Topic: Human Rights Gone Awry

[GAP]

National Post editorial board: Real court tells Human Rights Tribunal who’s boss
National Post Editorial Board  Feb 15, 2012
Article Link
 
For more than a decade now, it has been the policy of federal and provincial human rights tribunals to hold that discrimination is in the mind of the beholder. Discrimination is so widespread in Canadian society, the commissions contend, that if members of a visible or sexual minority feel they have been discriminated against, they probably have been. So it is unnecessary for complainants to show they were singled out for harm as a result of their ethnicity or orientation. It has been enough for them to assert that they felt discriminated against.

Canadian courts may be dialling back this very one-sided view of discrimination.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court of Ontario, headed by Madam Justice Sandra Chapnik, overturned a 2010 ruling by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in which two black lawyers and a black law student had been awarded $2,000 each because they claimed to have been racially profiled in 2008 when a court librarian asked them for ID in a Peel courthouse lounge, near Toronto, reserved for lawyers and law students.

Justice Chapnik and her two colleagues concluded that the tribunal’s ruling “was not rationally supported,” nor was it “defensible in fact and law.” In other words, the 2010 ruling made little sense and could not be supported by the evidence the complainants had presented. Indeed, the court found that the tribunal had ignored evidence that might have exonerated the librarian, Melissa Firth, and the Peel Law Association, operators of the lounge. The court was shown that over the years Ms. Firth had asked hundreds of guests to produce identification proving they had a right to be there. Most of those she had queried had been white.
More on link

[Sadukar09]

Some people need to grow thicker skin instead of tossing everything around as discrimination.

I'm a visible minority, when I'm with my buddies, we joke around all the time about each others origins.

[Technoviking]

This thread offends me.





Now, when do I get paid?   

[Larry Strong]

This thread offends me.





Now, when do I get paid?   

Offended does not count.....you need to be discriminated against

[Sadukar09]

This thread offends me.





Now, when do I get paid?   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg

[Technoviking]

Offended does not count.....you need to be discriminated against

Because my offense doesnt' count, I'm being discriminated against.   WHERE'S MY MONEY???   

[ModlrMike]

Sorry, you belong to the one demographic that can't be discriminated against. 

[GAP]

I see CPP has a disability payment.....would that work?

[cupper]

Sorry, you belong to the one demographic that can't be discriminated against. 

Able bodied middle aged heterosexual males with a God complex?

 

[GK .Dundas]

This thread offends me.





Now, when do I get paid?   

I'm offended by the fact that you're offended ............... just make my cheque out to...

[Brad Sallows]

>Some people need to grow thicker skin instead of tossing everything around as discrimination.

According to them, the problem exists only because they cannot grow whiter skin.  Go figure.

[Sadukar09]

>Some people need to grow thicker skin instead of tossing everything around as discrimination.

According to them, the problem exists only because they cannot grow whiter skin.  Go figure.

Michael Jack...too soon?

[Thucydides]

 "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2012/02/hate-speech-section-of-canadian-human.html

Hate speech section of Canadian Human Rights Act nears repeal

The repeal of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) seems inevitable now that MP Brian Storseth (Westlock–St. Paul) has successfully steered his private member’s Bill C-304 through its second reading.

The Bill will now move to the Justice Committee for review, after which, it will need to pass a third vote in the House of Commons and then the Senate before becoming law.

Bill C-304’s enactment would amend—according to the Bill’s summary—the CHRA by “deleting sections 13 and 54 to ensure there is no infringement on freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Section 54 specifies those penalties that can be levied when discrimination under Section 13 has been substantiated by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

I’ve watched as the tide of opinion has turned against Section 13 and related legislation. Several incidents have combined to make the issue a non-partisan one. Here are just three examples:

In 2008, the CHRC itself hired Professor Richard Moon to examine Section 13. Moon’s principal recommendation was that section 13 be repealed so that online hate speech becomes a purely criminal matter.

Former Liberal MP (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) Keith Martin proposed a private member’s bill to rescind section 13.1. Unfortunately, no political party took up his M-446 and it languished without a vote.

In 2009, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member, Athanasios Hadjis, ruled that Section 13 violates our Charter-right to freedom of expression.
In recent years, several Conservative, Liberal and NDP politicians seemed generally to agree that something needs to be done about Section 13—at least, that’s the impression I gained from listening to talk shows.

Yet, in second reading, only one opposition MP voted in favour of Bill C-304—Liberal Scott Simms (Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor).
Human rights are one of the sacred cows in Canada, and so they should be. But when quasi-judicial bodies overreach in their zeal to enforce legislation to the point of actually doing harm to freedom of expression—perhaps the most fundamental human right of all—it is time for MPs of all political stripes to step in.

I remind readers that under Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, “intent” is not a requirement, and “truth” is not a defence. All that is required is that a human rights tribunal finds that one has expressed “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” and that the person be a member of certain specified groups.

Let’s hope Bill C-304 will finally pass into law, spelling the end of Section 13’s use by un-democratic, free-speech deniers who have overreached in their campaign to enforce political correctness and who abuse our individual rights to freedom of expression.

[Larry Strong]

>Some people need to grow thicker skin instead of tossing everything around as discrimination.

According to them, the problem exists only because they cannot grow whiter skin.  Go figure.

No the problem exists because they know if they play the game, they can score big bucks.

[GAP]

Hate speech clause in human rights act may be history
February 28, 2012
Article Link
 
To protect freedom of expression in Canada, sometimes you need a majority government in Ottawa.

That’s the moral of the story of a Conservative backbencher’s private member’s bill — which has now cleared second reading in the House of Commons and gone to committee — seeking to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let’s recall the exact wording of that infamous clause. Hate messages, according to Section 13 (1), are communications "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

In other words, if I were to write something critical about Islam, for example, and someone reading my column felt it "likely" that my words could provoke "contempt" towards Muslims, they could lodge a complaint against me with one of Canada’s government-created human rights commissions.

Truth would not be a defence. Neither would my intent. And the person complaining wouldn’t even have to be a Muslim.

That’s because, on top of the appallingly loose wording of this section of federal human rights law — a clause echoed in its provincial counterparts — any complaints are adjudicated by government-appointed tribunals, where the standard protections afforded any accused in a court of law don’t necessarily apply.

When complainants’ cases go forward, taxpayers pick up the tab. Meanwhile, those accused must pay to defend themselves out of their own pockets.

It’s a system ripe for abuse. And that’s exactly what has happened. We’ve seen comics fined for insulting hecklers (B.C. human rights tribunal), former publishers spend $100,000 in legal fees over three years to defend themselves for printing "offensive" cartoons (Alberta human rights commission), and Maclean’s magazine investigated by three human rights bodies (federal, Ontario and B.C.) for running an article on Muslim demographics in Europe.

The Conservatives have long opposed Section 13, but didn’t feel they had the support they needed from the other parties, as a minority government, to push the issue legislatively.

They also were concerned, with good reason, that some opponents might twist the issue for political advantage, slamming the Tories for being soft on hate.
More on link

[Sadukar09]

No the problem exists because they know if they play the game, they can score big bucks.

Yep, just like the guy (name escapes me) suing Air Canada over French, when he can speak English perfectly fine.

[E.R. Campbell]

Yep, just like the guy (name escapes me) suing Air Canada over French, when he can speak English perfectly fine.

Except that Air Canada has a legal obligation to provide services in French, in specified circumstances ... the issue isn't that M. N can speak English, it is that Air Canada failed to perform an assigned duty and M. N called them on it.

[Sadukar09]

Except that Air Canada has a legal obligation to provide services in French, in specified circumstances ... the issue isn't that M. N can speak English, it is that Air Canada failed to perform an assigned duty and M. N called them on it.

You are correct that Air Canada has an obligation, however...they also said "The violation of their rights caused them a moral prejudice, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of their vacation."

They're just out for money.

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110713/OTT_Air_Canada_110713/20110713/?hub=MontrealHome

[E.R. Campbell]

You are correct that Air Canada has an obligation, however...they also said "The violation of their rights caused them a moral prejudice, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of their vacation."

They're just out for money.

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110713/OTT_Air_Canada_110713/20110713/?hub=MontrealHome

I have no brief for or against the people involved, but: they bought a ticket with certain legitimate expectations of service - in the case of service in French their expectation was/is grounded in law; Air Canada failed to provide the legally mandated service; the complainants used the existing laws and regulations to obtain satisfaction; it doesn't matter if you or I like it or not; what matters is that Air Canada must either: a) provide the services the law requires; b) seek to have the law changed; or c) continue paying fines when someone goes to all the trouble of lodging a formal complaint. I expect AC to adopt course c.

[ModlrMike]

I have no brief for or against the people involved, but: they bought a ticket with certain legitimate expectations of service - in the case of service in French their expectation was/is grounded in law; Air Canada failed to provide the legally mandated service; the complainants used the existing laws and regulations to obtain satisfaction; it doesn't matter if you or I like it or not; what matters is that Air Canada must either: a) provide the services the law requires; b) seek to have the law changed; or c) continue paying fines when someone goes to all the trouble of lodging a formal complaint. I expect AC to adopt course c.

You are quite correct, ER. However you describe a civil tort, not a human rights offence.

[GAP]

You are quite correct, ER. However you describe a civil tort, not a human rights offence.

But the Human Rights office has a lower threshold.....

[recceguy]

But the Human Rights office has a lower threshold.....

Low enough that they can be summed up as "If you're caucasian, you lose."

[ModlrMike]

As if we need another reason to scrap HRCs:

Man who spread HIV files human rights complaint
The Canadian Press

Date: Monday Mar. 5, 2012 7:20 PM ET

VANCOUVER — A man who knowingly spread the HIV virus to four women now complains the British Columbia govenrment failed to consistently provide him with the medication needed to keep his virus under control.

Charles Mzite has launched a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, claiming his treatment regime was interrupted 36 times while he was at the Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre.

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120305/Man-who-spread-HIV-files-human-rights-complaint-120305/#ixzz1oJ3yzw8h

[I, Citizen]

As if we need another reason to scrap HRCs:

Man who spread HIV files human rights complaint
The Canadian Press

Date: Monday Mar. 5, 2012 7:20 PM ET

VANCOUVER — A man who knowingly spread the HIV virus to four women now complains the British Columbia govenrment failed to consistently provide him with the medication needed to keep his virus under control.

Charles Mzite has launched a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, claiming his treatment regime was interrupted 36 times while he was at the Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre.

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120305/Man-who-spread-HIV-files-human-rights-complaint-120305/#ixzz1oJ3yzw8h

I almost vomited in my mouth when I read that. 

[Larry Strong]

Thing is he is a year and a half beyond the allowable period to file a complaint....yet the HRC board still accepted the claim......why have rules and reg's in place if they are not followed!!