Human rights complaint against Maclean's dropped

[Argus]

Well hold onto your hats. The Ontario Liberal government has just broadened the power of its human rights commissions. Among the changes which came into effect last week the cap on monetary awards which was $10,000 is now removed. The Czars of the HRC will be able to award any amount they see fit for mental anguish caused by wrong doers. Also, there will be fewer brakes on people who want to file charges. They used to have to file, and then the HRC would decide whether their case merited a hearing. No more, now they can apply directly for a hearing. It is estimated the number of hearings will now go up twentyfold.

Ontario Human Rights Process changes

Edited July 6, 2008 by Argus

[sharkman]

Yikes, on top of poor Ontarians with their economy in the dumper, now they face a HRC that's going to get mad with power. My condolences.

[MontyBurns]

Well hold onto your hats. The Ontario Liberal government has just broadened the power of its human rights commissions. Among the changes which came into effect last week the cap on monetary awards which was $10,000 is now removed. The Czars of the HRC will be able to aware any amount they see fit for mental anguish caused by wrong doers. Also, there will be fewer brakes on people who want to file charges. They used to have to file, and then the HRC would decide whether their case merited a hearing. No more, now they can apply directly for a hearing. It is estimated the number of hearing will now go up twentyfold.

Ontario Human Rights Process changes

Christ! Thank God I don't live in Ontario!

[White Doors]

This was my point. Can you read?

Where did I say Mark Steyn does not have a right to free speech? I love that Mark Steyn has a right to free sppech. It is like turning over a stone. The millipedes scuttle out into the open waving their pincers and antennae and wiggling their funny ass...

Ha. OK. If I write a book that says Jews are taking over the world, will Snark Steyn defend me? LOL. What a joke.

Sorry, my mistake - I was thinking you had seriously thought of this subject before posting.

[White Doors]

Are you dense? A former employee does not represent the CHRC. Your implication that he's acting as the CHRC's covert enforcer demands evidence.

Yes, you are correct. I am dense for thinking a HRC should have a reputation of fairness and not be under investigation by the RCMP.

I am dense for thinking that the state should not be censoring free speech in order to compensate for 'hurt feelings'. Yes, are indeed correct that I am dense because I disagree that a quasi-extra judical 'board' can make decisions that are markedly different from the law of the land and the supreme court with impunity. Yes, I am dense that an appointed clique or PC fanatics can ignore all normal rules of discovery and evidence and to not allow truth to be a defence.

If you think that this is ok, feel free to continue with the insults - maybe I will go to the HRC and have you censored for calling me dense.

[Black Dog]

Yes, you are correct. I am dense for thinking a HRC should have a reputation of fairness and not be under investigation by the RCMP.

You know, it wouldn't kill you to post a link to a reliable source for this.

I am dense for thinking that the state should not be censoring free speech in order to compensate for 'hurt feelings'.

The state does no such thing. The basis of the Maclean's complaint was that the article would expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, not hurt feelings.

Yes, are indeed correct that I am dense because I disagree that a quasi-extra judical 'board' can make decisions that are markedly different from the law of the land and the supreme court with impunity.

Such as?

Yes, I am dense that an appointed clique or PC fanatics can ignore all normal rules of discovery and evidence and to not allow truth to be a defence.

For example?

If you think that this is ok, feel free to continue with the insults - maybe I will go to the HRC and have you censored for calling me dense.

Given that you consistently distort and misrepresent the issue, you're either dense or a deliberate distorter. Your pick.

Funny thing is, I agree that the HRCs should not have jurisdiction over matters of speech. I just don't see the need to distort the facts to make that case.

[segnosaur]

Yes, you are correct. I am dense for thinking a HRC should have a reputation of fairness and not be under investigation by the RCMP.

You know, it wouldn't kill you to post a link to a reliable source for this.

I'm not the original poster, but I'll take a stab at this:

A complaint to police alleges that federal human-rights investigators used an unwitting woman's wireless Internet connection to log on to white supremacist websites and make postings to chat groups.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/04...5186701-cp.html

I am dense for thinking that the state should not be censoring free speech in order to compensate for 'hurt feelings'.

The state does no such thing. The basis of the Maclean's complaint was that the article would expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, not hurt feelings.

Again, I'm not the original poster, but please note that he put the phrase 'hurt feelings' within quotes. To me, that indicates that he's not suggesting that only feelings were involved, but that there was no actual direct threats presented in the Maclean's article that would result in physical harm... hatred and contempt, while unfortunate (especially if the reasons are unfounded), are still along the same lines as 'hurt feelings'. Even if the phrase 'hurt feelings' is slightly inaccurate, its a useful shorthand.

Yes, are indeed correct that I am dense because I disagree that a quasi-extra judical 'board' can make decisions that are markedly different from the law of the land and the supreme court with impunity.

Such as?

If you go to the web site of the BC Human rights tribunal, you can find all sorts of decisions that were appealed to the real court system, and eventually overturned. (Not all such appeals were successful, but a fair number were.)

The fact that you get these overturned decisions suggests that these tribunals are not following the rules that we would expect from our justice system.

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/judicial_...f_decisions.htm

For example:, in http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/06/...006BCSC1201.htm the judge ruled:

In my view, the discretion of the Tribunal, in the instant case, was exercised arbitrarily in the sense that it was not based on reasoned argument. It was not based on reasoned argument because the Tribunal did not hear any argument at all (from either side) on the factors which formed the basis for the exercise of its discretion

Or from: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/07/...007bcsc1767.htm

Thus I conclude the tribunal member committed an error of law in finding arguable relevance to the information sought at this stage of the process...

These are just a couple of examples (there are a few more in the list of appeals I referred to earlier), but they show that at least the BC human rights tribunals aren't basing their decisions on the same rules of evidence that we would expect a court to use.

Edited July 8, 2008 by segnosaur

[White Doors]

You know, it wouldn't kill you to post a link to a reliable source for this.

The state does no such thing. The basis of the Maclean's complaint was that the article would expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, not hurt feelings.

Such as?

For example?

Given that you consistently distort and misrepresent the issue, you're either dense or a deliberate distorter. Your pick.

Funny thing is, I agree that the HRCs should not have jurisdiction over matters of speech. I just don't see the need to distort the facts to make that case.

I am not distorting the facts, I know BD, it is seemingly unbelieveable, but if you look up the relevant sections you will see that I am correct.

I am not doing your homework for you. You look up the legislation and then come back here and eat crow.

[White Doors]

Thanks Seg, but just wait for the 'buts'.

BD is against the various HRC's sensoring Free speech, unfortunately, he hates anything that hints of right wing even more so it understandably clouds his judgement.

[segnosaur]

Thanks Seg, but just wait for the 'buts'.

They may come.

However, I'm of the opinion that 'those who make the claims are responsible for providing evidence'. Granted, he may or may not accept the evidence, but its still a good idea to provide it. And if they do end up making counter claims without their own supporting evidence, then at least you can say you're on the moral high ground.

BD is against the various HRC's sensoring Free speech, unfortunately, he hates anything that hints of right wing even more so it understandably clouds his judgement.

First of all, I'm not exactly 'right wing' myself... I've got rather libertarian views (although currently the conservatives are the party that I feel best represent those views, that may not always be the case.)

Secondly, its unfortunate but lets face it, there are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum that have let blind partisanship cloud their judgement.

Frankly, I'd rather have a good online debate with someone who's got a well defined viewpoint and is able to defend it with integrity than deal with someone who may share the same viewpoint as me but does so through deception, lies, etc.

[August1991]

August:

please enlighten me as to the conspiracies that lurk behind the doors of HRCs.

You're accusing the CHRC of initiating these cases. It wouldn't hurt to provide some evidence that that is the case.

BD, I posted this quote elsewhere on this forum. It's from an internal report of the CHRC:

In 2001, through a detailed review of its 24 years of operation, the Commission determined that it had been accumulating a backlog of complaints since its inception. The backlog is the number of open cases in excess of the number that would normally be open if the Commission were completing as many cases as it was taking in each year. Although the Commission has reduced this backlog at various points in its history, it has never had the capacity to deal with all of the complaints filed in a given year. For example, in 2002, the Commission received 800 signed complaints, 200 more than it is resourced to handle under its traditional business model.

In 2002, a review of the Commission's service and operational standards concluded that, under current procedures, it takes up to two years to investigate a complaint. The review confirmed that the approach by which it had been processing complaints did not lend itself to setting reasonable service standards. The length of the complaint process and the fact that the backlog was endemic led to the conclusion that major reform to the business model was needed. The comprehensive reform of the complaint process began in the fall of 2002.

Link

The endemnic backlogs of the CHRC are an invitation to abuse. In the eyes of the human rights bureaucracy, the demand for civil rights protection exceeds society's ability to supply it. In the eyes of someone with common sense, if society subsidizes the cost of placing a grievance, one shouldn't be surprised if there is a surplus of grievances.

As I noted above, this isn't about human rights or about justice. It's about bullies obtaining access to the power of the State. By using the phrase "human rights", they can make their activities palatable. It's like collecting money for the "widows and orphans fund".

[Black Dog]

I'm not the original poster, but I'll take a stab at this:

A complaint to police alleges that federal human-rights investigators used an unwitting woman's wireless Internet connection to log on to white supremacist websites and make postings to chat groups.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/04...5186701-cp.html

Thanks for the link. Interesting that the investigation is in progress. The way some are talking, an investigation is as good as a guilty verdict.

Again, I'm not the original poster, but please note that he put the phrase 'hurt feelings' within quotes. To me, that indicates that he's not suggesting that only feelings were involved, but that there was no actual direct threats presented in the Maclean's article that would result in physical harm... hatred and contempt, while unfortunate (especially if the reasons are unfounded), are still along the same lines as 'hurt feelings'. Even if the phrase 'hurt feelings' is slightly inaccurate, its a useful shorthand.

Not sure how long you've been with us, but the "hurt feelings" meme has been a persistent one around here. IMO, it's a deliberate attempt to minimize the potential damage speech can cause (though I should add here that that's not a reason to censor it) to score cheap rhetorical points. Would one use hurt feelings, with or without scare quotes, to talk about the cases of Keegstra or Zundel? I wonder.

These are just a couple of examples (there are a few more in the list of appeals I referred to earlier), but they show that at least the BC human rights tribunals aren't basing their decisions on the same rules of evidence that we would expect a court to use.

Again, thanks for the examples (taking notes, WD?). To me, though the fact that HR cases are being overturned when there's a legal appeal shows that it's part of the system. Courts overturn decisions made by lower courts all the time on points of law. Does that mean those lower courts aren't basing their decisions on the proper rules of evidence? Or does it simply underscore the importance of checks and balances within the system?

At the end of the day, I have little patience for those who project their own ideological vigor onto others to explain the world. I have little problem seeing the HRC's as bloated bureaucratic nightmares, but I have a hard time buying some of these borderline conspiracy theories. I always stand by the old maxim "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

However, I'm of the opinion that 'those who make the claims are responsible for providing evidence'. Granted, he may or may not accept the evidence, but its still a good idea to provide it. And if they do end up making counter claims without their own supporting evidence, then at least you can say you're on the moral high ground.

WD take note. You just got pwned.

WD:

BD is against the various HRC's sensoring Free speech, unfortunately, he hates anything that hints of right wing even more so it understandably clouds his judgement.

Yeah, I hate right wingers so much that I demand they argue in logical and coherent manner with supporting facts presented. I'm wacky like that!

August:

The endemnic backlogs of the CHRC are an invitation to abuse. In the eyes of the human rights bureaucracy, the demand for civil rights protection exceeds society's ability to supply it. In the eyes of someone with common sense, if society subsidizes the cost of placing a grievance, one shouldn't be surprised if there is a surplus of grievances.

That's your magic bullet? You see partisan maneuvering and abuse by the scheming stormtroopers of political correctness, I see inefficiency and incompetence, plain and simple. What's more, you're suggesting that CHRC's are actually generating that backlog: a pretty wild claim if you ask me and certainly not one supported by the report.

[White Doors]

They may come.

However, I'm of the opinion that 'those who make the claims are responsible for providing evidence'. Granted, he may or may not accept the evidence, but its still a good idea to provide it. And if they do end up making counter claims without their own supporting evidence, then at least you can say you're on the moral high ground.

First of all, I'm not exactly 'right wing' myself... I've got rather libertarian views (although currently the conservatives are the party that I feel best represent those views, that may not always be the case.)

Secondly, its unfortunate but lets face it, there are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum that have let blind partisanship cloud their judgement.

Frankly, I'd rather have a good online debate with someone who's got a well defined viewpoint and is able to defend it with integrity than deal with someone who may share the same viewpoint as me but does so through deception, lies, etc.

The 'evidence' he asked for is a matter of public record and can be found in McLean's and anyone else who has filed a report on the hearing. He wasn't asking for evidence, he was asking to be spoon-fed.

[White Doors]

Courts overturn decisions made by lower courts all the time on points of law. Does that mean those lower courts aren't basing their decisions on the proper rules of evidence? Or does it simply underscore the importance of checks and balances within the system?

The HRC are not courts. strike one.

The complainants are represented for free. The defendants are not. strike two.

The HRC's rules of conduct in no way resemble the court of law, truth is no defence and there is no burden of proof, no discovery rules and no precendents used to deliberate. They just need to see that someone 'genuinely' was offended by what they read and see probability that others in that group could be offended as well.

strike three.

This is not about libel or defamation of character, all covered by the traditional courts of law. This is about PC run amok.

Link! (read and be amazed - if you really are here to learn)

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/02/liveblo...E2%80%94part-i/

[segnosaur]

Thanks for the link. Interesting that the investigation is in progress. The way some are talking, an investigation is as good as a guilty verdict.

You're right, we don't have a verdict right now... Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

However, keep in mind that they've really only been around for a few decades, and for the most part have only recently begun to get noticed. There may not be many skeletons in their closet simply because the closet isn't that old.

So, while we don't have a 'guilty verdict' yet, we're stuck looking at what little evidence we do have, and for better or worse, it points in the direction of 'guilty'.

Not sure how long you've been with us, but the "hurt feelings" meme has been a persistent one around here. IMO, it's a deliberate attempt to minimize the potential damage speech can cause (though I should add here that that's not a reason to censor it) to score cheap rhetorical points.

Did Mcleans call for immediate harm against muslims? Did they tell people to beat them up, or burn down their houses? Unless they did, I do think it fits into the realm of 'hurt feelings'.

Would one use hurt feelings, with or without scare quotes, to talk about the cases of Keegstra or Zundel? I wonder.

Well, there is a difference here...

To the best of my knowledge, Mcleans did not publish anything that wasn't actually factual (yes, they were publishing stuff that was partly based on opinion, but nothing they posted was actually inaccurate). Zundel is a holocaust denier, as such he is presenting inaccurate data as 'facts'.

There is also a difference in degrees... the Styen article was mostly a discussion about birth rates and the effect on society. Nothing in that (when taken as a whole) is really that 'dangerious'. Keegstra was actually requiring his students to reproduce his views.

Again, thanks for the examples (taking notes, WD?). To me, though the fact that HR cases are being overturned when there's a legal appeal shows that it's part of the system. Courts overturn decisions made by lower courts all the time on points of law.

Yes, lower court decisions do get overturned. But then, it still brings up the question about why we need human rights commissions in the first place. After all, going through any legal proceeding (whether it be a real court or human rights commission) can be expensive... you may need legal representation, you may need to take time off work, etc. Why add yet another 'layer' to the legal system where a person will have to defend themselves?

Add to that the fact that human rights commissions do not have the same 'filters' that the court system has. Usually, cases that appear in front of a real judge have been investigated by the police for merit, and the crown prosecutor at least thinks there's a case. With a human rights commission, pretty much anyone can launch their own case.