Canadian Human Rights Commission

[Speedy von Vloppen]

I'm an American learning about Canada. One thing I'm not sure of is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. From what I've read thus far, it looks like an attempt to make sure minorities get a fair treatment in being able to get work. However, one thing raised my eyebrow. People could get sued for using ethnic slurs. Doesn't that conflict with the free speech rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or some other offensive slur, it seems that the person is guilty of bad taste, but has not committed a crime. It's ugly speech, but still free speech.

Isn't the Canadian Human Rights Commission clashing with the Canadian Constitution? Perhaps I haven't gotten all the facts or have interpreted them wrong?

[wyly]

I'm an American learning about Canada. One thing I'm not sure of is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. From what I've read thus far, it looks like an attempt to make sure minorities get a fair treatment in being able to get work. However, one thing raised my eyebrow. People could get sued for using ethnic slurs. Doesn't that conflict with the free speech rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or some other offensive slur, it seems that the person is guilty of bad taste, but has not committed a crime. It's ugly speech, but still free speech.

Isn't the Canadian Human Rights Commission clashing with the Canadian Constitution? Perhaps I haven't gotten all the facts or have interpreted them wrong?

like many other freedoms your freedom to express your opinion ends when it endangers someone else...

I've never heard of any issues using the N word unless it's to publicly induce "hate"...the word isn't banned it just isn't a wise choice if want to avoid getting punched...

people like to make a fuss over our hate speech laws but it's exaggerated, a lot of needless fuss over something that effects only the most ignorant people in our society...

[guyser]

Frre speech in either country is a bit of a fallacy. There are untold thousands of examples were it was denied, even though both our Charter and Constitution demand it.

Up here, it can be denied or punishable if it is used to incite hate,physical harm or damage.

IOW, if a White Aryan (there still some??) were to advocate lynching X he can be arrested.

So if someone yelled out "hey you fat bald honky bastard"

I'd tell them to stop talking to my mom like that.

Edited August 16, 2011 by guyser

[TimG]

Up here, it can be denied or punishable if it is used to incite hate, physical harm or damage.

A wonderful sentiment. The problem is the implementation in the HRC which allows people to make frivolous complaints and face no consequences and stretches the definition of hate speech way beyond any reasonable definition. Edited August 16, 2011 by TimG

[Thorn]

I'm an American learning about Canada. One thing I'm not sure of is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. From what I've read thus far, it looks like an attempt to make sure minorities get a fair treatment in being able to get work. However, one thing raised my eyebrow. People could get sued for using ethnic slurs. Doesn't that conflict with the free speech rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or some other offensive slur, it seems that the person is guilty of bad taste, but has not committed a crime. It's ugly speech, but still free speech.

Isn't the Canadian Human Rights Commission clashing with the Canadian Constitution? Perhaps I haven't gotten all the facts or have interpreted them wrong?

Yes, it does clash with the Charter of Rights. But it's been fed off of left-wing white guilt over the years, and does its best to stay below the radar of the courts. It counts on people not having the resources to actually hire lawyers to take them on, and when such people or organizations do have such resources the HR commissions usually scurry away. There have been a number of recent, high-profile cases where the commissions attempted to punish people for expressing opinions some felt unflattering towards Muslims, for example, but they've come to nothing. Mind you, the persecution of these organizations and individuals cost them a lot of money, which in itself is a punishment and is used by certain types to suppress free speech. The commissions provide free legal assistance to those who make a complaint against someone, but the accused must provide their own legal assistance, if they can afford it. You can basically sum up the mentality of those who work in such commissions as "If I don't like what you say then you're a bad person and need to be punished".

Which, come to think of it, is pretty much the mentality one finds amongst the majority of Leftists and liberals on this site. So you should get more than a few telling you how great the commissions are.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Thorn

[Guest American Woman]

Frre speech in either country is a bit of a fallacy. There are untold thousands of examples were it was denied, even though both our Charter and Constitution demand it.

Up here, it can be denied or punishable if it is used to incite hate,physical harm or damage.

IOW, if a White Aryan (there still some??) were to advocate lynching X he can be arrested.

So if someone yelled out "hey you fat bald honky bastard"

I'd tell them to stop talking to my mom like that.

[Shwa]

I'm an American learning about Canada. One thing I'm not sure of is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. From what I've read thus far, it looks like an attempt to make sure minorities get a fair treatment in being able to get work. However, one thing raised my eyebrow. People could get sued for using ethnic slurs. Doesn't that conflict with the free speech rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or some other offensive slur, it seems that the person is guilty of bad taste, but has not committed a crime. It's ugly speech, but still free speech.

Isn't the Canadian Human Rights Commission clashing with the Canadian Constitution? Perhaps I haven't gotten all the facts or have interpreted them wrong?

If you are an American, learning about Canada and wish to know how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms work, then pay careful attention to the opening paragraph:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Note the key phrase, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

So no, the CHRC nor hate speech laws "clash" with the Charter or Constitution in anyway, shape or form. None, nada, not at all. Anyone attempting to tell you that it does is full of baloney and is likely a bit dumb or an ideologue, usually one in the same.

Like any social institution in the world, the CHRC has to deal with it's fair share of frivolous or fraudulent claims which are nothing compared to the frivolous or fraudulent claims made to Employment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan, taxation, any number of the levels of justice, etc.

If you wonder about free speech in Canada, check out our libel, slander and defamation laws.

[wyly]

can't understand why anyone thinks ethnic slurs and worse promoting ethnic/racial hate among the torches and pitchfork crowd is a freedom we should try to protect...those are the people I'd like to see emigrate from canada we certainly don't want more of them...

[TimG]

can't understand why anyone thinks ethnic slurs and worse promoting ethnic/racial hate...

The trouble is distinction between legitimate commentary that is not complementary to some groups and 'ethnic slurs' is purely subjective. For example, it is a fact that certain ethnic groups cause a disproportionate amount of problems in Canadians cities. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should limit immigration from such countries until the problem with existing immigrants have been resolved. However, I doubt you would see it that way. Edited August 17, 2011 by TimG

[Thorn]

can't understand why anyone thinks ethnic slurs and worse promoting ethnic/racial hate among the torches and pitchfork crowd is a freedom we should try to protect...those are the people I'd like to see emigrate from canada we certainly don't want more of them...

We don't have anyplace to export such people to, but maybe if your lot ever get in control you can establish the gulags and re-education camps which will make your life more harmonious.

[Speedy von Vloppen]

can't understand why anyone thinks ethnic slurs and worse promoting ethnic/racial hate among the torches and pitchfork crowd is a freedom we should try to protect...those are the people I'd like to see emigrate from canada we certainly don't want more of them...

It's not about thinking derogatory slurs are a good thing. Clearly, they're ugly and disgusting. It's about whether there should be legal remedies against them. If someone insulted me, I wouldn't pursue litigation unless there were some kind of real measurable injury. If someone said, "Speedy you're a [insert racial slur]," it might hurt my feelings, but I would think the way to deal with it would be for me to exercise my own free speech or ignore the person, not to try to shut the other person up. On the other hand, if I owned a brewery and the person who didn't like me spread a false rumor that my workers pee into the beer, it could cause my sales to go down. I could even put me out of business. In that case of real and measurable injury, a lawsuit would be in order.

In the case of a racial slur -- the N word or whatever -- it seems the damage to the reputation only occurs to the person saying the word, not to the one who's being referred to. Believe me, I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who degrades another person based on ethnicity. I just question the use of litigation in response to it. There are some things that belong in the courts and some that should just be worked out between people informally. For example, I don't think the government has any business punishing someone for committing adultery. Cheating is a low thing to do, but people should have to work out their differences on their own in such a case. However, if a spouse physically assaults his partner, then the legal system should be involved.

I also think that bigotry isn't cured by making a bigot shut up. That only makes those kind of views fester and develop further. Bigotry can be alleviated by learning and slow evolution in a person's thinking. I don't believe the legal squelching of specific words will accomplish that. Plus, I'm concerned with the chance that the squelching may spill over and end up suppressing more legitimate views. But please don't mistake any of my concerns for sympathy for anyone with hateful views. Hate disgusts me. In fact, that's one of the things that's frustrating me about the whole extremist Tea Party movement in the USA. The Tea Partiers have been spewing plenty of racism. However, IMO the antidote is not to shut them up, but rather to expose them in hopes that more reasonable people will prevail.

[William Ashley]

I'm an American learning about Canada. One thing I'm not sure of is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. From what I've read thus far, it looks like an attempt to make sure minorities get a fair treatment in being able to get work.

The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act is to ensure equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination, in areas under federal jurisdiction. The idea behind the Act is that people should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because of their age, sex, race or any other of the 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination covered by the Act.

The Commission is responsible for administering the Act.

However, one thing raised my eyebrow. People could get sued for using ethnic slurs. Doesn't that conflict with the free speech rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Hate crimes? It is sort of assaultive to issue a slur. Slurs are defamatory thus a breach of civil law.

For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or some other offensive slur, it seems that the person is guilty of bad taste, but has not committed a crime. It's ugly speech, but still free speech.

Isn't the Canadian Human Rights Commission clashing with the Canadian Constitution? Perhaps I haven't gotten all the facts or have interpreted them wrong?

Canada doesn't have the exact same free speech as the US. The case law is a little different. Note though that the Human Rights Commission is a commission not a court.

Cases can go from the commission to a real court such as

http://tinyurl.com/43wxy6f

While the Charter does have some provisions, the human rights act outlines some other stuff.

The constitutionality of the act can be called into question.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/

The bottom line use of "slur" in itself denotes an attempt to defame or injure a person, which is a civil violation.

see the charter

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.(84)

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/rights/240.aspx

Example given by the CBA

For example, say that Bill told John you were a cheat, and then John refused to do business with you because of that.

Now replace it with a slur here is your example

For example, say that Bill told John you were a Nigger, and then John refused to do business with you because of that.

Works the same way, it is context and result.

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/rights/236.aspx

Edited August 17, 2011 by William Ashley

[wyly]

It's not about thinking derogatory slurs are a good thing. Clearly, they're ugly and disgusting. It's about whether there should be legal remedies against them. If someone insulted me, I wouldn't pursue litigation unless there were some kind of real measurable injury. If someone said, "Speedy you're a [insert racial slur]," it might hurt my feelings, but I would think the way to deal with it would be for me to exercise my own free speech or ignore the person, not to try to shut the other person up. On the other hand, if I owned a brewery and the person who didn't like me spread a false rumor that my workers pee into the beer, it could cause my sales to go down. I could even put me out of business. In that case of real and measurable injury, a lawsuit would be in order.

it wasn't meant to change bigots like you will encounter in this forum into rational humans, it was meant to stop bigotry as a tool to disadvantage people...people who object to the CHRC are either really ignorant as to it's purpose or red necked bigots, often both...anyone who has any ethical/moral value in our society will never come into conflict with the commission...

[TimG]

anyone who has any ethical/moral value in our society will never come into conflict with the commission.

You are completely clueless. The HRC is used regularly to harass innocent people. For example, a comedian insulted a heckler and he was hauled in from of the HRC for hurting a lesbian's feelings (if you heckle a comedien you should expect abuse). It is pathetic that HRC is allowed to run rampant as it is. If anyone lacks ethics it is the people who blindly support that bureaucratic monstrosity. Edited August 17, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

HRCs are inherently and structurally flawed and unjust in that they provide free representation to the accuser while denying same to the defendant.

[Oleg Bach]

The CHRC - is the begining of the down ward disposal and recycling of important issues that the SCC fails to deal with. We don't need a CHRC - we need an effective Supreme Court Of Canada! If our highest court was real...the Canadian Human Rights Commission would not exist.

[Oleg Bach]

HRCs are inherently and structurally flawed and unjust in that they provide free representation to the accuser while denying same to the defendant.

They are flawed - because when the supreme court of Canada does not want to make a ruling in favour of an issue that might look like a conflict of interest...or that might show the agenda of the SCS - they hand it over to the CHRC - to avoid the embarassment in the fact that they are socialist morons that want to destroy true conservatism...but do not want to get their hands dirty doing it - The CHRC is a an arm of the SCS.

[Oleg Bach]

Eletist jerks that are so overly book smart that they behave like institututionalized twits should not and can not serve in the best interests of Canada. Once a person is told and then believes they are a brilliant legal mind - justice runs from the building. Most of those serving in these institutions have been wealthy and privledged since birth - How can they even attempt to dole out justice when they have never personally been victims of injustice - the best they can to is look smart - scratch their chins - stoke their beards and hand down some recylced presedence.

[Shwa]

HRCs are inherently and structurally flawed and unjust in that they provide free representation to the accuser while denying same to the defendant.

Do you have some concrete evidence of this? At least in the CHRC it basically operates this way:

Allegations of discrimination are screened to ensure they fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction, and inquirers may be referred to other redress mechanisms, such as a grievance process. If the dispute falls within the Commission’s jurisdiction, the parties are offered services to assist them in resolving the matter without filing a complaint. If the matter cannot be resolved and the inquirer wishes to file a complaint, the case may be assigned to a mediator or an investigator... Throughout the process, the parties are encouraged to look for solutions by participating in alternative dispute resolution.

Also,

Must I pay to file a complaint with the Commission?

Filing a complaint is free of charge, and complainants do not need a lawyer to file a complaint with the Commission. However, complainants and respondents can choose to be represented by a lawyer at any time during the complaint process. If the parties involved in a complaint choose to hire a lawyer, the costs will not be covered by the Commission, as it does not provide funding for private legal representation.

Less than 20% of claims go to Tribunal.

[Shwa]

You are completely clueless. The HRC is used regularly to harass innocent people. For example, a comedian insulted a heckler and he was hauled in from of the HRC for hurting a lesbian's feelings (if you heckle a comedien you should expect abuse). It is pathetic that HRC is allowed to run rampant as it is. If anyone lacks ethics it is the people who blindly support that bureaucratic monstrosity.

Do you have citations or evidence of any of this?

[Michael Hardner]

It's not about thinking derogatory slurs are a good thing. Clearly, they're ugly and disgusting. It's about whether there should be legal remedies against them.

It is not illegal to use a racial slur.

[Oleg Bach]

It is not illegal to use a racial slur.

It is not illegal to say "I don't like you" either. The only thing that should be curbed is the incitement of hatred in order to gain power through the most base means. This is the only danger in hatred - when it is orgainized and used to mobleise those that are not that smart. To create a swarming effect that through a common collective can be use to manipulate the mass to destroy what some consider competative or supposedly superiour or inferiour - As for any hate speech it should always be personal - when it is personal it is a normal human interaction - when it stretches into the realm of politics or religion - it must be curbed. We have yet to make that distinction..between collective hate and indiviual hatred.

[TimG]

Do you have citations or evidence of any of this?

A simple examination of the facts in this case make it clear there was no case. Yet this business woman was dragged through the various tribunals at her expense. It is sick that these kangaroo courts are allowed to exist.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/931807--superior-court-rules-ontario-human-rights-tribunal-hearing-was-unfair

A Mississauga businesswoman whose home was ordered seized to pay an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal award to a former employee can keep her house for now.

The Superior Court struck down the fatally flawed decision as so unfair to defendant Maxcine Telfer who represented herself in the hearing that it was simply not possible to logically follow the pathway taken by the adjudicator.

Also this:

The new system allows some complainants to get free legal services from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre while the accused must hire their own lawyers.

Saadi, a York University graduate, filed the complaint against Telfer after she was fired from Audmax in June 2008.

Saadi was given free services from the legal support centre. Telfer represented herself.

Edited August 17, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

To take a persons home to pay tribute to a Human Rights Commission - who then in turn hand over that home to some complainer - who wanted to smoke pot in the street infront of a resturant bar...for example is a real breach of human rights...no person should be made homeless by any ruling by this Commission - If a complainer seeks damages - let them go to a real court.

[Speedy von Vloppen]

it wasn't meant to change bigots like you will encounter in this forum into rational humans, it was meant to stop bigotry as a tool to disadvantage people...people who object to the CHRC are either really ignorant as to it's purpose or red necked bigots, often both

I can see I'm unlikely to get any rationality from you. Show me anything I've said that's bigoted against any group. Everything I've written has been about free speech and whether this commission conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's not a personal attack on anyone or any group. People have free speech rights, whether they're bigoted or not. Rights don't get taken away based on who we approve of and who we don't. For example, a person accused of a crime has the right to refuse to incriminate himself and has the right to an attorney. Should we take that right away because the person used language we don't approve of?

anyone who has any ethical/moral value in our society will never come into conflict with the commission...

That's naive. When you squelch the free speech of unpopular people, it's very easy to squelch the free speech of everyone.

It is not illegal to say "I don't like you" either. The only thing that should be curbed is the incitement of hatred in order to gain power through the most base means.

That seems to be the crux of the matter. How do they measure that? Is it based on harms? If the person can demonstrate the loss of a job, the loss of customers, they were assaulted? Those would be reasonable things to prosecute. I'm just not seeing how the use of bigoted language inherently causes that. In fact, a person could slander someone without using any ethnic slurs at all.

This is the only danger in hatred - when it is orgainized and used to mobleise those that are not that smart. To create a swarming effect that through a common collective can be use to manipulate the mass to destroy what some consider competative or supposedly superiour or inferiour - As for any hate speech it should always be personal - when it is personal it is a normal human interaction - when it stretches into the realm of politics or religion - it must be curbed. We have yet to make that distinction..between collective hate and indiviual hatred.

Is it when it creates danger then? For example, someone sets up a web site that creates a plan to find and assault Muslim people? That would be a conspiracy to commit a crime that the police would be reasonable to try to stop. Then it seems the crime is conspiracy to violence, not the use of offensive language. Why would that be handled by a commission and not by regular courts?