The Shotgun Blog
« Ezra Levant: I don't answer to the state | Main | NOW!'s Susan G. Cole is on my left-wing “hit list” »
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Paul Tuns: HRCs: The unfair process is the punishment
Yesterday, we published Kathy Shaidle's exclusive column for the Western Standard. The day before, Pete Vere's column was posted. The day before that, we posted an excerpt from Shaidle and Vere's new book, "Tyranny of Nice." Today, we've got another scintillating column by Paul Tuns, editor of The Interim.
In "HRCs: The unfair process is the punishment," Tuns argues that the human rights commission process is, itself, a punishment, and ridicules that process when compared to real courts of law. The complainant doesn't have to pay for tribunal costs, but the defendent does. You can "forum shop" and lodge a complaint in all of the HRC jurisdictions (not so with a real court). You have to prove that the complainant, or others, weren't "really" offended. Good luck with that. And just how, pray tell, do you defend yourself against the charge that something you said or wrote or blogged about did, or is likely to, cause hate?
As Tuns says, the whole system is rigged against you right from the get-go.
An excerpt: "Human rights commissions are in the business of violating real human rights -- the right to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of religion -- to protect people from unpopular views and having their feelings hurt. You would think such a threat to liberty would raise more concern among those that purport to defend our freedom, whether they call themselves liberal or conservative. But you would be wrong."
Read the rest. Then follow this link and help us make freedom of speech and expression an election issue.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on September 25, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010534cd0a8c970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paul Tuns: HRCs: The unfair process is the punishment:
Comments
In a sense, they also violate property rights.
Posted by: dp | 2008-09-25 11:23:28 AM
Re: dp's comment "...they also violate property rights."
We do not have property rights in Canadian. They were elininated with the signing of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Posted by: Jude Pankewitz | 2008-09-25 12:24:06 PM
What were Parliamentarians thinking when they handed power like this to a bunch of old union lawyers? These people have more power than real judges, and operate under fewer rules. And has anyone noticed their discriminatory hiring practices? Of B.C.'s nine HRC members, eight are women. So I guess not ALL discrimination is bad. To the credit of the Canadian HRC, its split is fifty-fifty.
The CRHC has a special page dedicated to explaining the now much-maligned Section 13. It takes particular care to explain that Canadians do not have an equivalent to the First Amendment. This is HORSESHIT. Section 2 of the Charter specifies that Canadians enjoy "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication," "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
It goes on to justify this cold shoulder of section 2 by saying: "It seems fair to say that the American view is becoming a minority one in the world. Canada is part of what appears to be growing global consensus, which observes that careful restrictions of some forms of speech are both desirable and necessary."
I hate to rain on their parade, but America has ALWAYS been abnormally free compared to other countries. That's why people flocked to it in such numbers. It is populated by the descendants of people who found European law and bureaucracy oppressive (as they remain today). It is America's example we should be emulating, not that of more restrictive countries. But hey, anything to not be like the Americans, eh?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-25 2:49:39 PM
We do not have property rights in Canadian. They were elininated with the signing of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Posted by: Jude Pankewitz | 25-Sep-08 12:24:06 PM
Don't you mean Charter of NON Rights and NON Freedoms? :)
People seem to think its a wonderful document, and why not? It has a very "catchy" title right? But what's missed is what "isn't" written in it.
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-25 3:35:48 PM
I hate to rain on their parade, but America has ALWAYS been abnormally free compared to other countries. That's why people flocked to it in such numbers. It is populated by the descendants of people who found European law and bureaucracy oppressive (as they remain today). It is America's example we should be emulating, not that of more restrictive countries. But hey, anything to not be like the Americans, eh?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 25-Sep-08 2:49:39 PM
Its also what initially made it the richest country in the world...freedom.
But now that the government there is involved with every aspect of private enterprise...the golden goose is dying. And no "bail out" is going to fix that.
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-25 3:37:31 PM
"That's why people flocked to it in such numbers."
Not true. The founding Puritans came to America to be free to practice exclusion. They wished to associate with like-minded Puritans to build a community that best expressed their values. It was also true of free speech. The Puritan community established the extent to which speech could go without restriction.
"During the period from 1630 to 1690, the Puritans were not arbitrary oppressors of free speech. They believed that public expression was valuable and necessary. They restricted only ungodly print or speeches by heretics and blasphemers. Within the boundaries of godly expression, Puritans encouraged discussion for the better enlightenment of mankind. The rule that free expression should be a blessing to society occasionally backfired as people such as John Palmer accused them of silencing free speech. However, Palmer was supporting a governor whose basis for governing was the squelching of political expression and the silencing of Puritan religious ministry. Puritans did restrict the press enough so that Quaker prints which lashed out against New England had to be printed in Philadelphia or London."
Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-25 4:00:19 PM
False, DJ. The Puritans and Quakers were fleeing religious persecution at home. Still traumatized by the religious wars of the 16th century, England refused to allow any religion except Anglicism. Punishments for apostasy were extremely harsh, usually premunition (confiscation of one's estate, to be distributed among his accusers, and life imprisonment). The Puritans were certainly not perfect; they followed a very strict religion that forbade even the observance of Christmas (owing to its excessive festivity, which they considered immoral), but in the main Puritan law was more lenient than the law in England. The fact that Quakerism was allowed to exist at all is proof of that.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-25 6:20:10 PM
In any case, DJ, the original Puritan immigrants are a drop in the bucket compared with the millions upon millions of immigrants who arrived in America in the 19th century, which was my point. Immigration was stepped up dramatically after 1848, after the failed revolutions in Europe and the advent of the steamship.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-25 6:26:23 PM
Shane- American immigrants really are a special breed. I watched a story on CNN about the son of a Pakistani immigrant who was killed in Iraq. The young man obviously took being an American seriously, and volunteered for the Army. His family were proud of him, and it was a rather touching story.
When I see some immigrants pledging their allegiance to Canada, it seems sort of insincere. When someone pledges allegiance to the US, they've usually thought long and hard, and don't take their decision lightly.
Posted by: dp | 2008-09-25 6:42:15 PM
AMERICANS are a special breed, DP, which was my point. The argument that America is out of step with the global consensus is fatuous, because most of the world is not as free as America. The CHRC's viewpoint would lock us in with such havens of liberty as North Korea, China, India, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, and numerous others.
Canadian elites, who secretly long to join the European Union, just can't seem to understand that they, plus western Europe, do not constitute "global consensus." The great majority of the world's population lives in countries external to that zone, which are not liberal democracies in any sense of the word.
In short, they're following the wrong example, for the wrong reasons. Americans shoot for the stars while the CHRC tells us it's better to stay in the ditch because we'll have so much more company there. Just another manifestation of the pathological Canadian distrust of success.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-25 9:16:30 PM
"The fact that Quakerism was allowed to exist at all is proof of that."
Not in New England, however. The Quakers were excluded. Read Ben Franklin.
"In any case, DJ, the original Puritan immigrants are a drop in the bucket compared with the millions upon millions of immigrants who arrived in America in the 19th century, which was my point."
Not true. "Albion's Seed" or Charles Murray's "Human Accomplishments" both make evident the long lasting effect of America's founding Puritan population.
Moreover, the arrival of a mass migration of southern and eastern Catholic Europeans was a great chagrin to the 'American'.
By R.B. Bennett
Leader of the Conservative Party 1927-38, Prime Minister of Canada 1930-1935
House of Commons Debates, June 7, 1928, pp. 3925-7.
". . . Read the history of the United States, read what is written in every magazine in that country by thoughtful men, and you will find that the principle of the melting pot has failed; and they are quite apprehensive. Every thoughtful man in the United States, every keen observer, every man who travels, every author, everyone who shapes and molds
public opinion in the universities and in the great foundations-all these are bewailing the fact that uncontrolled immigration has been permitted into that country, to such an extent that there is now in the United States a polyglot population, without any distinctive civilization, and one about which many of them are in great despair . . . it is because we desire to profit by the very lessons we learned there that we are endeavouring to maintain our civilization at that high standard which has made the British civilization the test by which all other civilized nations in modern times are measured . . . "
It was the despair initiated by the mass Catholic exodus to Protestant America that, in large part, caused the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, setting quotas for various immigrant populations.
Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:
“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.
“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.
“We are determined that they shall not...It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]
Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-25 10:15:30 PM
"I watched a story on CNN about the son of a Pakistani immigrant who was killed in Iraq."
What CNN doesn't tell you, (no bias, no bull, self-praise is no recommendation) is the bulk of the casualties are (75%) young white country boys.
http://icasualties.org/oif/Ethnicity.aspx
Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-25 10:22:04 PM
You're grasping at straws, DJ. You're bending over backwards to convince us that America is not perfect, and that throwing together people of a thousand different lands and faiths was not always smooth sailing for the first couple of generations. Well, duh. My original point was that the reason people came to America in the first place was so they would be freer and have more opportunities than they had at home.
America retains this attraction today. It has one of the most comprehensive Constitutions, one of the most expansive sets of freedoms, one of the most evenly balanced systems of government in the world. Most other governments, like Canada's, are much more top-heavy, and therefore less democratic, and the CHRC likes this just fine. I don't know why you're being so stubborn about acknowledging this point.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-25 10:32:27 PM
DJ wrote: "What CNN doesn't tell you, (no bias, no bull, self-praise is no recommendation) is the bulk of the casualties are (75%) young white country boys."
Yeesh. It's like you're determined to find fault with the U.S. We are talking about the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL. Try to stay on topic.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-25 10:34:45 PM
Well if it was so evident (duh) why continue to do it? Choppy waters? Try a tsunami that changed the face of small town America.
The story of Altoona:
"Throughout the 19th century the PRR kept the city white, Protestant, and ethnically centered on the “traditional” Pennsylvania family of English, Scottish, and German descent. The PRR sought to keep Altoona homogeneous by preventing immigrant trains traveling from eastern ports inland to the nation’s major industrial cities from debarking passengers in Altoona.
By the early 20th century, though, the need for labor (otherwise known as cheap labour) outweighed any desire for homogeneity.
The influx of new immigrant and migrant workers began to change the landscape of Altoona. New ethnic neighborhoods formed: Little Italy, Jew Hill, Boogie Bend, Bloody Eighth, and Dutch Hill. Each ethnic group established churches of its own, conducted in its own tongue: Gaelic, Italian, Hungarian, and so forth. By 1936 there were 80 different churches in the city of 80,000. The church was the single most important organization, outside of the PRR, in the lives of most laborers. That same year there were 136 taverns and pubs within the city limits, which provided meeting places for friends, family, and organizations for the discussion of labor and management issues, social causes, neighborhood disputes, and politics.
The cultural practices of Altoona’s residents also began to change. “Hopin’ John” (African American rice and black-eyed peas) found its way onto the dinner table, as did gnocchi (Italian pasta) and haluski (Polish cabbage and noodles). Within a generation “healers” began working across cultural lines and storytellers found favor no matter what their ethnic/racial background. Various cultural practices gradually became a part of the larger culture, in some instances changing altogether and in others maintaining their distinctive character."
A couple of generations? What a joke. The town was fundamentally changed forever. Kind of like Brampton or Richmond B.C.
The only thing worthwhile watching on CNN is Lou Dobbs. Otherwise, it's all B.S. The point was that you are only evaluating one side of the equation. The mass European migration was an economic migration and like mass migration today it only served to drive down the wage and fertility rates of the founding Americans. And like it did and does in Canada today, i.e. the HRCs, it only served to limit their, the Americans, freedom. It not only limited their freedom it drove them from the very communities their ancestors founded and lived in for generations.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-25 11:04:38 PM
DJ,
1. Why continue to do what?
2. Your story is far from unique; you can find plenty of horror stories in Canadian history too. It's also irrelevant. We are comparing American freedoms to Canadian freedoms. Try to stay on topic.
3. The name of your favourite anchor is, again, irrelevant.
4. The arrival of the immigrants caused the dissolution of the Constitution, did it? Because that's what we're discussing--the American and Canadian Constitutions and the rights they confer their respective citizens. You refuse to discuss this, and instead dig up horror stories to smear the Americans. Bitter much?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-25 11:20:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.