The Shotgun Blog
« Even Iraqi politics are improving | Main | Over Stelmach's shoulder »
Monday, January 14, 2008
The mind of an inquisitor
Mary Woo Sims, the head of the B.C. Human Rights Commission during the NDP years, can't see why so many people are upset with such commissions' attacks on free speech. In fact, Sims says in her side of our most recent Face to Face debate in the Tri-City News that Canadians should be thankful they have an institution that gives them a forum in which their complaints can be worked out.
Although the spark for our debate about the commissions was the free-speech issues raised by complaints against Maclean's magazine and Ezra Levant, Sims completely avoids talking about speech rights in her column. Perhaps she believes such rights are inconsequential.
You can read my column here. Its content won't surprise anyone who has been following my writing for the past 15 years -- since the time the NDP first amended B.C.'s human-rights law with the so-called Doug Collins clause, which specifically allowed those with hurt feelings to drag journalists before the commission; and specficially allowed those commissions to convict journalists of "discrimination", even if what they wrote was true and hadn't actually caused any harm.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 14, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54ff240d28834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The mind of an inquisitor:
Comments
Great to see a BC voice - from the wilderness right now but do keep up the public commenting. Of course any director of any HRC is not going to see anything but what they want to see.
Unfortunately, it will cost the respondent a bundle to have that Edmonton HRC decision either quashed or whatever. Likely a bundle that he does not have while the damage has been done and at virtually little or no cost to the complainant.
How can the likes of an adjudicator of a kangaroo court be allowed to have her judgment stand when it seems to clearly rule that her opinion trumps the charter in a matter of free speech/publication.
The whole HRC process is critically flawed and if any other HRC adjudicates against a respondent with this as a precedent - BC in particular - they should have the whole thing proceed into the courts where the complainant must pay.
The Edmonton decision passed very quietly but the situations of Levant/MacLeans are not likely to just "go away". This will be a good thing and sooner or later, the MSM is going to have to let people know about what is really going on.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2008-01-14 9:30:32 AM
Would I be right in saying that these Human Rights Commissions(HRC) would not exist if it were not for the sake of our political "rulers" past and present? Do ANY of the politicians have the courage to get rid of HRCs and return free speech to this country?
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-14 9:45:23 AM
Federal Liberals introduced the first Human Rights Commissions which had at that time very well defined and strict limits as to exactly what constituted a "Human Rights Violation -the Nova Scotia Legislation introduced about the same time remains remarkably similar. Such things as "age and gender discrimination" are the principal focal points.The
major problem is that the members of these Commissions exclusively appointed by Political Patronage are selected for "party loyality rather than legal or judicial knowledge and profound ignorance is their daily standard.Their weakness is in the ordinary flaws of their members such as their credit ratings,failure to remit fines for municipal infractions,spousal abuse as we found in Nova Scotia.The fact is Canadian HRC's cannot stand the light of day,and are in fact semi fascist organizations driven by callous disregard
for real and established Charter Rights in Canada.
Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2008-01-14 9:49:22 AM
Terry,
You and Mary are talking at crossed purposes. There is nothing inherently bad about there being human rights acts and human rights tribunals to protect those rights. Even Ezra acknowledges this in his opening statement. The bone of contention really is just about one part of some current human rights acts. Specifically, in the Alberta Human Rights Act the bone is section 3(1)(b) which reads:
"No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that ... is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt ... because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons."
Were that one provision of the act removed, then there would no longer be an issue. There are several dozen articles in the act, but only this one squelches freedom of expression. So you are right in your complaint about such a provision and so is Mary in here general celebration of Canada upholding human rights and offering remedies for people whose rights have been violated.
It is also worth noting that not all provinces have HR Acts that contain restrictions such as the Alberta act. Newfoundland and Labrador, for one, does not. In fact, if you compare section 14 of the NL Human Rights Act to section 3 of the Alberta Act, you will see almost identical wording for much of it, but not the inclusion of hate speech as an offence. Newfoundland and Labrador is not alone in having an section like this. Section 7 of the NS Act and section 18 of the Manitoba Act read much the same as the NL Act.
It looks like Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and perhaps others (I did not check all the provincial HR Acts) have got it right. So the existence and enforcement of HR Acts by HR Commissions is something we should celebrate, not oppose. Alberta and Canada just need to change their Acts, not abolish them.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-14 10:50:33 AM
A quick follow up:
Because it was easy to do and I was curious, I looked up the HR Acts of all provinces. It looks like there is a clear geographical pattern. In all provinces from Manitoba going east (Man, Ont, Que, NB, PEI, NS, NL), there is no hate speach provision in the various HR acts. In Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC there are restrictions on hate speech in the provincial HR Acts. As for the territories, Nunavut and Yukon do not restrict hate speech but NWT does. Of course, the Canadian national HR Act, which has authority everywhere, does restrict it.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-14 11:17:09 AM
Stephen Gray is right. As for Sims being one of the crowd for whom free speech is not a right, except when it applies to her and her fellow believers, her response is not surprising.
Yes these HRC had a very different mandate from the one they have given themselves. However in a free society there was never any justification for them. Why should a landlord who has invested his own money in housing not be allowed to decide to whom he will rent? If we have any respect for private property rights, we would agree that he has the right to choose. Were I a landlord, I would not choose renters who were likely to damage the place. Yes, some might discriminate on the basis of colour/race, but most would discriminate for other understandable reasons.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-14 11:25:37 AM
One more follow up:
It seems that when the Canadian HR Act was first passed, in 1977 under the Trudeau government, there was no restriction on hate speech included in it. That provision was only added in 1985, under the "leadership" of Brian Mulroney. It happened less than a year into his first term in office, too, so it must have been a legislative priority for his new Conservative government.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-14 11:32:22 AM
I believe the question has to be asked of ALL politicians. Will you abolish HRCs and restore FREE SPEECH to Canada?
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-14 11:38:37 AM
Are the concepts of free speech and responsible speech mutually exclusive?
I'm sure nobody has a problem when somebody had a difference of opinion, as long as the speech is honest, respectful and is done with a sense of civility.
Free speech without responsibility (agreed upon rules/guidelines)?
Well, if it was a form of government, we would define that as anarchy.
So, let's just toss this out.
Get rid of all stop signs and traffic lights! It's an unnecessary restriction of my freedom of expression on the roads.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-14 12:31:48 PM
There is a petition you can sign against HRCs at:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs/signatures.html
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-14 1:17:13 PM
Every member of the NB HRC was replaced when the Liberals defeated Premier Bernard Lord's Conservatives -every member of the "new' NB HRC are
veteran Liberals -maybe the former displaced and terminated Members should file a complaint based on
political discrimination.Human Rights Commissions have no place in the administration of Justice in Canada they are at best kangaroo courts.Former Prime Minister and financial expert Brian Mulroney was the real Federal driving force behind Human Rights Commissions in Canada, not PM Trudeau who was a Professor of Law and a veteran Advocate of
real human rights on the political battlefields
of Quebec. New Brunswick has shown in public that
Political Patronage is alive and well in New Brunswick. MacLeod not in the least surprised.
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-14 1:31:46 PM
set you free, I disagree strongly. Free speech doesn't have to be "honest respectful and with a sense of civility." It can be dishonest, disrespectful, and uncivil. I can, or should be able to say that you, or these HRC clowns, are repressive idiots who are damaging the structure of Canadian freedom--without being hauled before a tribunal. That's the whole point of what Levant is doing. Whether he's a jerk or not is irrelevant. He has a right to talk rubbish, if you think it's rubbish, just as Sowarhardy does. Why is this so difficult for lefties to understand?
As for getting rid of stop signs--it's illegal to run a stop sign, just as slander, libel, and incitement to violence are illegal. We have laws against them, as you must be aware....
Posted by: BillBC | 2008-01-14 1:33:55 PM
Agreed BillBC -It seems to me that the BC HRC has determined it's own criteria and set of rules,but
in fact are vulnerable to a real law suits based on
existing Canadian laws to protect reputations,property,and intellectual freedom,copyright. Across the street from our former offices in Halifax is a Statue to the memory of the great Journalist Joseph Howe,the champion of freedom of the press in the then British Colony of Nova Scotia -I have often thought how Howe would react to the imposition of a Human Rights Tribunal,especially in Halifax NS where slavery was accepted for many decades after
the City was founded in 1749. Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-14 2:00:01 PM
Bill:
Agreed.
Slander, libel and incitement to violence are examples of irresponsible free speech and they are the stop signs and traffic lights that allow free citizens to have discourse.
In the cartoon issue, none of those safeguards were broken.
Since violence was already happening in the middle east due to the original cartoons being published in Denmark, their publication in Canada could not be held liable for further violence.
Since in Canadian law, individuals are responsible for their own actions, the middle east imams incited the violent reaction and the people who carried out the violent acts are individually responsible.
Nobody in Canada is beholden to Islamic law, so their laws are irrelevant here, especially to non-Muslims, and a total encroachment on the rights of Canadian citizens, who adhere to a different set of laws and different traditions.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-14 2:31:54 PM
Set you free, we agree completely except on one point: even if Levant had been the first to publish those cartoons, and if riots broke out thereafter in protest, could he be held responsible for the violence do you think? I certainly hope not. I'd say the violence was entirely the responsibility of the people who committed it, cartoons or no cartoons.
I find many things deeply offensive: much on TV makes me want to vomit and/or smack people around, but I don't, and if I did, it would be my fault, not television's.
I agree that it would have been nicer if no one had published the cartoons, but I maintain that Levant or anyone else has the right to do so, whether violence breaks out or not. No one has a right, in this country anyway, not to be offended, to be shielded from things that give offence, subject only to the laws against libel, slander, and I suppose gross indecency.
Posted by: BillBC | 2008-01-14 2:43:19 PM
I understand that the Jewish Free Press in Calgary actually published the cartoons before The Western Standard did. Why then is Levant and the Western Standard the only one(s) who are being brought before this commission? Did anyone else in Alberta also publish the cartoons?
Posted by: Mr. Rate | 2008-01-14 3:17:24 PM
Bill:
Yeah. I'm guessing we're close enough in our understanding.
Wasn't suggesting Ezra would have been held responsible for the violence if he's publish the cartoons.
That would be in line with the ‘Since Bush invaded Iraq, then he's responsible for all the suicide bombers' line we hear from our special friends.
Posted by: Set you free | 2008-01-14 3:19:47 PM
The Jewish Free Press and Soharwardy settled before the process got to a hearing stage. Little attention was given to this in the press. I doubt that there is even a record of this on the HRC site.
No doubt an apology was part of it - just as it was when Mathew Johnston at the Western Standard Blog settled with Soharwardy on their issue (offensive material appearing on the blog by an anonymous blogger). The difference here was that Soharwardy chose to make the settlement a rather public affair. Not a great way to win friends and influence people, but it was his choice.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2008-01-14 4:08:23 PM
I guess Soharwardy figured that since he'd knocked over two people who took the easy route out instead of telling him to go to hell, he'd be able to scare Levant. More fool him...I can't wait till Mark Steyn gets in front of one of these tribunals. He'll make them wish they'd never got into the Inquisition business....
Posted by: BillBC | 2008-01-14 4:16:55 PM
If you haven't read Soharwardy's complaint against Levant, it's posted here
http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf
It's worth reading to see what kind of rubbish the HRC will proceed with. The part where Soharwardy claims that the cartoons promote hate against him personally because he's a direct descendant of Mohammed is particularly good.
If the HRC thinks this is worthy of investigation and calling Levant on the carpet, who in this country is safe from such nonsense?
Posted by: BillBC | 2008-01-14 4:33:51 PM
If you haven't read Soharwardy's complaint against Levant, it's posted here
http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf
Posted by: BillBC | 14-Jan-08 4:33:51 PM
And what would happen, if as an example, the National Post decided to publish the cartoons tomorrow. Would they automatically get brought before this commission, or would this Soharwardy fellow have to also bring a complaint? Could we have a situation where E. Levant could be found "guilty" yet the National Post or any other publisher would not?
Posted by: Mr. Rate | 2008-01-14 7:22:48 PM
Fact check
I think the real issue here is that due process is not being served by these tribunals and their at best questionable appointees. Furthermore, the fact that your basic rights as a defendant are being summarily trampled on makes these inquisitions an absolute farcical joke at best.
It really just smacks of ‘witch burnings’, I mean really, will they come for you or me next, or do we just keep our mouths shut and take it?
Posted by: missing link | 2008-01-14 10:10:17 PM
soon the only website allowed will be www.hillarywall.com and only positive bricks will be allowed LOFL
Posted by: rasto | 2008-01-14 11:29:39 PM
Good article in the Chronicle Herald that was posted by OBC.
There are many articles exposing these tyrannical HRCs but nothing is done. A number of ordinary citizens of Canada have been victimized by these HRCs long before the mainstream media was dragged before these Stalinist tribunals. Perhaps now that the media are the victims we will get some action. The solution is in the politicians hands they created these appointed monsters, they can also disband them. But, is there any political courage out there in politically correct Canada?
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-15 10:41:38 AM
As long as the Human Rights Tribunal is allowed to award damages solely on the basis of "hurt feelings" or "injured dignity," as long as their rules of evidence remain so ludicrously low, as long as only one side of the argument is forced to pay its way, and as long as they are staffed with moonbat wannabes who only work for the HRC because they failed the bar exam, they will continue to be kangaroo courts. Drumheads. Star Chambers. Autos-da-fe. (Feel free to pick your own metaphorical institute of oppression.)
Mary-Woo Sims says that members of the Tribunal are trained jurists. Horsecrap. Not one of them is a bona fide judge and many are not even lawyers. One member of the federal HRC even had the nerve to say that freedom of speech "is an American idea...I'm not here to protect American ideas."
Thank you, Pierre Trudeau.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-15 1:20:39 PM
Shane,
Perhaps you did not see my above post. Trudeau's version of the Human Rights Act did NOT include "hurt feelings" as the basis for complaint. That was ADDED to the Act under Brian Mulroney. So if you want to thank anyone for the current mess, thank him.
You might also thank Peter Lougheed for adding hate speech to the Alberta Act and Grant Devine for doing the same in Saskatchewan, "Conservatives" all.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-15 2:41:18 PM
Fact Check, what I meant by that was that the aforesaid member of the HRC declared that he didn't have to defend an "American" ideal; that is, free speech. That kind of anti-American bigotry is quite in line with Trudeau's attitude and continued to shape the "natural governing party" after his departure. Sometimes it seems that the most consistent method by which Canadians create policy is to observe what the Americans are doing, and then do the opposite. All in the name of sovereignty.
When so-called "hate speech" was added to the HR codes, it was envisioned as a tool with which to fight organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, which even most conservatives find distasteful. I doubt very much it was ever intended to be taken to the point where our Charter rights would face this kind of test. Since our HRC's have publicly mused that many of those protections are actually American imports, I'm worried. Like you should be.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-15 4:45:32 PM
"When so-called 'hate speech' was added to the HR codes, it was envisioned as a tool with which to fight organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, which even most conservatives find distasteful."
This is true. It's also a perfect example of how conservatives pretend to belive in free speech when so often they do not. Supporting free speech only really means something when you are defending the right of people to speak who you disagree with. So all of Ezra's outrage and that of his supporters means very little, since they all support the publication of the cartoons and routinely like to say nasty things about Muslims. Proof that conservatives support free speech would be raising money to defend David Ahenakew, who no doubt has had large legal bills and may have many more. His crime is no different than Ezra's, yet conservatives rally to defend one and not the other. It makes all the "I believe in free speech" talk sound like just so much talk. Because in truth the same people who say this now are the ones who supported the provisions of the HR Act in the first place because they thought it would be used against KKK types. Well, be careful what you wish for, folks. Because you got it.
Until I see as full throted a defence of David Ahenakew from Ezra or anyone else here, it will be clear that the cause is not free speech. The cause is freedom to engage in speech you approve of. Nothing more.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-15 6:21:15 PM
Your wheels are coming off again, Fact Check. The hate-crime bandwagon has always been the Left’s baby, along with affirmative action, political correctness, and assorted other witch hunts. Tories got out of the Inquisition business decades ago; Senator McCarthy was their last gasp. To the extent conservatives are interested in it at all, it’s because they like to be seen as tough on law and order. You’re so addicted to blasting conservatives that you have let your hate hijack your own argument.
Yes, I agree that David Ahenakewhas as much right as Ezra to speak his mind. For myself, I don’t put much stock on what either of them say. Ezra is a real-life Fred Tupper, with just as much talent for putting his foot in his mouth. My point is that it is his Charter RIGHT to put it there, just as it is Ahenakew’s right to put it there, without fear of persecution by legions of "the offended." However, Ahenakew was given a real trial, with full rules of evidence, the option of a jury, presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, and most important, the right to be heard before a real, live judge. All the legal safeguards that have developed in our society since the Magna Carta. Ezra is getting none of this. He has limits on counsel, he must pay his own way while the complainant pays nothing, there are few rules of evidence, double and triple hearsay is admissible, the Charter is no defence, and most chilling of all, the TRUTH is no defence. To pretend these cases are similar is ignorant at best, and cynically deceptive at worst.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-15 6:48:58 PM
Fact check
You are either incapable of, or simply unable to grasp the fact that these commissions are not judicially responsible, remove your basic rights under the law and flout the very definition of a free democracy stands for. I would hazard a guess that you know these commissions are wrong but they feed your left-wing desire to control what which you cannot, peoples thoughts.
Furthermore, to compare a nut-job Jew-hater to a newspaper that published cartoons that were previously printed around the world is at best asinine and at worst the ravings of a juvenile. Dude grow up, what are you a first year college student or something?
Posted by: missing link | 2008-01-15 7:12:39 PM
--edited version--
Fact check
You are either incapable of, or simply unable to grasp the fact that these commissions are not judicially responsible, remove your basic rights under the law and flout the very definition of a free democracy. I would hazard a guess that you know these commissions are wrong but they feed your left-wing desire to control that which you cannot, peoples thoughts.
Furthermore, to compare a nut-job Jew-hater to a newspaper that published cartoons that were previously printed around the world is at best asinine and at worst the ravings of a juvenile. Dude grow up, what are you a first year college student or something?
Posted by: missing link | 2008-01-15 7:17:38 PM
Whenever I want to witness right-wing know-nothings light their hair on fire and get their facts wrong in the process, I drop by the Shotgun. And, you know, I'm never disappointed. I get to read meaningless phrases like "judicially responsible" from the aptly named “missing link”, I get to watch blowhards like Shane Matthews try to bluster their way through an argument and I get to see obc -- the resident cracker who managed to attract an HRC complaint about the WS all on his own -- demonstrate how proud he is of his ignorance. Nice to know some things never change.
A few facts that might spoil your fun:
- there are many bodies that use relaxed rules of evidence, including securities commissions and small claims courts. The idea is to level the playing field between legal professionals (most of whom understand the rules of evidence in all their complexity) and lay litigants (who don't) and to open the process to people who can’t afford lawyers. This doesn’t make these bodies “kangaroo courts” or anything of the sort.
- Human rights commission don’t remove your basic rights under the law. You can be represented by counsel. You have a right to appeal any decision to an ordinary court. The complainant can also be represented by counsel; despite what Ezra suggest, commission counsel does not act on behalf of the complainant.
- The publication section of Human Rights Code doesn’t protect hurt feelings or compensate people who are offended. They regulate speech that exposes a person or a group to hatred or contempt because of race, religion, etc. Big difference.
- It is far more difficult to have a claim dismissed by an ordinary court than by a human rights tribunal; an ordinary court may not examine the merits of the claim, only whether it is properly pleaded, while human rights tribunals may dismiss a claim if it finds it is without merit.
- “The Charter is no defence” betrays a profound ignorance of how the Charter works. If you wanted to challenge the provision prohibiting expression that exposes a group to hatred as unconstitutional, you would rely on the Charter. (You would lose, incidentally; those codes have been upheld a reasonable limit on speech) If you wanted to mount the defence that your particular expression did not expose a group to hatred, you would call evidence that effect. The Charter doesn’t operate as a stand-alone defence.
Having said all that, I do hope that the Western Standard prevails, in spite of Ezra’s self-aggrandizing display in front of the investigator (who was, after all, merely asking a few questions). If the claim is as meretricious as Ezra says it is – and it probably is close to that unworthy– then surely even someone with Ezra’s modest legal skills should be able to knock it out of the box. Hell, I imagine even a well-briefed law student would have a better than 70 percent chance of prevailing. Then again, if Ezra approached this like a legal professional rather than as a polemicist and an aspiring politician, then he could hardly enjoy the rewards and acclaim that he is now receiving from the booboisee.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-01-15 9:58:42 PM
Your studied arrogance, your carefully groomed hauteur, your frosty academic’s “piffle” doesn’t impress me, TrueWest, nor does your less-than-modest handle. Now then.
Small claims courts and securities commissions don’t claim that the truth is no excuse, and both of those, at least, are presided over by bona fide professionals. HRC commissioners tend to be radical activists with little or no legal training who got appointed via political affiliations. And don’t give me that “level the playing field” happy crappy; that was the very rationale behind legal aid, under which an unemployed crackhead can sue, sue, sue for free while the defendant racks up multiple mortgages defending himself from even spurious charges. The only time the playing field is ever truly level is if NO ONE pays.
Human rights commissions place a restriction on who you can have as counsel. Sure, you can appeal their decisions to an ordinary court…at your own risk and expense. The commission then investigates at the taxpayer’s expense. The complainant pays, and risks, nothing. Is that your idea of a level playing field? At least one member of the Canadian HRC have gone so far as to say that some of the rights enshrined in the Charter are American imports, and that it is not their job to uphold American ideas or values. That gives you an idea of the education, professionalism, and most importantly, the mindset of those who run these commissions. Even the TRUTH is no excuse, as noted above, in the tradition of the 19th-century English judge who declared that the truth was no defence in libel cases, arguing that “the greater the truth the greater the libel.”
Your assertion that the HRC doesn’t deal in “hurt feelings,” or “compensate people who are offended” falls in its face in the light of the case law. Consider: In one case an employee received 30,000 dollars after being fired for refusing to hang six poinsettias in a store window, of which several thousand dollars was for “injury to dignity.” A disabled hunter who was asked to pay the customary ten-dollar fee to hunt from an ATV received about three grand, also for injured dignity. Two lesbians were awarded damages because the Knights of Columbus refused to allow them to rent their hall for a same-sex marriage on the grounds of their religious beliefs (these lesbians then claimed that they did not know that the K of C was a Catholic institution.) Even though the tribunal ruled that the K of C had the right of refusal owing to genuine religious differences, they fined them anyway, as the women were “humiliated.” The lesbians then launched an appeal, arguing that they deserved more than financial compensation; they want the law rewritten.
Even Oliver Wendell Holmes would have Hershey Squirts in his Calvin Kleins at the prospect of being summoned to a “court” with a history of loopy decisions like these, even with an ironclad case. The fact that the Canadian Islamic Congress went the HRC route only after their suit had been tossed out of both criminal and civil courts establishes a pretty solid pattern of the HRC’s place on the ladder of evidentiary standards, and of the professionalism—or lack of it—that both the public and potential plaintiffs have come to expect of the people running them. Only an abnormal person could read the case law and argue that all is well.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-15 10:43:02 PM
Firstly, Alain makes the best point on this thread, but he won't like the following. :)
"Feb 03, 1999 - CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS, PACIFIC REGION APPLAUDS B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL DECISION
Vancouver, B. C., February 3, 1999.....Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific Region applauds the decision by Human Rights Tribunal Member in the case of Abrams vs. North Shore Free Press Ltd. doing business as North Shore News and Doug Collins.
Herb Silber, General Legal Counsel for CJC, Pacific Region noted, "This decision reaffirms the validity of Human Rights legislation as a means to protect vulnerable minorities from group vilification. The legislation works when it is properly applied."
"This decision affirms the ability of any citizen to seek relief for serious grievances under Section 7 of the Human Rights Code while at the same time balancing the interests of free speech," added Chair of CJC, Pacific Region, Zena Simces.
Mr. Patch's decision confirms CJC's initiative in bringing forward its original complaint vs. Doug Collins and the North Shore News. This recent decision stands on the shoulders of the previous case of Canadian Jewish Congress vs. The North Shore News and Mr. Collins and the expert testimony used in the CJC case served to support the conclusion of the current case.
In his decision, Mr. Patch recognized the importance of placing a social and historical context to the messages that had been communicated in Collins' columns. In his analysis of the meaning of the message using the same two part test applied by the previous tribunal, Mr. Patch reached the conclusion that "through a repetition of anti-Semitic themes the columns written by Doug Collins take on a vicious tone that taps into a centuries old pattern of persecution and slander of Jews. They perpetuate the most damaging stereotypes of Jews."
Dr. Michael Elterman, Past Chair of the Region and one of the respondents in the case of Canadian Jewish Congress vs. The North Shore News and Mr. Collins stated, "We are pleased to see that Mr. Patch has used a practical common sense approach in the applying of Section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code. The previous decision taken by the Tribunal was very narrowly academic."
CJC commends Harry Abrams as well as his intervenors, the Deputy Chief Commissioner of the B. C. Human Rights Commission, Attorney General of B. C., and League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith Canada for understanding the importance of continuing to pursue the case against Collins and the North Shore News."
HRC, leftist interest or just furthering the interest of various Jewish and multicult lobby groups?
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-15 10:44:15 PM
Doug Collins:
"In 1945 I was a political intelligence officer in Germany. I spoke to many bright people who had supported Hitler.
Bright they may have been. They were also blind. For them, free speech had taken tenth place to their version of political correctness.
I thought of that when the NDP's Amendment to the B.C. Human Rights Act ("Bill 33") was passed four years ago.
Premier Mike Harcourt said free speech was fine "as long as it didn't harm anyone." A real intellectual, that. A lawyer, too.
There will be scads of hostile lawyers on parade tomorrow: from the government, from the ever-cavilling Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), author of this vicious complaint, and from multicult groups.
All with the same idea in mind: stop speech that is too free.
The CJC's legal spokesman, Morris Soronow, was reported in the Western Jewish Bulletin as saying:
"We're counting on this legislation to discourage others."
Quite. That's why the CJC lobbied for it. To be safe, get your opinions cleared with him before you go into print.
"Bill 33" removed the right to free speech, but the NDP claimed that that didn't matter. Don't we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
In other words, we will harass the hell out of you until you can get to the Supreme Court. So watch your step.
The law makes it hazardous to write anything "likely," to bring a group into "hatred or contempt" and a one-man tribunal will decide what is what. He also acts as judge, jury and prosecutor.
It reminds me of the U.S.S.R. If your attitude was "likely" to harm "socialist realism" off you went to a People's Court.
Bill 33 was steamrollered through in the face of fierce opposition. And some of the remarks in the debate were priceless.
The NDP's Corky Evans said the Bill was necessary because the courts didn't always do what the government wanted them to do. David Schreck even had the gall to say the government was "fundamentally committed to freedom of speech." Sure.
Len Fox of the Opposition said it would now be a case of "selective free speech." Harry De Jong called the legislation "a compulsory niceness bill. Love thy neighbor, or else!"
The NDP, he concluded, was showing "total disregard for individual freedom when it comes into conflict with the collective."
Free speech is in danger right across the country. Many in the big media applaud while pressure groups bully hotels into cancelling accommodation for those of whom they disapprove. Last year in Victoria such groups did their damndest to force the public library into cancelling a Doug Christie meeting. The library stood firm, despite scare headlines ("Beware Racists, etc.!") in the Times-Colonist.
But now the B.C. Library Association has given the library an intellectual freedom award, much to the dismay of Harry Abrams & Co, who thought it was appalling.
Abrams is a B'Nai Brith activist who has laid additional "rights" complaints against the News.
It costs him nothing. The system is only too happy to provide him with legal aid.
Free speech is appalling. The only thing that is more appalling is no free speech.
Let battle begin."
Sound familiar.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-15 10:46:48 PM
Shane,
Maybe you'd like to check your facts. Because most of them are wrong.
Maybe you could start by citing some authority - not anecdotal evidence, not something you picked up from some hack polemicist -- for your assertions that:
-the HRC place limits on choice of counsel
-the HRC won't accept truth as a defence (a defence to what, incidentally?)
- that HRC's provide counsel -- meaning a lawyer who will accept instruction -- to complainants
- That most HRC commissioners aren't legally trained.
- that legal aid will fund frivolous lawsuits by unemployed crackheads
-
In addition to mischaracterizing the law governing HRCS and mangling the facts of most of the cases you attempt to cite -- in the K of C case, for example, the lesbian wedding booked the hall, only to have the reservation cancelled, without any effort as accomodation or compensation, when the nature of the union was discovered -- you manage to misunderstand most of the law.
For example, you've neatly conflated the law at issue in the WS case, which limits expressions that promote hatred, but doesn't protect tender feelings, with the law governing employment discrimination, which does take personal dignity into account. Yes, HRCs will compensate people who are dismissed from their jobs in ways that undermine their dignity, but so will ordinary courts, which will increase damages if an employee is fired without cause in a manner that humiliates him or her.
Don't trust me? You could look it up. But that doesn't seem to be your style. So much easier to cover the ignorance with bluster. As Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."
Posted by: truewest | 2008-01-15 11:24:15 PM
Much as I don't like much of what DJ writes, he is right in this case. Collin's rants are clearly stupid and should be challenged. The North Shore News is supported primarily by advertising. If you don't succeed in influencing the advertisers or in getting your ideas across to the reading public, you are not very clever.
Posted by: DML | 2008-01-15 11:32:04 PM
"Collin's rants are clearly stupid and should be challenged."
That wasn't the point DML. Whether Collins rants were stupid or appalling they should be protected. Isn't that the position that Levant is taking?
How is Abrams different from Soharwardy?
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-16 12:33:23 AM
Your second entry is a lot more abbreviated, TrueWest. It would appear quite a bit of hot air has been let out of your stuffed shirt. Well, I must say that was easy. Now then.
1) In the case of the lesbians vs. the Knights of Columbus, the Tribunal ruled that even though the Knights acted correctly, they were still liable to pay a fine because the women were “humiliated.” This, in spite of the fact that the Knights offered to rent them a secular hall at their own expense and even pay for the reprinting of the invitations. So much for your “no effort at accommodation or compensation.” Neither of those concessions were legal requirements, by the way. So much for truth as a defence. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05113006.html
2) No, the Tribunal does not appoint a counsel to the complainant, as none is necessary. The complainant merely fires an affidavit and sits back. The government pays for the tribunal and the accused is still required to pay for his own defence, on those occasions he is permitted to have one. And in some complaints, yes, Commission counsel WILL appear at the tribunal, “to represent the public interest.” Don’t try to play the shell game on me, TrueWest; you don’t do it well.
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/media_room/magazine_workplacenews_magazine-en.asp
3) I offered examples of case law that specifically referenced “injured dignity” or “hurt feelings” in rebuttal to your false claim that the Tribunal does not deal in such things. I didn’t say hurt feelings were the basis of the complaint pending against Ezra. The conflation is your own.
4) Getting fired is ALWAYS humiliating, even if it’s for due cause. What constitutes “humiliation” for the purposes of the proceedings is left to the whim of the Tribunal. And those two lesbians weren’t fired from anything.
This is the last time I’m going to bother looking things up for you. It’s clear that you don’t ever intend to re-evaluate your position and are just sending me out to gather scraps, like a master playing fetch with his dog, throwing the stick to see how many time’s he’ll retrieve it. So why don’t YOU do some research and report back to ME?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-16 8:04:00 AM
Let's face the truth about HRCs and so-called "free speech." The HRCs are politically appointed entities. They take the heat off the politicians, who should be held responsible. We have a Charter of Blights oops I mean Rights that "guarantees" Freedom of Speech,now isn't that a joke on us! Our "wonderful" Charter was imposed by the politicians voting on it. We, the people of this country who are ruled by the Charter were not allowed to vote on it.
The HRCs are just another appointed group like the non-elected judges who hallucinate and "read in" words not written in the Charter. Therefore, if The Charter is a "living tree" the HRCs are a diseased branch of that tree. No doubt the "lawyers" on this site will rush to defend any criticism of their beloved Charter. Alice in Wonderland might say: "We are living in a Looney Land ruled by imbeciles."
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-16 8:20:38 AM
P.S. Despite a whole night spent researching, I have yet to uncover a single qualification Mary-Woo Sims, former head of the BC Human Rights Commission, might possess that would recommend her for the job, other than that she was "an exchange student." No mention of a law degree. No mention of being called to the bar. And CERTAINLY no mention of ever being a bona fide judge. THE HEAD OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. Sick.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-16 8:25:49 AM
She is an avowed leftist socialist, so is a perfect fit for the thought police.
As a beginning move in taking this country back from these fascists, the HRC should be dismantled immediately.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-01-16 8:50:54 AM
Shane,
"In the case of the lesbians vs. the Knights of Columbus, the Tribunal ruled that even though the Knights acted correctly..."
Not true. The Tribunal said that they did NOT act correctly. Quoting from the decision:
"[124] In this case, the Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation, formally apologizing, immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred and, perhaps offering assistance in finding another solution. There may have been other options that they could have considered without infringing their core religious beliefs. The fact is they gave no thought to any option other than cancelling the rental. In the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the Hall was not solely a religious space, and the existence of the agreement between the parties for its rental, the Panel finds that the Knights should have taken these steps, which would have appropriately balanced the rights of both parties."
Furthermore, you say "they were still liable to pay a fine because the women were 'humiliated.'"
Not true. No mention of feeling 'humiliated' appears either in the Tribunal's decision nor in the news artlcle about the decision that you linked to.
Next time, try actually reading the decision before spouting off about what was decided.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-16 9:03:42 AM
Nice try, Shane, but if this were an exam, you'd get a D.
1) The Knights did no such thing. Nor did the Tribunal find that they acted "correctly". As Fact Check has pointed out (beating me to the punch) you would know this if you read the decision rather than relying on a single issue secondary source. (Lifesite? Please)
2) Slightly better. It's not quite a primary source, but at least its accurate. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have actually read what you cited. The article states:
Commission counsel will appear at the Tribunal. The Commission represents neither the complainant nor the respondent. Rather, its role is to represent the public interest in an impartial and objective manner.
3) Then again, reading isn't apparently your strong suit. In my original post, I was quite specific:
The publication section of Human Rights Code doesn’t protect hurt feelings or compensate people who are offended.
4) Getting fired is NOT always humiliating. In fact, it can be quite lucrative. (Ask any CEO with a golden parachute.) Getting fired for cause doesn't attract compensation in any case. But if you are let go without cause and in a humiliating manner -- fired in front of other employees; escorted from the building by security guards -- you can expect to recover damages in excess of the severance you would have received had the dismissal been handled in a respectful and dignified manner. And its just silly to say that HRT's define humiliation on a whim; like courts, they give reasons and will refer to case law from the ordinary courts in giving those reasons. Again, you would know this if you weren't too lazy to read the actual decisions.
5) You seem to miss the point of administrative tribunals, which are not staffed solely by lawyers or judges, but by people with expertise in a variety of areas. While the law is always relevant to the determinations of these bodies, if you hired only lawyers, you would deprive securities commissions, competition tribunals and human rights tribunals, to name a few example, of the expertise that makes them effective.
Bluster away little man.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-01-16 9:46:09 AM
1) What’s wrong with LifeSite, TrueWest? It’s no more partisan the Tribunal itself. Why is their version of events more trustworthy than the Knights’? If there was third-party corroboration supporting the Tribunal, that would be one thing. But none is mentioned in the ruling that I could find. I did, however, find a lot of loaded (but irrelevant) words like “shocked,” “upset,” “angry,” “frightened,” and “indimidated.” And the Knights DID offer to pay compensation in the amount of $594.59, according to the Tribunal’s own ruling. Why did you lie about that, TrueWest?
2) I know exactly what I stated. I stated, quote, And in some complaints, yes, Commission counsel WILL appear at the tribunal, “to represent the public interest,” unquote. That’s almost a verbatim quote both of what is on the HRC. I never said the Commission’s counsel was to argue for either party, and indeed, at the very beginning of that point, I stated that the Commission did NOT appoint counsel to the complainant, as none was necessary. Reading apparently is not YOUR strong suit.
3) I do not care what is in the code. I care what is in the rulings, many of which specifically mention “dignity”—in other words, bruised feelings. Somebody you should look up the word “synonym.” English contains lots of synonyms, more perhaps than any other language. If you’re going to argue in English, you need to know that.
4) Getting fired is ALWAYS humiliating because of the rejection involved, even if in some cases the blow is softened with a “golden parachute.” The great majority of mere mortals don’t get a golden parachute, so you’ve fallen in the common activist trap of presenting a wild exception as an example of the norm, then screeching for policy to be enacted based on same. And again, we see the words “respectful” and “dignified”—words that appeal to emotion and have nothing to do with either fact or logic. You’re basically saying that someone else can be held responsible for how one chooses to respond emotionally. Talk about tyranny.
5) You’re not going to eel your way out of this one. First you demand that I back up my assertion that HRC members are mostly untrained activists; then, when an example is presented, you shift ground, arguing that they need not be trained lawyers anyway, but that instead we should consider their “experience. In the case of the HRC, “experience” appears to be defined as a long history of radical activism for wealth redistribution, redress of grievances real or imagined, and a rigidly unyielding philosophy of political correctness. Which is no more than what I said.
P.S.: I don’t know by what standard you judge the “efficacy” of these quasi-judicial bodies, but Mary-Woo Sims, that darling of the BC HRC, was so “effective” that the premier personally fired her before the end of her term and turfed the Commision entirely, leaving only the Tribunal. Yes, I think it would be fair to say that this kangaroo court has been a farce from the first.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-16 10:14:49 AM
Shane,
"I care what is in the rulings, many of which specifically mention 'dignity'—in other words, bruised feelings. Somebody you should look up the word 'synonym.'"
How about looking up 'dignity' instead? the OED says: "The quality of being worthy or honourable". The Free Dictionary online says: "The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect." There is nothing about 'feelings', bruised or otherwise there. If someone refuses to hire a person telling him "I don't hire niggers" it is an affront to his human dignity whether his feelings are hurt or not. In fact, even if the guy walks away laughing at the insult, it is still an affront to his dignity in the denial of employment. Also, the crime of commiting an "indignity to a dead human body or human remains" (Criminal Code sect. 182)cannot possibly be about hurting feelings. Dead bodies feel no pain, physical or emotional. The law is about treating dead bodies as not worthy of respect, as the dictionaries tell us.
You would know that if you had bothered to look up 'dignity' instead of 'synonym'. If you're going to argue in English, you need to know that.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-16 10:43:58 AM
If that’s your take on the meaning of “dignity,” Fact Check, please tell me—how can anyone possibly injure or impugn it, except yourself? How can someone ELSE make you less worthy of anything, either objectively or subjectively? Personal dignity isn’t about how others treat you; it’s about how you comport yourself in the face of how others treat you. Either way, the underpinning of ANY concept of dignity or respect is human emotion, not fact, and is therefore NOT compensable.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-16 11:15:29 AM
DJ- Sorry I did not make myself clear. I did agree that you were right. My reference jto challenging him was to challenging his ideas and the way to do that is to take him on intellectualy. It is only when speech can be proven to elicit criminal activity that it should be proscribed and that is a job for the courts not for an HRC.
Posted by: DML | 2008-01-16 9:46:36 PM
Shane,
1) The tribunals finding is the result of weighing evidence given under oath. Lifesite is the result of reprinting what right wing religious nuts tell it. If you can't tell the difference, then you're even stupider than you've demonstrated yourself to be so far.
2) You and Ezra and all the other kangaroo-courtiers make a big deal that commission counsel appears at all. You conveniently neglect to mention that that counsel doesn't represent the parties. Just more intellectual dishonesty.
3) The more you bluster the more it becomes apparent you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You've proved it again. The controversy arises from the HRC's power to rule on speech. You loons say allows HRCs to punish speech that "hurts feelings". That, like most of what you've set is simply factually incorrect.
4) You may have felt humiliated those many times you were canned. Many don't share your feelings, especially if they receive a decent severance. In any case, there's a difference between getting turfed because of lack of work or because you weren't good enought at your job (both of are, at law, without cause dismissals) and being turfed, without a dime of severance, because you refused to do something your religion forbade.
5) Your assertion that most HRC commissioners or tribunal members are "untrained activists" is simply WRONG. In B.C. all of the tribunal memvbers but one are lawyers. In Alberta, three are lawyers, the other four include an former oil company executive, a nurse and a Calgary city councillor. In Manitoba, the panel includes lawyers, academics, businesspeople. I could go on, but I've wasted enough time with you.
There are libertarians, such as Karen Selick, who think freedom of contract and association are sacrosanct and that law forbidding discrimination and the HRC that enforce them are an unnecessary infringement of those freedoms. They argue the market will take care of things. I think they're wrong, but most of them base their opposition on principle and most refrain from mangling the facts about how HRCs actually operate.
You, on the other had, are apparently too lazy, too stupid and too much of self-impressed polemicist to actually learn the basic facts about the body your rant on about. Until you can demonstrate that you've done more to inform yourself than listen to talk radio and visit religious right websites, there's no reason anybody should take you seriously.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-01-16 9:59:32 PM
TrueWest,
1) Calling people “right-wing religious nuts” because you happen to disagree with them doesn’t cheapen them, it cheapens you. Just because someone believes in a higher power doesn’t make them your eternal inferior. And the fact that the Tribunals go through the motions of considering evidence (including double and triple hearsay) doesn’t make them impartial. Your first point scores zero.
2) I have said twice—and now say the third time—that Commission counsel represents neither party. Your second point scores zero, plus minus ten for deliberately ignoring what you’ve been told out of sheer spite.
3) I have cited several rulings that base their award of damages on injured dignity. I’ve already admitted Ezra’s case isn’t about feelings. I provided these examples because you said that the Tribunal DOESN’T consider feelings when making rulings. As for the Ezra case, I think the HRC opened a very large Pandora’s box when they unilaterally pronounced themselves competent to rule on matters properly the business of the Supreme Court. Your third point scores 2/10.
4) How do you know I’ve been canned “many” times, TrueWest? Or is that just something you want to believe because, hey, it’s me? You expect to be taken seriously when you inject this kind of sophomoric venom into what is supposed to be intelligent debate? And I think you stated your point incorrectly: Don’t you mean that lack of work or poor performance are, at law, WITH-cause dismissals? By the way, so far as I am aware, the Jehovah’s Witness religion does not forbid the handling of plants during the month of December.
5) Businesspeople, nurses, city councilors, corporate executives, academics—and, in the case of Mary-Woo Sims, “exchange students.” You have just admitted that most of the HRC commissioners in Alberta are NOT trained lawyers (four non-lawyers versus three lawyers). You give no breakdown for Manitoba but I presume it’s similar. And you offer no explanation how Mary-Woo Sims, an apparent nonentity, landed the job of CHIEF COMMISSIONER for the BC HRC. Of course, a lot of craziness went on during the Glen Clark years, didn’t it?
Really, TrueWest, you are coming totally unhinged. It’s as if you don’t even read what I write and just toss out the same boilerplate over and over again. Here’s a tip—debate consists of rebutting your opponent’s points, not pulling his gonch. Good day.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-17 12:28:47 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.