to me a self-evidently good idea. That's because I knew almost nothing about them, and what sort of cases with which they were involved. As you say, that appears to be the case with the majority of the country.

Maybe three months ago, I became very suddenly highly critical about them...based solely on Mark Steyn: a polemicist I despise.

Since our thought experiment demands that we don't consider me to be anything special, I have a feeling that reason could win out on this. (If it were only Mark Steyn, probably not. But it isn't.)

[Handsome Rob]

There seems to be lots of people who want to get rid of the Charter too. What's left to protect me from the state if they ever manage to get the upper hand, politicians? Forget it.

By all means, I would trade the Charter back for the Bill of Rights if it meant entrenching the constitution in an acceptable manner with a functionable amendment formula.

The issue seems to be a backlog due to a high number of frivolous cases and CHRC employees allegedly overstepping their authority, can't these be fixed without throwing the CHRC out?

The BCHRT recently elected to ignore a ruling from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I cannot imagine a stronger death sentence than that.

I think our country is becoming increasingly right-wing,

Agreed.

By the way, what's to protect a human from a corporation in the absence of a HRC? The nanny-state? I don't think so.

A court of law, not a kangaroo court of hurt feelings.

[Smallc]

By all means, I would trade the Charter back for the Bill of Rights if it meant entrenching the constitution in an acceptable manner with a functionable amendment formula.

Acceptable? Functional? You do realize that the Constitution has been used and amended since 1982, right?

[Handsome Rob]

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.

True, but such things get out of control.

As an employer with the responsibility of hiring, decisions are influenced by fear of consequences. It is easier to hire a lesser employee, and not fear reprisal, than to not hire them, and face potential and often likely, punishment.

An obvious case of the problems, is the firefighters in the states, New Hampshire I think it was? Not enough people of the correct skin color passed the test for promotion, so it was thrown out, costing many people benefits.

The idea of Religion having any role in the workplace is obscene. Like the English bus driver stopping to pray 18 times per day in traffic, or the hairdresser that wouldn't take off her hat and received something like 20,000 quid over it.

[Keepitsimple]

Harper has closed three CHR Commision offices in Canada, Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver and these have 70% of all complaints in this country. http://www.straightgoods.ca/2010/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=362&Cookies=yes

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is an arms length agency. Harper didn't close the offices - the Agency decided to do that themselves - as part of expanding their capabilities. The only way the Government can start to affect or even dissolve the CHRC is to starve it for funding....but in fact they are increasing funding. All the hubbub was really about the Union bashing the Harper government. The Union has reduced Human Rights to a receptacle for jobs.

OTTAWA — A decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to close offices in Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax is not an attack on human rights, nor is it being done on orders from the Conservative government, says a top official with the commission.

Karen Mosher, secretary general of the commission, said Friday the closures are part of a reorganization that will save about $500,000 in rent, salaries and other administrative costs while having a minimal impact on the work of the commission.

Link: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Union+attacks+closure+human+rights+offices/2729294/story.html

Another article says:

But Karen Mosher, the commission’s secretary general, said the Commission hasn’t had walk-in services for “some time,” and that it was the commission’s decision, not the government’s, to close the offices.

“We don’t have people showing up at the office. We do our intakes over the phone and on paper,” Mosher said. That will continue after the offices close within the next six months.

“What this actually allows us to do is build our capacity in those places where we currently have those larger offices in Edmonton and Montreal, so we actually think ... it enhances our capacity to improve the service.”

And that’s what worries Ezra Levant, a free speech advocate and critic of the commission.

“My fear is that ... they are just shutting down wasteful costly branch offices to regroup and be even more brutal out of their Stalinist bunker in Ottawa,” Levant said Friday. “Instead of spending money on rent and phones and things like that, they’re going to put more money into abusing our human rights.”

Link: http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2010/03/26/13366036-qmi.html

....and funding is increasing in a time of restraint:

While the union sees this as part of the Conservative government’s attempts to undermine human rights groups, documents filed with Parliament show the CHRC is set to grow, not shrink. Despite the looming office closures the CHRC’s budget is expected to grow from $21.5 million in the current fiscal year to just under $23 million in 2011-2012 fiscal year. The number of employees is set to rise as well from 197 full-time equivalencies to 203.

Over the next few years the Commission plans to expand operations overall rather than shrink them as the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gives First Nations people across the country full access to the act and the Commission for the first time.

Link to increased funding: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-22884-Canada-Politics-Examiner~y2010m3d26-Canadian-Human-Rights-Commission-to-expand-despite-rumoured-job-cuts

[madmax]

Hmm, strange thing has happened.

I haven't been on MLW alot as of late so I am doing some catchup. Seems somehow I have voted on this poll?

Very interesting indeed. Never seen this happen before.

So, I am going to delete "my" vote and see just what it is I am voting for or against LOL.

And if I made this poll it would have been a simple yes or no.