Time to right some wrongs

[jdobbin]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

With luck, legislatures will correct some of these abuses; but even if progress is made in that direction, we should remember that the existence of the commissions is itself an abuse. They have little to do with genuine human rights such as freedom of speech and worship, security of the person and ownership of property. They are specialized agencies to enforce anti-discrimination legislation, and issues of prejudice and discrimination are far too complex to be resolved by human-rights sloganeering.

It would appear the Conservatives are looking to end Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Acts.

The premise: That not hiring or renting to gay people will eventually work out in a competitive market.

[Alta4ever]

You and I both know that the HRC's have moved beyond their mandate and have become a kangaroo court.

[jdobbin]

You and I both know that the HRC's have moved beyond their mandate and have become a kangaroo court.

And that is why Conservatives want to remove all human rights commissions and legislation.

Discrimination is not something the government wants to deal with. If someone kicks you out of a restaurant for being of a certain background, if you are turned away from jobs because you of a certain religion or discriminated against in any way, it is to be dealt with privately in the minds of Conservatives.

[CANADIEN]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

It would appear the Conservatives are looking to end Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Acts.

The premise: That not hiring or renting to gay people will eventually work out in a competitive market.

Human Rights Commssions should never have been made to venture into the realm of speech - which should be limited only when libellous or advocating violent hatred through regular court of laws.

And arguments could be made that Human Rights Commissions are not the best venue to address issues of illegal discrimination.

But to argue that protection from unjust discrimination is not a fundamental human right? Nothing could be further from the truth.

And even further from the truth is the contention that businesses, landlords or employers who disriminate will siffer economically. If anything, they would be flooded with potential clients, renters or employees just too happy to stay away from the "undesirables".

[jdobbin]

Human Rights Commssions should never have been made to venture into the realm of speech - which should be limited only when libellous or advocating violent hatred through regular court of laws.

And that is why the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue.

And arguments could be made that Human Rights Commissions are not the best venue to address issues of illegal discrimination.

But who to investigate it? The Conservatives have been giving broad hints they think human rights acts should be turfed and that people should let the market decide.

But to argue that protection from unjust discrimination is not a fundamental human right? Nothing could be further from the truth.

And even further from the truth is the contention that businesses, landlords or employers who disriminate will siffer economically. If anything, they would be flooded with potential clients, renters or employees just too happy to stay away from the "undesirables".

Conservatives like Flanagan are making the argument that the free market should decide on discrimination.

[CANADIEN]

You and I both know that the HRC's have moved beyond their mandate and have become a kangaroo court.

The extension of the powers of Human Rights Commissions to the realm of speech was a result of legislative action EXTENDING its powers. You (and I) may not like that it happened, but this how it happens, not through the Commissions deciding to extend their powers unilaterally.

As for cases like Levant and Steyn (whose belief in freedom of expression for others is likely little higher than my belief in Santa Claus - but that's another issue), they were found not to have violated any law. There are flaws in the system, but kangaroo courts? Yeah right.

[g_bambino]

And even further from the truth is the contention that businesses, landlords or employers who disriminate will siffer economically. If anything, they would be flooded with potential clients, renters or employees just too happy to stay away from the "undesirables".

Indeed, there are countless businesses in Toronto that employ only people of Chinese descent, and they don't seem to be suffering for it. Odd, though, that their owners never get dragged before a Human Rights Commission, as far as I know.

[Alta4ever]

they were found not to have violated any law. There are flaws in the system, but kangaroo courts? Yeah right.

do you not get that they do not operate within the justice system. These commisions aren't about the violation of laws, otherwise the those going before the commisions would be facing criminal charges.

We have hate crime legislation and the ablity to litigate in the courts of this country for racism, and the violation of charter rights. This can be and is done through the justice system, why do we also require a planel of activists to decide a restruant can't fire a cook who refused to wash their hands because its suposidly against thier relegion?

If you don't think these are Kangaroo courts then maybe just maybe you should do some research into european history and find out what happened when these "human rights" tribunals were set up in German and what they evolved into, and what they did. What is very scary is the parallel between their and ours and the types of cases they seem to now be pursuing.

HUman rights must be protected and the best way to do is through out justice system, not the tribuals that seem to operate above the law, and outside of common law and the charter of rights.

[xul]

Indeed, there are countless businesses in Toronto that employ only people of Chinese descent, and they don't seem to be suffering for it. Odd, though, that their owners never get dragged before a Human Rights Commission, as far as I know.

You should better consider why there was not anyone went these owners for a job with the same wages of those Chinese, then sued these owners on a Human Rights Commission if the owners told them that they were refused just because they were not Chinese or immigrants.

Edited May 20, 2009 by xul

[CANADIEN]

Indeed, there are countless businesses in Toronto that employ only people of Chinese descent, and they don't seem to be suffering for it. Odd, though, that their owners never get dragged before a Human Rights Commission, as far as I know.

And if anyone has been specifically told "you're not Chinese, I won't hire you", those businesses should be brought before the Commission.

[CANADIEN]

do you not get that they do not operate within the justice system.

Did I say they were part of the justice system? Nope. Their mandate and procedures were set up by law. Different.

These commisions aren't about the violation of laws, otherwise the those going before the commisions would be facing criminal charges.

They are about dealing with violation of the laws. And illegal discrimination is not covered under the Criminal Code. Feel free to argue that regular courts would be the best mechanism to pursue those cases - and I'll agree with you to a point. But to take an example that has nothing to do with discrimination, if you park illegally you may get to court and get a fine, but no criminal charges will ever be filed against you.

We have hate crime legislation

Not the same as anti-discrimination legislation.

If you don't think these are Kangaroo courts then maybe just maybe you should do some research into european history and find out what happened when these "human rights" tribunals were set up in German

What don't you tell us what you found? Starting with what those tribunals were and when they started, and ended?

HUman rights must be protected and the best way to do is through out justice system, not the tribuals that seem to operate above the law, and outside of common law and the charter of rights.

They operate within the laws regulating them. That's the problem.

[CANADIEN]

How to reform Human Rights Commission:

a) Abolish Human Rights Tribunals: regular courts can deal with violations of anti-discrimination statutes

Transform the Human Rights Commission into a body studying and reporting on issues of human rights, not just discrimination, but without investigation and prosecuting powers in cases of alleged discrimination. Public education on huuan rights issues as well as the provision of legal information should be included in its mandate.

c) Vest investigative and prosective powers into agencies similar to Ontario's new Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre (with a different name, mind you). They would investigate complaints and, if found reasonable, bring them before the courts as the plaintiff party.

d) In cases where violation of freedom of speech or religion is alleged (as opposed to discrimination - thinking here about the Purolator or the Sikh bike helmet, for example), the role of the Commission should be only to provide legal information, and intervene as an expert body before the court, as opposed to being one of the parties. Unless there is resonable grounds to assume that the purpose of an employer or service provider's rule is to discriminate, issues of whether or not their rules or service policies are an unreasonable infringement of freedom of speech/religion/opinion can be resolved in regular court of law.

e) clearly remove from the competency of the new agency any case involving alleged violations of the Criminal Code - specifically, hate crime and hate speech. If a violation of the criminal code has taken place, it should be dealt with in a criminal court. Period.

[Keepitsimple]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

It would appear the Conservatives are looking to end Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Acts.

The premise: That not hiring or renting to gay people will eventually work out in a competitive market.

You're a sly one Dobbin and another honorable effort to goad angry Liberals to spew anti-Harper rhetoric. Flanagan's arguments make some sense and he is entitled to his arguments but he does NOT speak for the government.....you'll notice at the bottom of the article that it says he was a former Conservative Campaign Manager - interesting that he chose that wording. I believe he has distanced himself from Harper precisely so he can espouse his own views. I would be the first to support a complete re-working of the Provincial HRC Tribunals but I'm not aware of anything imminent on the Federal scene with the exception of section 13.1. Dobbin, you've opened a can of worms that even your own Liberals have been fighting:

The controversy regarding the HRC's practices comes from its enforcement of Section 13.1 of Canada's Human Rights Act, which states that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." Critics charge that the HRC adjudicators have limited legal training and poor investigatory resources and the result is that the power of section 13.1 is being abused for nuisance cases that would be rightly tossed out of a real court.[1]

Liberal MP Keith Martin has proposed a private member's bill in Parliament to rescind section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, upon which federal HRC censorship cases are based.[2] Martin described the legal test of "likely to expose" as "a hole you could drive a Mack truck through," and said it is being applied by "rogue commissions where a small number of people [are] determining what Canadians can and can't say."[1]

Martin asserted that some of history's most important ideas "were originally deemed to be sacrilegious and certainly in opposition to conventional wisdom. Who's to say that a commission cannot rule those ideas out of order and penalize people for saying or thinking them?"[1]

Irwin Cotler, a Canadian human rights scholar and former minister of justice, floated (but did not endorse) the idea that section 13.1 cases should require the authorization of the Attorney-General, which is the requirement for criminal prosecutions for inciting violence or promoting hatred.[1]

Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has also criticized Section 13.1. He cited an example of the book Hitler's Willing Executioners, which alleges the complicity of German civilians in the Holocaust, and said that the thesis is arguably "likely to expose" German people to contempt, and therefore be a violation of Section 13.1.[1]

Borovoy also noted that under Section 13.1, "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."[1]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Huma...h_controversies

Edited May 20, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

You're a sly one Dobbin and another honorable effort to goad angry Liberals to spew anti-Harper rhetoric. Flanagan's arguments make some sense and he is entitled to his arguments but he does NOT speak for the government.....you'll notice at the bottom of the article that it says he was a former Conservative Campaign Manager - interesting that he chose that wording.

Flanagan is speaking for an entire movement in the Conservative party both federally and at the provincial level is associated PC parties. You know this. Flanagan often floats trial balloons for the party as "former campaign manager." You know this as well.

Some of the PCs in Ontario are asking for the elimination of the Human Rights Tribunal now.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tional/Ontario/

TORONTO -- Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership hopeful Tim Hudak says he would scrap the province's Human Rights Tribunal if he wins, a policy that party insiders fear could become as controversial as the religious-schools issue.

Mr. Hudak, the acknowledged front-runner in the four-person race, announced this week that he would replace the tribunal with a court-based system bound by rules of evidence instead of an entity that uses the province's Human Rights Code as a "tool for political advocacy."

All last week, conservative radio commentators were commenting on ending the human rights commissions and act altogether.

Now, we have Flanagan floating the idea that all discrimination should be settled by the market.

I believe he has distanced himself from Harper precisely so he can espouse his own views. I would be the first to support a complete re-working of the Provincial HRC Tribunals but I'm not aware of anything imminent on the Federal scene with the exception of section 13.1. Dobbin, you've opened a can of worms that even your own Liberals have been fighting:

I can't recall the Liberals saying that discrimination is something that should be market driven.

And I don't believe that Flanagan simply speaks for himself. He speaks for the conservative movement in Canada and often floats these trial balloons.

[Wild Bill]

And I don't believe that Flanagan simply speaks for himself. He speaks for the conservative movement in Canada and often floats these trial balloons.

Hmm. You keep writing posts stating premises as if they are backed by facts. Then when you're challenged you backpedal with statements like the above, which you yourself admit are your beliefs, or rather your opinions.

You didn't say that in your opening post.

Jdobbin, I don't think you are doing this deliberately. It might to you some good to think about it, however.

[jdobbin]

Hmm. You keep writing posts stating premises as if they are backed by facts. Then when you're challenged you backpedal with statements like the above, which you yourself admit are your beliefs, or rather your opinions.

You didn't say that in your opening post.

No backpedaling at all. Flanagan routinely puts these trial balloons out on Conservative policy shifts. We have seen this on a variety of his articles and then if there is blowback, we hear he is not linked to official party functions.

This is why I said in the opening post that it appeared to an indication of where the Tories are going.

Not surprisingly, one of the main debates in Ontario by PCs and Conservatives alike is the end of the Human Rights Tribunal and Commissions in favour of a market driven discrimination angle.

dobbin, I don't think you are doing this deliberately. It might to you some good to think about it, however.

So you think that Flanagan's articles are not linked to any policy shifts coming at the federal and provincial levels of the right?

You think I stated it as fact when clearly I said it appeared to be where they are headed.

Edited May 20, 2009 by jdobbin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In my view the HRC's were and still are necessary. The way to get rid of them would be to integrate their functions into the court system but that would cause its own set of problems.

Racism and discrimination could and probably should be declared hate crimes and the HRC's should and probably could be limited to employer and employee relations. There are many possible fixes to this perceived problem.

[Wild Bill]

So you think that Flanagan's articles are not linked to any policy shifts coming at the federal and provincial levels of the right?

You think I stated it as fact when clearly I said it appeared to be where they are headed.

I don't know if Flanagan has a 'hidden agenda'. I don't have enough facts to venture an opinion! I also agree that you used that word 'appeared'.

That's not my point. The average reader would not have read your post from a lawyer's viewpoint. The IMPLICATION of your post was that we were dealing with facts, not appearances!

Perhaps this is why you keep getting accused of being a 'shill for the Liberal party'. Your intentions may be honourable but your style often seems pure 'Kinsella'.

Or maybe you ARE deliberately being a 'spinmeister'! I have insufficient facts to make that claim but I can see how someone might take that view. I don't believe that of you myself. I think you are just very fervent in your support for your chosen party.

I'm just pointing out to you WHY some others may take your meaning differently from the way you say you actually meant it!

[jdobbin]

I don't know if Flanagan has a 'hidden agenda'. I don't have enough facts to venture an opinion! I also agree that you used that word 'appeared'.

I don't think Flanagan has a hidden agenda. He has been quite clear in his articles where he says Conservatives are headed. As I said, he routinely puts trial balloons out there to see if they will fly.

That's not my point. The average reader would not have read your post from a lawyer's viewpoint. The IMPLICATION of your post was that we were dealing with facts, not appearances!

I think my English was fairly plain. If had said the Tories were doing something, I wouldn't have said appeared.

Perhaps this is why you keep getting accused of being a 'shill for the Liberal party'. Your intentions may be honourable but your style often seems pure 'Kinsella'.

And I think you are reading what you want to read. There wasn't any legalese in what I wrote. I said the Conservatives appear to be heading in a direction of ending the human rights commissions.

Or maybe you ARE deliberately being a 'spinmeister'! I have insufficient facts to make that claim but I can see how someone might take that view. I don't believe that of you myself. I think you are just very fervent in your support for your chosen party.

I don't know how you can say there is spin on the word appears. Clearly, in that word alone, I am showing that it is my view of things based on Flanagan's article and what I am seeing this week in places like Ontario.

I support the Liberals. It doesn't come without many criticisms. However, this claim that I stated a Tory policy as fact is plainly unsupported.

I'm just pointing out to you WHY some others may take your meaning differently from the way you say you actually meant it!

And I am pointing out that my sentence should not be confusing to anyone about whether it was a fact or a viewpoint.

I suspect that the partisanship of those that read what I say dictates what they see.

[Borg]

And that is why Conservatives want to remove all human rights commissions and legislation.

Discrimination is not something the government wants to deal with. If someone kicks you out of a restaurant for being of a certain background, if you are turned away from jobs because you of a certain religion or discriminated against in any way, it is to be dealt with privately in the minds of Conservatives.

Yup - we are moving to black shirts and Jack Boots.

If the HRC was at least a bit better than a one way ticket to the insane asylum it might stand a chance of survival.

It needs to go.

Borg

[myata]

But who to investigate it? The Conservatives have been giving broad hints they think human rights acts should be turfed and that people should let the market decide.

That is exactly the point, where I would agree with the de... Harper himself. If we elect people who'd ditch human rights legislation, even Constitution (if it was theoretically possible) we probably don't deserve those rights in the first place.

It should be a matter for public debate, the courts, and the law, not pseudo legal entities with unknown agendas and less than clearly defined rules.

[jdobbin]

Yup - we are moving to black shirts and Jack Boots.

And let the market decide?

If the HRC was at least a bit better than a one way ticket to the insane asylum it might stand a chance of survival.

It needs to go.

And do you believe that discrimination would not exist or that the market would resolve it?

[Argus]

And if anyone has been specifically told "you're not Chinese, I won't hire you", those businesses should be brought before the Commission.

The HRC does not require admissions of guilt. If it were to receive a complaint about a factory in Toronto refusing to employ blacks, for example, the mere fact there were no blacks would be considered ample proof of active discrimination, and would be punished accordingly.

[Argus]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

It would appear the Conservatives are looking to end Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Acts.

The premise: That not hiring or renting to gay people will eventually work out in a competitive market.

Yes, I rememer the bad old days, before Human Rights Commisions, the long, sad - but gayly painted - caravans of homeless homosexuals in black leather chaps and G-strings, sadly waving thousand dollar bills at every uptight landlord they passed, only to be snubbed again and again, rooting through the garbage in their quaint, dainty fashion, with plastic gloves of course, for partially consumed bottles of Avian water and black eyeliner - goods they could never purchase openly because no one would sell to them. Oh it was sad sad. To think such days might return in our lifetimes...

[g_bambino]

And if anyone has been specifically told "you're not Chinese, I won't hire you", those businesses should be brought before the Commission.

I agree with that. However, people have been hauled before commissions for less direct discrimination than that. The mere implication that someone turned down an applicant based on their race, gender, sexual identity, hair colour, what-have-you, can lead to an accusation, and accusations are all Human Rights Commissions apparently need to proceed with a case.