Ezra Levant says that the Canadian Human Rights Wrongs Commission has a double standard.
32 thoughts on “Prepare To Be Shocked”
Comments are closed.
Ezra Levant says that the Canadian Human Rights Wrongs Commission has a double standard.
Comments are closed.
There various ways that Canadian Human Rights Commission could respond to this accusation that could sound reasonable. It could reverse itself and open a case against the imam. Or it could agree that it has overreached in other cases against anti-Muslim conservatives or whoever. Or maybe it could present a case that Marc Lebuis has distorted the situation on his blog in some way.
But one response from the CHRC that would be absolutely unacceptable would be to say that you have no business passing judgment on them because you’re not Canadian. They are entitled to disagree with Americans, but they should recognize the US as a valid source of advice.
I thought that secular governments were supposed to bring an end to heresy trials.
Can we quit having Jim passing judgement on the blog host?
What the hell is Jim Harris trying to say this time? What has taking advice from Americans got to do with Ezra Levant’s blog post? Jim, go find something useful to do like protest Obama for hiring a Republican.
The CHRC and the provincial HRC’s all follow the socialist progressive agenda of the left. It’s long past time that Canadian citizens stand up and refuse to fund this farce, but the creeping poison of the nanny state has blinded far too many of my fellow citizens.
Jim, you are discussing an ill-posed problem. It doesn’t matter what decision the HRC makes because they are all improper. The HRC shouldn’t exist and thus, shouldn’t be making decisions. I think the final line says it all. “Fire. Them. All.” There is no place for an HRC in a democratic society.
I think that Jim is still boo-hooing because I criticized the Canadian governor of Michigan.
What has taking advice from Americans got to do with Ezra Levant’s blog post?
I’m not commenting at Ezra Levant’s blog post, I’m commenting at this blog post.
There is no place for an HRC in a democratic society.
There’s no place for a human rights commission in a democratic society? That doesn’t make any sense. The activities of a particular human rights commission may be good or bad, but human rights are part of the foundation of accountable democracy. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights, for example.
I think that Jim is still boo-hooing because I criticized the Canadian governor of Michigan.
You mean the Canadian-born, American governor of Michigan. Well yes, the point was not that you criticized her, it was the argument that you made, that she has no business talking because she’s Canadian.
Well yes, the point was not that you criticized her, it was the argument that you made, that she has no business talking because she’s Canadian.
I made no such “argument.” The First Amendment applies to economically illiterate Canadians.
The title of your post was “Who Is She To Talk?” That is a statement that Granholm has no business passing judgment, in the sense that what she has to say is irrelevant because she’s Canadian. I agree, that’s not the same as saying that her speech should be banned.
Just as, if the CHRC said that you have the right to speak but your criticism is irrelevant because you’re American, that just wouldn’t work as a defense for them.
The title of your post was “Who Is She To Talk?” That is a statement that Granholm has no business passing judgment, in the sense that what she has to say is irrelevant because she’s Canadian.
I guess you missed the irony. I didn’t, after all, accuse the CHRC of being “un-Canadian…”
I didn’t, after all, accuse the CHRC of being “un-Canadian…”
If you honestly think that the CHRC is doing bad things, then it would be more constructive to criticize it as un-Canadian, than to denigrate the entire country by calling it typically Canadian.
If you honestly think that the CHRC is doing bad things, then it would be more constructive to criticize it as un-Canadian, than to denigrate the entire country by calling it typically Canadian.
That might be, but I did neither.
The First Amendment applies to economically illiterate Canadians.
Don’t know where the US Constitution first amendment premise is in the Canadian constitution, but the travesty of the Canadian HRC is that “freedom of speech” only applies, so long as certain protected populations are not offended. So, there is a possibilty that “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to “economically illiterate Canadians”. More likely, “freedom of speech” wouldn’t apply calling someone an “economically illiterate Canadian”. Good thing you live in the USA, Rand.
I do know that the first amendment doesn’t apply to trollish blog commenters. Perhaps one needs to understand the harmful aspects of the HRC, particularly in a Democracy. Maybe we need another vote on Jim? He certainly didn’t seem to learn the lesson the first time.
Don’t know where the US Constitution first amendment premise is in the Canadian constitution, but the travesty of the Canadian HRC is that “freedom of speech” only applies, so long as certain protected populations are not offended. So, there is a possibilty that “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to “economically illiterate Canadians”. More likely, “freedom of speech” wouldn’t apply calling someone an “economically illiterate Canadian”. Good thing you live in the USA, Rand.
I was referring to Governor Granholm.
“That’s why we have a Bill of Rights, for example.”
We also have a penal code and a legislature to keep it up to date. So does Canada. A HRC is superfluous. Especially one as capricious and secretive as the CHRC.
Rand,
I know who you are referring to, and yes, she has first amendment protection. I apologize for being bad at humor.
There’s no place for a human rights commission in a democratic society?
Absolutely right. There’s no place for one in a society that has human rights built into the system. It’s like a company forming a profit committee to make sure everyone is aware that the company is there to make a profit. Or physicists setting up a laws of physics committee to make sure the laws of physics are upheld. Except when those laws disagree with observation and hence are wrong. In that case, it’s ok to break them. 😉
Point is human rights is built into the core of Canadian society. As Bill Maron says, that makes a Human Rights Commission superfluous, assuming it is intended to uphold human rights. Frankly, it looks to me like the HRC isn’t intended to uphold human rights, but perversely to violate them in a disguised way for a despised group.
Remember in the US, who enforces the Bill of Rights? The courts do with the authority flowing from the Supreme Court at the top. In Canada, they have a similar setup, though I know not the details. There’s no legitimate reason to create a rival group to enforce “human rights” when the courts already do this.
Factor in that HRC selectively and inconsistently enforce the laws, mete out arbitrary punishments for things that shouldn’t be illegal, has pathetics standards for evidence and conviction, and behaves in an unprofessional manner. It says to me that HRC is just some group of goons that beat up on undesirables. Maybe at some point, they were intended to serve a useful role (it is surprising that they’ve been around since 1977), but now I’d say they’re a political tool.
They are ‘tools’ all right.
There’s no place for one in a society that has human rights built into the system.
That still makes no sense, Karl, because the Canadian Human Rights Commission is part of the system that human rights are built into. It’s equivalent to a civil court, and what’s wrong with that? Do we not need courts because laws are already “built into the system”?
It’s like a company forming a profit committee to make sure everyone is aware that the company is there to make a profit.
Exactly. Profitability audits are a standard corporate practice.
Or physicists setting up a laws of physics committee to make sure the laws of physics are upheld.
That’s a bad analogy, because the no one is going to break the laws of physics regardless of their intentions. But human rights are codified by laws that do need to be upheld.
Remember in the US, who enforces the Bill of Rights? Remember in the US, who enforces the Bill of Rights? The courts do with the authority flowing from the Supreme Court at the top.
Exactly. The CHRC, or rather the CHRT (the tribunal part) is equivalent to a court. Its function is to uphold the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Canadian Constitution.
There’s no legitimate reason to create a rival group to enforce “human rights” when the courts already do this.
See, here you are back to the circular beginning. You’re saying that there is no legitimate reason to have courts if you have courts. The CHRT isn’t a “rival group” to the Canadian court system. By design, it works with the court system.
Besides, if you’re so worried about rival groups, you should be thinking about the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay. That really is a shadow court system with a highly artificial legal framework. Whatever faults the CHRC may have, it doesn’t has no “advanced interrogation methods”, it has never force-fed prisoners on hunger strike, it has never suspended habeas corpus, and it has never kept minors in jail for years. That is what a real shadow court system looks like, not what the CHRC is doing.
Frankly, it looks to me like the HRC isn’t intended to uphold human rights
But have you really looked? Did you go to their web site to survey their work, or have you only gotten an impression from some accusatory bloggers?
It says to me that HRC is just some group of goons that beat up on undesirables.
That’s an interesting metaphor, but you should keep in mind that it can only possibly be true as a metaphor. In our shadow judicial system in Guantanamo, we really have had goons beat people. (Do a Google search for “U.S. Soldier Brutally Beaten By Soldiers At Guantanamo”.)
I’ve looked, Jim. I’ve followed many cases closely. The CHRC does NOT work with the court system. They have their own “investigators”, impose their own penalties(capriciously) and answer to no one. The biggest complainant is a former employee who has made thousands of dollars off bogus complaints. There is absolutely no good reason for this panel to exist. All they do is suppress what should be free speech.
There is absolutely no good reason for this panel to exist. All they do is suppress what should be free speech.
Don’t confuse the troll with reality.
That still makes no sense, Karl, because the Canadian Human Rights Commission is part of the system that human rights are built into. It’s equivalent to a civil court, and what’s wrong with that? Do we not need courts because laws are already “built into the system”?
Ok, glancing at Canada’s legal system, they do have administrative tribunals which handle very specialized legal matters. For example, (to copy/paste from Wikipedia): the National Energy Board, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Competition Tribunal, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (i.e. federal labour board), the Copyright Board, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”). I get the impression there are a lot of tribunals, maybe hundreds. Canada is not the only country with them. The UK, Australia, and South Africa have them as well.
That means Jim that you are right about the tribunal(s) associated with the CHRC (which incidentally is called the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal). Legally, the existence of the tribunal seems on solid ground. And there’s no record of controversial HRC cases before around 2000. Which is a bit surprising given its scope and that it’s been around since 1977.
The impression I get is that the HRC tribunal has been subverted by the executive branches of Canada and of several of its provinces, and stacked with the current batch of trouble makers.
This doesn’t seem to be a problem unique to the HRC. For example, I read of a case (whose link I’ve lost) of a former Vancouver(?) renter contesting a British Columbia act where the legislature apparently gave considerable power to the executive branch to appoint the appropriate province-level administrative tribunal and the tribunal in turn made an unfavorable ruling to the plaintiff.
There are other unsettling powers granted to a tribunal as well, including the notorious ability to ignore previous decisions and a reduced burden of proof for determining guilt and/or penalties.
It’s possible that some relatively recent law led to an abrupt increase in the power of tribunals. In which case, the HRC tribunal may just be the tip of a large iceberg.
Anyway, in the case of the Canadian HRC, there is plenty of evidence that it is acting in a manner unbecoming of a tribunal. There is something very wrong with that process.
Moving on, I strongly disapprove of the whole idea behind Guantanamo. There’s no legitimate reason for putting the camp there as opposed to the US mainland. I imagine we will see a pile of pardons for the jailors when late January comes around. That might be the first time we get a real idea of the scale of the Bush administration activities. Assuming the pardons aren’t made secret.
If those prisoners are legitimate POWs, then they’ll keep well no matter where they are jailed.
Having said that, I really see no reason we can’t criticize Canada for its failings. I never believed in the “judge not lest ye be judged.” It is better to judge and be judged in kind.
If those prisoners are legitimate POWs, then they’ll keep well no matter where they are jailed.
It is absurd to imagine that there are any “legitimate POWs” in this war, given the nature of it and the definition of POW per the Geneva Conventions. That is a problem in itself…
So Jim Harris, do you support the CHRC’s attack on speech it determines to be politically incorrect?
It is absurd to imagine that there are any “legitimate POWs” in this war, given the nature of it and the definition of POW per the Geneva Conventions. That is a problem in itself…
To be honest, I think some of the people they grabbed from Afghanistan probably fit. Just as a reminder for other posters (from Wikipedia again):
Virtually all of the combatants captured in 2002 would be either members of the Taliban which was at one time recognized by the US as a government or a militia (possibly one of the Al Qaeda ones) fighting for the Taliban government. As long as they wear a distinctive sign (which many if not most of them did) and abided by the law of war (which to be honest I don’t understand, but I imagine it’d have to be a violation conducted while fighting US soldiers or allies, not something that happened before the US got involved).
Moving on, given that there’s almost no judicial review of these cases, I think it reasonable to assume that there are lawful combatants in the camp.
As long as they wear a distinctive sign (which many if not most of them did) and abided by the law of war (which to be honest I don’t understand, but I imagine it’d have to be a violation conducted while fighting US soldiers or allies, not something that happened before the US got involved).
Emphasis mine. What reason have you to believe that they did either of these things?
The impression I get is that the HRC tribunal has been subverted by the executive branches of Canada and of several of its provinces, and stacked with the current batch of trouble makers.
Again, that’s an impression. Did you get that impression from an actual survey of CHRT decision, or is this also an impression formed from some puffed up blog postings? For the record, you can review the entire stack of 2008 decisions with the Google search “chrt tribunal decisions 2008” (without the quotes). Maybe some of the decisions are wrong, I’m not really sure, but these are not decisions from a panel that has been “stacked” by “troublemakers”. Most of these are ordinary anti-discrimination cases concerning employment and public transporation and so on.
You’re right though that there were two big changes since 2000. First, there was 9/11, which obviously drove a wedge between hard-line Muslims and Western jingoists in Canada just as in other countries. Second, the blogosphere exponentiated between then and now. It’s fashionable to be politically incorrect on right-leaning blogs, or at least to pretend to be, so naturally the CHRC is going to be a favorite target.
Which is not to say that the blogs are 100% wrong about the CHRC. Maybe some of the complaints are valid, although the way that the complaints are phrased almost certainly isn’t. For instance you have Mark Steyn trying as hard as he can to play the victim, when in the end the CHRC ruled in his favor.
Moving on, I strongly disapprove of the whole idea behind Guantanamo.
Good.
Having said that, I really see no reason we can’t criticize Canada for its failings.
Sure, I agree. But if you want to criticize Canada credibly, you should, first, learn the facts instead of just scraping an impression from some blogs.
Second, you should avoid wild, hypocritical hyperbole such as that the CHRC is composed of goons who beat people. Goons who beat people has been our judicial problem, not Canada’s. In fact, one of the people that we snatched and had tortured (in Syria rather than in Guantanamo) is a Canadian citizen.
Jim Harris, do you support the CHRC’s attack on speech it determines to be politically incorrect?
To the extent that the CHRC has actually made such an attack, I oppose the the CHRC. I’m not going to slam the CHRC for something that it didn’t do.
It is absurd to imagine that there are any “legitimate POWs” in this war, given the nature of it and the definition of POW per the Geneva Conventions.
You may well be right about that, Rand. The problem is that many of the detainees in Guantanamo weren’t combatants at all. And many others may have been combatants or at least agitators, but not people who ever planned to attack the United States. And then the other problem is that many of those who truly are enemies of the United States have been criminally abused by their captors, so there isn’t any clear way to put them on trial without incriminating Americans.
For instance, waterboarding someone outside of the US is a felony under US Code section 2340. So how do you put detainees who have been waterboarded on trial without inviting criminal indictments for the people who waterboarded them?
Jim, you are as usual self-rightously full of yourself. No point arguing the HRC with you because you don’t see anything wrong with appointed political hacks interfering in the lives of ordinary people. The HRC system works outside the courts, not with them.
And you just had to turn the subject to your favorite whipping boy, didn’t you?
To sum up Mr. Harris’s argument: “The CHRC doesn’t violate the rights of Canadians because . . . GUANTANAMO! BUSH SUX!”
No point arguing the HRC with you because you don’t see anything wrong with appointed political hacks interfering in the lives of ordinary people.
No, it’s very wrong for appointed political hacks to interfere with the lives of ordinary people. What I’m saying is, let’s look at CHRC’s case list to see how much they actually do that. There is this mentality here that if you accuse the CHRC with enough vehemence, there is no need to actually check.
Again, to get their case list, Google “chrt tribunal decisions 2008″ without the quotes.
And you just had to turn the subject to your favorite whipping boy, didn’t you?
What I’m saying is, if the concern is political hacks interfering in the lives of ordinary people, let’s look in our own yard too, not just in Canada’s. Mark Steyn may be all hot and bothered because someone filed a complaint against him, but he wasn’t kidnapped and tortured. That is what the US had done to another Canadian.