The Shotgun Blog
« Sceptical people still need to be persuaded | Main | Pushing the limits of free speech on American TV »
Friday, January 25, 2008
Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission and Free Speech
'What follows is my question to the AHR&CC and their response. Do I feel any better about my right to free speech and expression as supposedly protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Quite simply, no. Based on the way this Commission is currently operating I see it as a can of worms. How do we deal with it? Two days ago I attended a presentation by Alan Borovoy, entitled "Whatever happened to free speech?" He was one of the persons instumental in getting human rights commissions established. He was dead against them dabbling in "Freedom of Speech and Expression" matters but offered only turning the bright light of public scorn on their proceedings. I say if you are faced with dealing with a can of worms you first arm yourself with an appropriate can opener.
Thank you for visiting the Alberta Government feedback web site. Following is the response to your question prepared by Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture [TPRC]
On 2008-01-25 12:37:00.0 you wrote:
What in the act authorizing your existence or the mandate under which the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission operates allows you to act on and award punishments in cases that are not in any way illegal and are strictly matters of free speech or freedom of expression which is expressly protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture responds as follows:
Thank you for your Alberta Connects inquiry. The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission is an independent body of the Government of Alberta. In addition to providing public information and education programs that help to reduce racism and discrimination, the Commission accepts human rights complaints made under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (HRCMA).
The HRCMA protects Albertans from discrimination on grounds such as race, colour, gender, and religious belief, and in areas such as employment, services, tenancy, and publications and notices. The Act also includes a strong statement upholding the right to free expression of opinion on any subject.
When the Commission receives a complaint in the area of publications and notices, it has the difficult task of balancing the right to be free from discrimination and the right to free expression. The Commission is guided by the Act, by Supreme Court decisions, and decisions from other courts regarding what constitutes discrimination in publications.
The Commission follows standard procedures that are in keeping with the provisions of the Act for all complaint files. Both parties are offered complaint conciliation services that often result in a settlement agreement. If settlement is not possible, the Commission conducts an investigation to determine whether or not there is a reasonable basis to proceed with the complaint. If there is no reasonable basis to proceed, the complaint is dismissed. If there is a reasonable basis to proceed, the matter is referred to a human rights panel.
Human rights panels hold public hearings into complaints. The Commissioners are appointed by Order in Council through public competition. Commissioners are selected based on their human rights knowledge and their ability to run fair hearings. Panel decisions can be appealed to the Court of Queens bench. Additional information is available on the Commission’s website at www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca
Government reviews all legislation from time to time to ensure that it is meeting its intended purpose, and your comments will be kept in mind".
Posted by Bob Wood on January 25, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54ff40ea28833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission and Free Speech:
Comments
"Two days ago I attended a presentation by Alan Borovoy, entitled "Whatever happened to free speech?" He was one of the persons instumental in getting human rights commissions established. He was dead against them dabbling in "Freedom of Speech and Expression" matters but offered only turning the bright light of public scorn on their proceedings."
If this is true, my respect for the guy just dropped to -42.
I disagree with the HRCs purported original mandate let alone their current metamorphosis into such a monstrous genetic deformity.
Shame on A.B.
And to think I bought and read his book.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 5:33:56 PM
BW- you did not receive an answer. You received a fatuous response and it is the same kind of bureaucratic twaddle that everyone receives.
Posted by: DML | 2008-01-25 7:50:23 PM
DML, you are absolutely correct. Here is my reply made immediately after I had received theirs.
As a 78 year old senior whose father, brother and two sisters served in the Armed Forces during the second world war, and who served from 1949 t0 1973 in the RCAF/CAF completing three overseas tours I consider I have invested too heavily in my freedom to stand idly by while that freedom is whittled away for my family. I am not a bureaucrat, have no ambitions to become a bureacrat, and have no desire to learn bureaucratic gobbledeygook. Your response fails to answer my basic question. How does your commission square the protection for freedom of speech and expression, as expressly stated in the Charter of rights and freedoms, with your bothersome dictation to defendants of what you consider acceptable speech or expression. I won't go into the minimal proof required of possible ill effects on anyone from the subject speech or expression. Speech is only free or fettered. I get the distinct impression you prefer the latter.
Posted by: BobWood | 2008-01-25 8:20:45 PM
It would not be surprising that the CIC has offered compensation to the Alberta Human Rights Commission
for a favorable decision -that is why a fascist Commission staffed by Political appointees must be subject to a forensic audit.Members of the Commission should have been subjected to close personal financial and personal scrutiny prior to and on a regular basis during their tenure.All member of the NB HRC are Liberal political appointees;including one fellow identified as
"Pepsi" Landry.Only in Canada eh? Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2008-01-26 9:09:11 AM
On about January 18,I sent an email to Alan Borovoy, c/o the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, inquiring as to what positive action he intended to take in order to undo the damage he has caused by setting up these HRC's.
Still waiting for his reply.
Posted by: Jude Pankewitz | 2008-01-26 11:47:49 AM
AHRC delendum est.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-26 11:54:31 AM
All of this condemnation is so typical and so foolish. Levant and Steyn challenge the system and puch the envelope. BEFORE it is decided, every racist in the country jumps on the bandwagon to condemn the system and not the outcome. I guess all would be pleased if we just skipped to the courts.
Sure lets kill all HRC and let every individual's bias and misogny be decided on the basis of their resources and riches in owning residences or enterprises. Rich or famous racists should be exempt.
I looked at the cartoons and the articles and to me the article about Steyn was in his normal puerile rhetoric and the cartoons were silly and infantile. Getting one's knickers in a knot says more about your own foolishness. Being provocative is a good thing, but engaging in gutter displays is unworthy.
I hope that Steyn and Levant are successful as this is a paint fight in a kindergarten. Bevertheless, I hope they are called on the carpet and have their peepees whacked, for being idiots.
Posted by: Trudeau's Ghost | 2008-01-26 1:34:16 PM
Trudeau shows by example the evil that lies in apathy and dismisiveness. A lot of this kind of atitude is brought on by the use of pot.
Stone the populace and then take over.
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-26 1:43:07 PM
Ahhh yes the evil smoke. Look at OBC and his eccentric ramblings. Then again, I suspect the PMO and their "mis-spoken" words are evidence of darker materials smuggled in diplomatic pouches from Afghanistan.
Clear thinkers, like Epsi, are to be praised.
Posted by: Trudeau's Ghost | 2008-01-26 1:55:44 PM
I say let's hang all ghosts...especially those of dead liberals! Quick get the torches!
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-26 2:20:17 PM
Sorry Mark in Alberta, ectoplasma does not burn. Glad you have spent the time to actually intellectualise the issue and rspond in with reasoned argument. Much like the lackeys of the last millenium, I would say.
Posted by: Trudeau's Ghost | 2008-01-26 2:34:27 PM
Trudeaus Ghost said ironically
"Sure lets kill all HRC and let every individual's bias and misogny be decided on the basis of their resources and riches in owning residences or enterprises. Rich or famous racists should be exempt."
What an example of bias and bigotry in its own right.
The intolerant assumptions present themselves on so many levels.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-26 2:37:25 PM
Explain, H2. Throwaway comments don't help. I've lurked here and have not seen that you fit the racist and misogynist profile, but I have no doubt you are aware others do.
Free speech that masks improper incitements is one thing. Free speech that is foolish and juvenile is another. As you know, I consider Steyn and Levant to simply be in the latter category and wonder why any legitimate publication would advance such an agenda.
Posted by: Trudeau's Ghost | 2008-01-26 2:58:52 PM
Explain, H2. Throwaway comments don't help. I've lurked here and have not seen that you fit the racist and misogynist profile, but I have no doubt you are aware others do.
Free speech that masks improper incitements is one thing. Free speech that is foolish and juvenile is another. As you know, I consider Steyn and Levant to simply be in the latter category and wonder why any legitimate publication would advance such an agenda.
Posted by: Trudeau's Ghost | 2008-01-26 2:59:01 PM
Trudeau's ghost
"Free speech that masks improper incitements is one thing. Free speech that is foolish and juvenile is another. "
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who are you to decide which free speech is improper incitement and which is foolish and juvenile.
Take your assumption
"Sure lets kill all HRC and let every individual's bias and misogny be decided on the basis of their resources and riches in owning residences ..."
Why must this be an either or decision. Why aren't our free speech laws adequate without a tribunal of people like yourself judging from on high which of us uses our free speech foolishly.
I submit that you have already disqualified yourself.
"Rich or famous racists should be exempt."
And which rich or famous racists would that be? Are poor racists better than rich ones because they are poor and thus don't deserve your contempt.
Or is this a case of just being rich and famous makes one a likely racist?
In short, I don't trust people who throw around words like "racists" most particularly when they are accompanied by other adjectives that have absolutely nothing to do with the original word.
That means you!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-26 3:24:46 PM
Trudeau's ghost
"Free speech that masks improper incitements is one thing. Free speech that is foolish and juvenile is another. "
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Who are you to decide which free speech is improper incitement and which is foolish and juvenile.
Take your assumption for instance:
"Sure lets kill all HRC and let every individual's bias and misogny be decided on the basis of their resources and riches in owning residences ..."
Why must this be an either/or decision? Why aren't our free speech laws adequate without a tribunal of people like yourself judging from on high which of us uses our free speech foolishly?
I submit that you have already disqualified yourself.
"Rich or famous racists should be exempt."
And which rich or famous racists would that be? Are poor racists better than rich ones because they are poor and thus don't deserve your contempt. That seems bigoted.
Or is this a case of just being rich and famous makes one a likely racist? More bigotry?
In short, I don't trust people who throw around words like "racists" most particularly when they are accompanied by other adjectives that have absolutely nothing to do with the original word.
That means you!
So please explain why you felt it necessary to link being rich and famous with being racist? They are your foolish words.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-26 3:27:32 PM
Levant attempts at self promotion have certainly raised the ire of opponents of the human rights regimen here in Canada. In Levant's case it appears to me he has turned his cause into a business opportunity and seems to be using his place within the human rights process in Alberta to further his business interests.
According to wikipedia Levant has a legal background and has practiced law so he should be aware of the manner in which quasi judicial entities operate and judge his behaviour accordingly. The wikipedia publication is noteworthy in that it describes his political inclinations and his propensity to excess leading to litigation within the ranks of conservatives.
Levant appears to have picked this fight knowing full well what form this dispute would take. If he invested as much effort in trying to follow the process outlined in the Alberta legislation he would, in my opinion, be much better served.
Having watched Levant in his meeting with the human rights officer Mr. Levant strikes me as a self absorbed bully.
Posted by: Brian Havelock | 2008-02-08 6:29:17 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.