Canadian Human Rights Commission

[Bonam]

Looks like I've definitely found a hot button issue for Canada. I very much appreciate people taking the time to express their views.

Yes, there has been some limited controversy on the topic. However, most Canadians remain oblivious to the inherent unjust nature of HRCs. Realistically, HRCs are unlikely to impact your life should you choose to move to Canada. But, it is important to realize that, in principle, speech is not nearly as free in Canada as it is in the US. In general, individual freedoms are not held as sacred in Canadian culture as they are in American culture. In fact, the first paragraph of our charter states:

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.

There is no such caveat in the American constitution. It's a difference you'll have to accept if you immigrate to Canada.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Bonam

[TimG]

So you are saying that it is "sick that these kangaroo courts are allowed to exist" over one case where the HRTO ruling was over-turned?

Yes - because the victim in this case had the financial incentive to fight. In many cases the abuses are just as bad but they never go to court because the victims (read: the people prosecuted by the HRC) are advised that paying up and shutting up is a lot cheaper - even if they have a case. It is justice that would make Al Capone proud.

You really need to get you head out of the clouds and look at the the HRC is actually doing. Stop assuming that because you agree with the concept that the bureaucratic nightmare is not causing any harm. It causes a lot of harm to the innocent people who are attacked by it.

Here is a good summary of the issues. FWIW, the HRC probably could be fixed so it would provide a venue for real abuses while protecting the rights of the accused.

Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren has noted that the process is the punishment. For those who use legal counsel, there are enormous costs in defending oneself in a system that many consider rigged; meanwhile, the government pays the legal costs of the complainant, even though defendants cannot even access legal aid. In a court of law, plaintiffs must pay for their own counsel and, if the case is found frivolous, can be forced to pay the legal costs of the defendants.

This, of course, discourages frivolous lawsuits. But in human rights commission cases, the odds are stacked in the favour of the complainant. Link Byfield, a senator-elect from Alberta, calls such suits ‘junk law’ and Levant says the commissions only hear the cases that real courts won’t.

Whereas, in the regular court system, the principle of double jeopardy applies – that is, defendants can only be charged once – the offended can “forum shop” among human rights commissions. If one jurisdiction rules against a claimant, he can pursue his case elsewhere.

Not that these tribunals are likely to rule against claimants. In the three decades of federal human rights commission cases, not one defendant in a Section XIII complaint that went beyond the discovery phase has been acquitted. Defendants in provincial cases do not fare much better. As Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women, has said, “If a complaint is laid against you, you’re automatically found guilty.” Yet, not once has an individual punished by these tribunals been found guilty in a court of law of an actual hate crime.

In part, this is because it is virtually impossible to defend against a human rights complaint. Normal rules of evidence do not apply: hearsay evidence is permitted, hearings can be held in secret, the accused usually do not face their accusers, and, most important, the presumption of innocence so vital in our common law tradition is suspended as the accused must prove their innocence. If a complainant claims to be offended, it is virtually impossible to prove that he or she has not been offended.

Niceties such as facts and truth are irrelevant to human rights tribunals. Reporting facts – statistics or anecdotes, studies or reports – or quotes is no defence if these facts cause offence.

Furthermore, tribunals can require guilty individuals to pay large fines, apologize, change their behaviour, stop expressing certain views or undergo sensitivity training. As Tristan Emmanuel of the Equipping Christians for the Public Square Centre has noted, not even murderers can be made to apologize to their victims (and victims’ families), but those found guilty of uttering words deemed offensive must apologize to the insulted and publicly prostrate themselves.

With all this, the system seems to be rigged. Furthermore, human rights codes limit who can make a complaint to thos from “historically marginalized” groups, so if homosexuals or atheists do something to offend Christians, that’s too bad.

http://www.theinterim.com/2008/feb/12humanrights.html Edited August 18, 2011 by TimG

[wyly]

You wrote:

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Was it semantics? The "bigots like you" sounded like you were referring to me, but now that I read it again, you were saying, "bigots like you will encounter," so perhaps you meant other people. True? Sorry if I misunderstood.

your brain shut down at "like you" and then it filled in the rest with an assumption...if I had written "like you'll encounter" it would have probably flowed better and avoided the confusion...

I'm willing to learn and will read with an open mind. I didn't raise the issue claiming to be an expert on it. I raised it out of interest in learning about it. I will say that I'm extremely leery of things that curtail free speech. In my opinion, speech that's simply offensive should not be restricted by any government. People don't have the right to be protected against getting their feelings hurt. When someone spews rude and hateful garbage, the antidote is to suck it up and either counter it with better free speech or just ignore it. For example, I do semiprofessional photography. I learned that a neo-Nazi group from Minnesota was coming to town (to Omaha, Nebraska) to hold a protest against illegal immigration. I requested that day off work intending to photograph the Nazis and the counter protesters, believing I could get some interesting shots. However, after I thought it over, I decided that taking the photos would just give more attention to a despicable group. Instead, I simply took the day off without photographing any Nazis. I chose to deal with them by ignoring them. Others chose to counter protest. Cops made sure to keep the Nazis and the counters apart to prevent violence. IMO that was the right way to deal with them. I would not favor arresting or prosecuting the Nazis for speaking their mind, however reprehensible their views are. I do favor countering their ideas to make sure they never become public policy.

However, if hate groups use speech specifically to cause violence, then I'm okay with squelching that. For example, perhaps the Nazi group puts up a web site saying their recruiting storm troopers to beat up Jews. Then that's conspiracy to commit violence and they should be arrested.

we have our liable and slander laws just as the US does, so neither country has absolute freedom of speech...

we also have our nazi groups we know what they think and they're free to believe to do that but they are not free to "incite" hatred that will disadvantage another group...and that goes for any other group regardless of colour, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual leanings...

A big reason why I'm wary of squelching free speech is a concern that it may end up suppressing creativity. In the 70s there was a wonderful show named All In the Family. You may have seen it. The main character, Archie Bunker, was a lovable bigot. He was bigoted, but the writing was outstanding. The purpose of his bigotry was to make fun of bigotry. Laws that curtail the use of bigoted language could wind up suppressing the free expression of a show like All In the Family. I would much rather see bigotry be dealt with openly with a show like that or with honest discussion than to see it squashed.

what creativity has it supressed? the US has nothing that we do not have, bigoted language in proper context such as in the arts is acceptable...there is nothing creative about intolerance, intolerance is the destroyer of creativity... Edited August 18, 2011 by wyly

[DogOnPorch]

Someone has to since it is obvious the 'rightards' certainly don't.

That might or might not be true. Either way, I didn't vote for Mr Harper.

[Speedy von Vloppen]

what creativity has it supressed? the US has nothing that we do not have, bigoted language in proper context such as in the arts is acceptable...there is nothing creative about intolerance, intolerance is the destroyer of creativity...

Well, the character of Archie Bunker was definitely intolerant. The writers themselves weren't. They used a bigoted character to make fun of bigotry and ignorance. My concern is if the speech of real haters is squelched, then it may spill over to squelching the ability of a writer to write a bigoted character for a creative purpose as was done on All In the Family. And there was the case of the comedian who ended up fined 15K for insulting someone. Comedy acts poke fun at race and ethnicity quite often. That does seem to be a case of creativity being shut down. Yes, it was only someone telling jokes, but I'm concerned it could spill over into other creative areas. It's possible for something to work dramatically and still contain bigotry. Shakespeare's the Merchant of Venice is actually very anti-Semitic by today's standards. Parts of that play make me cringe. However, from a dramatic standpoint, it does work well. It seems entirely conceivable that a theater company or a school in Canada might shy away from that play because of fear of being hauled in front of a tribunal.

And, btw, I'm not out to be a judgmental foreigner attempting to tell Canadians how to run their country. I'm just exploring the issue. I'm finding Canada to be a fascinating country and want to learn more. I could go on and on about how the USA violates its constitution. A thing called the Patriot Act violates the long-revered tradition of the rights of the accused. I won't go into it because it will just hijack the thread. Google it if you're not familiar with it.

Once again, thank you for corresponding.

[wyly]

Well, the character of Archie Bunker was definitely intolerant. The writers themselves weren't. They used a bigoted character to make fun of bigotry and ignorance. My concern is if the speech of real haters is squelched, then it may spill over to squelching the ability of a writer to write a bigoted character for a creative purpose as was done on All In the Family.

archie bunker can still be seen in canada in reruns...the arts have freedom of expression...

And there was the case of the comedian who ended up fined 15K for insulting someone. Comedy acts poke fun at race and ethnicity quite often. That does seem to be a case of creativity being shut down. Yes, it was only someone telling jokes, but I'm concerned it could spill over into other creative areas. It's possible for something to work dramatically and still contain bigotry. Shakespeare's the Merchant of Venice is actually very anti-Semitic by today's standards. Parts of that play make me cringe. However, from a dramatic standpoint, it does work well. It seems entirely conceivable that a theater company or a school in Canada might shy away from that play because of fear of being hauled in front of a tribunal.

that comedian fined 15k has admitted to going too far and stated he regretted what he said...what was said no one seems to know but forum members have no issues raising hell about something they know none of the details of...

Russel Peters is a popular canadian comedian who makes his living insulting other ethnic groups, but it's the spirit in which he does it that matters, he doesn't promote or incite hatred, he doesn't attack his "victims" and his victims understand that...dramatic depictions of intolerance are acceptable because they meet an artistic requirement for accuracy... would Schindlers List be acceptable if no jews were depicted being killed or injured?...the arts have no limits that I know of in regards to this issue..

And, btw, I'm not out to be a judgmental foreigner attempting to tell Canadians how to run their country. I'm just exploring the issue. I'm finding Canada to be a fascinating country and want to learn more. I could go on and on about how the USA violates its constitution. A thing called the Patriot Act violates the long-revered tradition of the rights of the accused. I won't go into it because it will just hijack the thread. Google it if you're not familiar with it.

Once again, thank you for corresponding.

feel free to judge I'll agree with or oppose you as the topic requires...

[William Ashley]

And that is?

Here is a short history lesson. First Nations discovered America thousands of years ago. Three to five + groups migrated here over the millenia. There was migrations right up until the 1700's, and treaty is just finally being wrapped up today - areas in BC for instance were unceeded in until the past few years, and in the early 1900's much of Ontario was fully Indian land. Still some areas are unknown. In this mindset the idea that natives more or less were the "people" on top of the political process until Europeans arrived.

The portugeuse were some of the first, they took slaves, did fishing, but eventually left. The Spanish although being given control of all of North America by the Pope, didn't do anything this far north, thus except for a few threats to England and France did little. Other areas like the German ones and Dutch etc.. were mostly dealing in trade, and in the case of the mennonites setting up farming communities.

So eventually the French controlled areas (most of Canada) were taken by the British as a result of the French and Indian war. Although the French to this day maintain some de facto civil control powers, the martial law rests with the British Subjects.

Although a lot of land titles are questionable with only areas of genocide such as Newfoundland, and a formal claim in places like Nova Scotia for the Scotish Baronets is a "treaty" - treaties are conducted between two STATES.. not just Canada and groups within it, understand that. The treaties have more or less been violated in many instances.

This brings us to the Dominion... dominion means "to dominate" that is use martial force to occupy and control an area. The British Dominion of Canada was controlled by the British, mostly white chaps from Ireland, Scotland and England. To a large extent this is still the case, but things have eroded somewhat.

Now to more directly answer your question - the British WASPy folk still have most of the presedence. Although there are lots of judges of multiethnic backgrounds many are white men and women. The cops, same deal, the military same deal. The population is although eroding largely all waspy and catholic.

These groups as dominant are not afraid to resort to use of force because, they have maintained dominion and use of executive function and martial force. The whole idea of equality rights is to allow social mobility and integration - the melting pot concept, that might not otherwise exist if non euroCanadians were kept out of the administration.

The point is rednecks might have an active force in running the country. You can't really call Stephen Harper an Albertan Redneck because he is from Toronto he would just be a poser redneck. Fact is REDNECKS are from the southern states, and have nothing to do with Canada.

[Wild Bill]

I have no idea on how this relates. The tract was given to the natives by the crown. It was illegally sold to settlement - and the natives have more or less said ok we arn't going to claim places like Kitchener and other areas of large populations laying within the x* km or so boundary around the grand river, but we arn't letting the land next door to us have houses built on it. Brant got that land for a reason respect that, in the Context of the crown and first nations the derivative context . The province paid off the people who had houses there, why don't you just drop the issue already. It is native land legally.

You are utterly rude and ignorant of the facts.

For the American, Joseph Brant helped repel the American's from southern Ontario.. and was awarded a tract of land 5km around the grand river to use and enjoy for all time. the comment made by WildBill is completely off topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_River_land_dispute

There are a number of commonlaw issues, prior to the registry.. squating may have alienated portions of land, but developments under 10 years old, and settlements in which eviction was sought was native land rightfully.

Part of the issue is also title fraud and fraudulent sale, however the grant is unalienable since it is a letters patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent

And you totally missed the point! I take no stand as to the validity of the Six Nations land claims. That is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The issue is the TACTICS and TARGETS of their protests! Virtually every act of protest committed by the natives at the site hurt the townsfolk, not the politicians. They did not blow up the electricity for McGuinty's town! They did not beat up any of Harper's party but they beat up tv cameramen, old men with weak hearts and put one old guy in the hospital after whacking him more than a few times in the head with a piece of lumber, putting him into critical care.

They forced people to submit to being stopped and searched before they could proceed to their homes, including body searches of young women! They did this for months!

I don't care about ANYBODY'S claims! When you use innocents as cannon fodder you are a terrorist, by definition. I believe that terrorists of any stripe should be treated as rabid animals.

If they had wanted to run their ATVs through McGuinty's back yard I would have kicked in a few bucks for the gas!

You really should bone up more on this issue! An entire town was deprived of the rule of law. People called the police and were told "Sorry! You're on your own! But don't YOU use any violence!"

This is FACT! This is a violation of the most basic responsibility of any government. Why did it happen and why is it still happening?

Simply put, when McGuinty was in opposition he pilloried Mike Harris for the death of Dudley George, a native protester at the Ipperwash Incident. By the time McGuinty was through he had made it sound like Harris had personally pulled the trigger!

When the Caledonia protest broke out, McGuinty was terrified that he might end up hoisted on his own petard! So he commenced a policy of appeasement, trying to ensure that the natives did not actually resort to bloodshed. Since "white folks" tend to be far less likely to resist the force of law officers, whenever push came to shove the white folks were sacrificed.

You really should read Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless". She tells the entire story of the protest, from interviews from a great many of the people involved, on both sides. She freely admits she takes no stand on the issue of the native claims, confessing she isn't qualified.

She simply tells us of the protest TACTICS, the actions (or inactions) of the politicians and the effects on everyone involved.

For a man so strong on people's rights I can't believe you missed this one so completely, Mr. Ashley!

Edited August 18, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Shwa]

And you totally missed the point!...

God Bill, you are turning into the Markuze of Caledonia.

[Thorn]

Well, the character of Archie Bunker was definitely intolerant. The writers themselves weren't. They used a bigoted character to make fun of bigotry and ignorance.

That was then, this is now. No character like Archie Bunker would be approved for mainstream TV today unless he was depicted as irredeemably evil.

[Thorn]

that comedian fined 15k has admitted to going too far and stated he regretted what he said...what was said no one seems to know but forum members have no issues raising hell about something they know none of the details of...

If a governmental body is going to hold a trial which can impose punishments in the tens of thousands of dollars then the person on trial needs to be provided with free legal services and the neutrality of the body and judge involved need to be unquestioned. The HRCs are kangaroo courts which provide legal help only to the complainant and are often staffed by biased people who are poorly trained and inclined to find prejudice anywhere the subject is raised.

[Shwa]

If a governmental body is going to hold a trial which can impose punishments in the tens of thousands of dollars then the person on trial needs to be provided with free legal services and the neutrality of the body and judge involved need to be unquestioned. The HRCs are kangaroo courts which provide legal help only to the complainant and are often staffed by biased people who are poorly trained and inclined to find prejudice anywhere the subject is raised.

A grand, sweeping sentiment that is neither reflective nor supportive of reality.

[Saipan]

Human "rights" commissions were created to make cushy jobs for liberal bureaurats.

[Shwa]

Human "rights" commissions were created to make cushy jobs for liberal bureaurats.

But it still beats the human "rights" in the Old Country, right Saipan?

[wyly]

But it still beats the human "rights" in the Old Country, right Saipan?

ya the irony...someone who comes to canada to enjoy our freedom and human rights complaining about an organization set up to ensure all canadians share those those rights and be protected from discrimination...and Siapan on the same side as a number of our forum nazi's who would like nothing better then to see Siapan shipped back to where he came from ...

[segnosaur]

If a governmental body is going to hold a trial which can impose punishments in the tens of thousands of dollars then the person on trial needs to be provided with free legal services...The HRCs are kangaroo courts which provide legal help only to the complainant...

A grand, sweeping sentiment that is neither reflective nor supportive of reality.

Ummm... just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that financial or legal help is given to individuals who are defending themselves in front of a human rights commission?

I am aware at no such provisions. On doing some searching, I did find this statement: "The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his own...". (From: http://web.archive.org/web/20080701191358/http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=597251&p=2 ). Now, this is from an opinion piece, but it is from a major media source. Of course, I'm sure that if defendants get legal assistance, you'll be willing and eager to provide it. (After all, all you need to do is find one case of a defendant being given free legal representation by the government at a commission hearing to prove your point.)

The piece from the National post also states: Occasionally, the plaintiff has been given access to the commissions' investigation files and given the power to direct investigators. Truth is not a defence. Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers. Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply. Hearsay is admitted....

[Shwa]

Ummm... just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that financial or legal help is given to individuals who are defending themselves in front of a human rights commission?

That is not required.

Here try this.

Then re-read bubble-boy's statement. Note that this thread refers to a specific organization and not "HRCs" and even if it did, he is still somewhat way off the mark.

[William Ashley]

And you totally missed the point! I take no stand as to the validity of the Six Nations land claims. That is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The issue is the TACTICS and TARGETS of their protests! Virtually every act of protest committed by the natives at the site hurt the townsfolk, not the politicians. They did not blow up the electricity for McGuinty's town! They did not beat up any of Harper's party but they beat up tv cameramen, old men with weak hearts and put one old guy in the hospital after whacking him more than a few times in the head with a piece of lumber, putting him into critical care.

They forced people to submit to being stopped and searched before they could proceed to their homes, including body searches of young women! They did this for months!

I don't care about ANYBODY'S claims! When you use innocents as cannon fodder you are a terrorist, by definition. I believe that terrorists of any stripe should be treated as rabid animals.

If they had wanted to run their ATVs through McGuinty's back yard I would have kicked in a few bucks for the gas!

You really should bone up more on this issue! An entire town was deprived of the rule of law. People called the police and were told "Sorry! You're on your own! But don't YOU use any violence!"

This is FACT! This is a violation of the most basic responsibility of any government. Why did it happen and why is it still happening?

Simply put, when McGuinty was in opposition he pilloried Mike Harris for the death of Dudley George, a native protester at the Ipperwash Incident. By the time McGuinty was through he had made it sound like Harris had personally pulled the trigger!

When the Caledonia protest broke out, McGuinty was terrified that he might end up hoisted on his own petard! So he commenced a policy of appeasement, trying to ensure that the natives did not actually resort to bloodshed. Since "white folks" tend to be far less likely to resist the force of law officers, whenever push came to shove the white folks were sacrificed.

You really should read Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless". She tells the entire story of the protest, from interviews from a great many of the people involved, on both sides. She freely admits she takes no stand on the issue of the native claims, confessing she isn't qualified.

She simply tells us of the protest TACTICS, the actions (or inactions) of the politicians and the effects on everyone involved.

For a man so strong on people's rights I can't believe you missed this one so completely, Mr. Ashley!

No need to use Mr. --- when given I don't use any of my addresses or nominals. My first name would be sufficient unless there is another William.

Yeah the situation was problematic. Everything took quite some time, I think that was the main issue. However the time was used to ease in things that might otherwise be more damaging. People didn't want to accept it and I can only guess they were letting the situation play out.

Clearly we both may have done it differently.

1st I'd hold a town hall meeting explaining the development was done on first nations land and that the development had to stop. And that the families would be compensated for the money they put into the purchase of those homes.

2nd, people would be evacuated and contracted movers would move people to new homes at cost to the government as applicable.

3rd, the natives would have their band funds pay for the cost of materials left on the site to repay the developer for their costs if not accounted for in the prices paid for the homes on real value of materials and labour and illegal purchases of non titled land, rather than sale markups "real value"

4th the natives would be given compensation for damages for despoilment

5th all effected parties would be able to file claims for losses as a result or disagreement and a request on what was requested in place of what was undertaken. TO round things off

For instances natives might request the materials removed, but I would move to finish the development as part of First Nations housing funding since the government is paying for either unfinished or finished homes.. finished makes more sense since it might be able to be written off as housing funding for first nations.

Another option would be to request the band add the members to people able to live on reserve so they could keep their homes and live within the reserve community legally as non bandlist residents.

Edited August 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[Wild Bill]

No need to use Mr. --- when given I don't use any of my addresses or nominals. My first name would be sufficient unless there is another William.

Yeah the situation was problematic. Everything took quite some time, I think that was the main issue. However the time was used to ease in things that might otherwise be more damaging. People didn't want to accept it and I can only guess they were letting the situation play out.

Clearly we both may have done it differently.

1st I'd hold a town hall meeting explaining the development was done on first nations land and that the development had to stop. And that the families would be compensated for the money they put into the purchase of those homes.

2nd, people would be evacuated and contracted movers would move people to new homes at cost to the government as applicable.

3rd, the natives would have their band funds pay for the cost of materials left on the site to repay the developer for their costs if not accounted for in the prices paid for the homes on real value of materials and labour and illegal purchases of non titled land, rather than sale markups "real value"

4th the natives would be given compensation for damages for despoilment

5th all effected parties would be able to file claims for losses as a result or disagreement and a request on what was requested in place of what was undertaken. TO round things off

For instances natives might request the materials removed, but I would move to finish the development as part of First Nations housing funding since the government is paying for either unfinished or finished homes.. finished makes more sense since it might be able to be written off as housing funding for first nations.

Another option would be to request the band add the members to people able to live on reserve so they could keep their homes and live within the reserve community legally as non bandlist residents.

Well, that's NOT what happened or what IS happening! Neighbouring communities who have been friends with much intermarriage for well over a century now nuture distrust and resentment. If I had been that old man put into critical care forevermore I would have distrusted any native youth I saw. Unless I got to know them well the safest approach would be to avoid and distrust them. I would see them as a potential threat, unless proven wrong! That's just simple logic. It's also a very sad way to go through life! Most natives would not have committed such violence but how does an old man tell who's a threat and who isn't?

Worse yet, when the state will NOT protect you, as is what happened with those citizens who called the police for help and were told the police would not protect them, that leaves only one logical alternative - protect yourself! (You could simply wait to be hurt or perhaps killed. One resident who had the temerity to publicly complain about the situation found the nuts loosened on the wheels of his wife's car, twice! Still, I think passive suicide can be discounted as not likely by most folks.)

If we put citizens in the position of having vigilantism as their only option, we are asking for a serious escalation of trouble! The whole point of society is to protect citizens so that they DON"T have to take the Law into their own hands!

McGuinty has screwed up this situation royally! He's taught an entire town that they cannot expect the law to protect them. He has also hurt the native protest! Harper saw the obvious - this was a golden opportunity to make the provincial Liberals look bad! Dalton bleated that the feds were supposed to come in and solve everything but McGuinty was the one who had sent in the OPP, highlighting the point that law and order were provincial responsibilities and not federal. Harper was off the hook. Settling the Six Nations claims were put on the back burner. In an ideal world Harper SHOULD have seriously negotiated with the native protesters but hey, it was politics! To expect anything else would have been naive.

You made some nice suggestions, William but I'm afraid they're merely a wish list. It's a real world problem that needs a real world solution. The example shown by McGuinty will have repercussions for generations to come!

[Shwa]

Well, that's NOT what happened or what IS happening! Neighbouring communities who have been friends with much intermarriage for well over a century now nuture distrust and resentment.

Just a few of them, otherwise it's business as usual.

If I had been that old man put into critical care forevermore I would have distrusted any native youth I saw. Unless I got to know them well the safest approach would be to avoid and distrust them. I would see them as a potential threat, unless proven wrong! That's just simple logic. It's also a very sad way to go through life! Most natives would not have committed such violence but how does an old man tell who's a threat and who isn't?

Yep: if you were that old man... but you're not, so you are using your own fear-based perspective to paint the world. Again.

Worse yet, when the state will NOT protect you, as is what happened with those citizens who called the police for help and were told the police would not protect them, that leaves only one logical alternative - protect yourself!

The state stepped in to protect people and dealt with complaints as best they could under the circumstances and this included the bigoted losers who only showed up or complained to cause trouble. Gary McHale, et al. If a few of that group got punched out, oh well.

(You could simply wait to be hurt or perhaps killed. One resident who had the temerity to publicly complain about the situation found the nuts loosened on the wheels of his wife's car, twice! Still, I think passive suicide can be discounted as not likely by most folks.)

Riiiiight. Now the folktales substitute as truth. Wonder where we've seen this sort of thing happen before. LOFL!

If we put citizens in the position of having vigilantism as their only option, we are asking for a serious escalation of trouble! The whole point of society is to protect citizens so that they DON"T have to take the Law into their own hands!

Fish, meet barrel. IF the situation were, as you hysterically claim it was, then it seems that the "citizens" were indeed put "in a position of having vigilantism as their only option." But obviously they weren't so it wasn't as bad as you claim. Pure hyperbolic Bill.

McGuinty has screwed up this situation royally! He's taught an entire town that they cannot expect the law to protect them.

No he didn't, yes they can and they still do. Most of the townfolk of Caledonia have a clue and it's business as usual for most of them, including the police who continue to patrol and respond to calls.

He has also hurt the native protest!

No he didn't. They achieved their objective through negotiations spurred on by the protest.

Harper saw the obvious - this was a golden opportunity to make the provincial Liberals look bad! Dalton bleated that the feds were supposed to come in and solve everything but McGuinty was the one who had sent in the OPP, highlighting the point that law and order were provincial responsibilities and not federal. Harper was off the hook. Settling the Six Nations claims were put on the back burner. In an ideal world Harper SHOULD have seriously negotiated with the native protesters but hey, it was politics! To expect anything else would have been naive.

Nope.

You made some nice suggestions, William but I'm afraid they're merely a wish list. It's a real world problem that needs a real world solution. The example shown by McGuinty will have repercussions for generations to come!

No they won't. Most people have learned and moved on. Even the old Indian women who manned the barricades. I wish our old women would move on too.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Shwa

[segnosaur]

Ummm... just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that financial or legal help is given to individuals who are defending themselves in front of a human rights commission?

That is not required.

...

Then re-read bubble-boy's statement. Note that this thread refers to a specific organization and not "HRCs" and even if it did, he is still somewhat way off the mark.

Actually, yes it is required.

Thorn made a comment that the fairness of human rights commissions are negatively affected by government assistance provided to only one side of the debate. That issue applies to both the Canadian human rights commission (as I pointed out in the reference I provided), and to the provincial counterparts. It was to that posting that you claimed that it was not "supportive of reality".

If you have any proof that he's "off the mark", then where is your proof? Its not my job to mind read; its your job to provide your arguments in a clear manner and provide evidence to back up your claims.

[Saipan]

But it still beats the human "rights" in the Old Country, right Saipan?

Asia?

[Shwa]

Actually, yes it is required.

No, I have already provided you with a link. Did you bother to read it? No?

Thorn made a comment that the fairness of human rights commissions are negatively affected by government assistance provided to only one side of the debate. That issue applies to both the Canadian human rights commission (as I pointed out in the reference I provided), and to the provincial counterparts. It was to that posting that you claimed that it was not "supportive of reality".

It isn't a "debate." If you would take the time to get to know what the CHRC actually does, you will see that they act on legal "complaints" of violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I have already provided you with a link to a specific part of the CHRC FAQ explaining they do not supply lawyers. Any "legal services" that they do supply, is in accordance with any other legal complaint alleged against someone in practically every other jurisdiction.

You don't think the police supply "legal" advice to complainants and victims of crime? How about "hearsay" evidence? Do you not think the police investigate on hearsay evidence and the Crown will lay charges based upon it?

If you have any proof that he's "off the mark", then where is your proof? Its not my job to mind read; its your job to provide your arguments in a clear manner and provide evidence to back up your claims.

I am not asking you to mind read, but simply read would be sufficient.

[Saipan]

If you would take the time to get to know what the CHRC actually does, you will see that they act on legal "complaints" of violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

If you're Caucasian, and 'specially male they don't. And that is a fact.

[Shwa]

If you're Caucasian, and 'specially male they don't. And that is a fact.

Right. A "fact" in Saipan's dirty little world.