Topic: Human Rights Gone Awry

[Thucydides]

From the London Fog: the CHRC is using it's extralegal powers in an attempt to silence the "Free Dominion" blog. This is a travesty, and the following post explains why:

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2007/07/outside-law.html

Outside the Law

FreeDominion's EntropySquared (context here):

    The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a perfect example of something that shouldn’t be allowed to exist in a free society. Its primary function is to provide liberals with power they cannot legitimately wield. Dressed up as a part of the legal system, the Canadian Human Rights Commission operates completely outside of natural law, yet it has the power to impose its decisions upon Canadians (as individuals and as a people) as if its decisions were legislatively empowered. Every one of their decisions effectively ‘writes law’ as potent as legitimate laws passed in the House of Commons.

    It is essential that people understand that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is entirely a political instrument. Its transparent window-dressing as an arm of the law is cosmetic only.

    ... As with all these standoffs between the CHRC and conservatives, much of the battle will be fought behind closed doors where few normal checks and balances apply. Playing on their field by their rules is a losing proposition, so we are going to take the battle to the people of Canada and beyond.

    ...It is apparent from the nature of the complaint, and the CRHC’s participation in its execution, that the goal is the silencing of Free Dominion. The only thing certain in all this is that that isn’t going to happen. The reason that I can say that with such certainty is the Canadian Human Rights Commission doesn’t have the power to silence Free Dominion.

    The second part of this battle is going to be waged on the internet and in other media and the real judges will be the people of Canada, and beyond, who we will treat to a grand tour of the CHRC. The CHRC wields total power behind closed doors, but they wield none in the marketplace of ideas provided by the internet, and that’s where we will fight the second war.

While the odds are stacked against Free Dominion (the State has the ultimate power through its monopoly on force), it is certainly worth watching and we should wish Free Dominion well. We should also remember how other troublemakers have attempted to use these "human rights" star chambers against others (a complaint leveled against "Western Standard" magazine comes to mind), although it seems remarkable that you can see all kinds of vile stuff coming from sites like Rabble.ca and never hear a peep from the HRC..........

This is the letter the CHRC sent. You will notice the rather Orwllian fact that the blog owner is being asked to answer a charge or charges which are not even specified

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/portal.php

Announcement: Human Rights attack on Free Dominion
Posted: Entropy Squared @ 07/ 18/ 07 9:28 pm
Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
July 18, 2007

Human Rights attack on Free Dominion


We have been waiting for six and a half years and the day has finally arrived, somebody is going to try to silence Free Dominion using the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Moments ago we found this in Free Dominion's mailbox:


July 16, 2007

File 2006057

Ms. Connie Wilkins
c/o Free Dominion
2033 Unity Rd.
Kingston, ON
K0H 1M0

Dear Ms. Wilkins:

I am the investigator designated under Part III of the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate the complaint of Ms. [name omitted at this time] against Free Dominion. As the investigator, it is my responsibility to gather the evidence in relation to the complainant's allegations and, once the investigation is complete, to report on my findings to the Members of the Commission.

The report will include a recommendation for the disposition of the complaint. I can recommend that a conciliator be appointed, if the evidence supports the allegations in the complaint, or that the complaint be dismissed, if the allegations are not supported by the evidence. I can also recommend to the Commission that a settlement be approved if the parties reach an agreement during the course of the investigation.

I am currently awaiting your full response to the allegations which is due on 18 July 2007.

I would like to draw your attention to section 48 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which allows the parties to settle a complaint in the course of investigation. I would be pleased to discuss the possibility of a settlement with you or your representative at any time.

You can reach me at the address and telephone number indicated at the bottom of the first page of this letter. My direct line is 999-999-9999 and my email address is OfficersName@chrc-ccdp.ca. Please note that there are security and confidentiality risks in sending information by email.


Yours Sincerely,


Officer's Name
Investigator


This looks real. It appears to be written on official Canadian Human Rights Commission letterhead stationary.

Other than the last name of the complaintant, this doesn't tell us much. It doesn't say what the complaint is about or anything else. Notice also that Connie was supposed to have responded to it by July 18, 2007, which is today. It was a fluke that we even checked the mailbox before we came home.

Somebody has likely decided that because they can't defeat some argument presented by someone at Free Dominion they will instead try to silence the whole site. It isn't going to work.

We will be keeping everybody posted on each development as it occurs. If this persecution actually proceeds it will not be under the cover of darkness, we will keep a very bright light shining every step of the way.

I promise.

edit to add letter

[Greymatters]

A_majoor,

Just in case you arent familiar with the process, or if someone else is interestedd in how this works, here is the lnk to the CHRC complaint process page:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/complaints/what_happens_now-en.asp

Three points to note for you, based on this being a valid CHRC letter:

1) If they have gone forward with this action, then someone at the CHRC figures that it is worth their time to go after you.  Whoever complained gave them something as evidence that the CHRC sees as valid. 

2) Whoever is running this has jumped the gun a bit.  It has gone right past voluntary resolution straight to an investigator.  This means whoever complained does not want to participate in an unofficial resolution process, they want it investigated and actioned (at taxpayers expense of course).  However, these investigators have the option to halt investigations if they see that action has already been taken, or can be taken, to resolve complaints, or that evidence provided has been falsified, exagerated, or taken out of context. 

3) The CHRC regulations are a lot like CF regulations - you may not agree with it all of them, but you better pay attention to them or someone will try to punish you for disobeying them.  I would advise (them) to keep detailed records from here on in, and let the investigator know verbally and in writing that (they) have no idea what is being investigated.   

Minor edit added..

[E.R. Campbell]

I hope the tribulations of Free Dominion, for whom I hold no brief, are noted by netizens on Army.ca.  The owner, Mike Bobbitt, can suffer great harm  if someone here posts, even if (s)he only copies, a libel or a statement which is improper under the human rights regulations.  Even though Army.ca is well and thoroughly moderated it is possible for such things to sneak past.  Mike Bobbitt can be held accountable for our misstatements.

[Thucydides]

The manner in which bodies like the CHRC operate is where the problem lies. Consider that under common law tradition, the accused:

1. Faces their accuser
2. Knows the nature of the charges against them, and
3. Is tried before a jury of peers.

As well, the investigation of the alleged offence is performed by a separate agency (the police) from the courts of law.

The Free Dominion (which I am not affiliated to in any way) "case" clearly fails the sniff test in 3 out of 4 important respects, they only know the name of the accuser. The investigation and prosecution will be done by the same agency, and the "trial" will be a closed door hearing without the sorts of evidentary rules that accompany a real trial. As if to rub in the point, notice the letter sent to Free Dominion was dated the 16th of the month, and demands answers to unspecified allegations in two days time (even though it was received on the 18th of the month). Clearly the "investigator" isn't interested in allowing Free Dominion any time to answer the allegations.

Edward makes a good point, Mike Bobbit is vulnerable to both legal action (i.e. libel, which is investigate by the police, tried in a court of law with a jury and proper evidentary proceedings, etc.) and the CHRC, which has no such constraints.

Free Dominion may survive this, since their physical server and domain is housed in a foreign country, presumably even if the primary owners are forbidden to post they would seem to have a roster of friends and allies who can carry on from foreign domains. It seems incredible that political speech in Canada may evolve into internet Samizdat.

[Thucydides]

The end(?) of the current attack against Free Dominion by the CHRC. Interestingly enough, the complainant apparently requested the action be dropped, but if you scroll up an look at the dates on the letter or read the testemony of the web site owner below, you will see that made litte difference. The complaint was launched and dropped apparently at bureaucratic whim; yet another reason we should not have institutions that can operate like the CHRC:

http://shaidle.blogmatrix.com/:entry:shaidle-2007-08-04-0001/

The hell? Free Dominion weirdness

"Interestingly enough, said Fournier, the letter also indicated that the complainant had initially asked the CHRC to drop the complaint on July 17, before Free Dominion ever even heard about the complaint, and asked that the complaint be dropped a second time on July 23. When Fournier spoke to the CHRC on July 19, however, several days after Gentes first asked the complaint to be dropped, the CHRC made no mention of that fact, leaving Free Dominion in the dark until today. Free Dominion's lawyer will be investigating this particular issue.

(...)

"Connie, however, said that the experience, while stressful, coming as it did in the weeks leading up to her and Mark's wedding, had its benefits for Free Dominion and Canada's conservative movement on the whole. 'It was a good dry run,' she said, pointing to the high likelihood that Free Dominion's opponents will use the CHRC in the future to try to shut the website down."

[Thucydides]

The unrestrained power of the State is being called upon to limit free speech yet again.......

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/764/30/

"HUMAN RIGHTS" ...AND WRONGS     
Friday, 07 December 2007

Since my little difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress and Canada's Human Rights Commissions, some of our pickier northern readers have demanded to know where have I been on the egregiousness of the Human Rights kangaroo courts all these years. Well, I've been opposed to them for years:

The aim of a large swathe of the left is not to win the debate but to get it cancelled before it starts. You can do that in any number of ways -- busting up campus appearances by conservatives, "hate crimes" laws, Canada's ghastly human-rights commissions, the more "enlightened" court judgments, the EU's recent decision to criminalize "xenophobia," or merely, as The New York Times does, by declaring your side of every issue to be the "moderate" and "nonideological" position.

That's from The National Post of August 6th 2002. A couple of years earlier:

When the left tried dispensing with democracy in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, it led eventually to counterrevolution and the regimes' collapse. In the U.S. courts, in Canada's human-rights commissions and in Europe's bureaucracy, the left may finally have found a form of democratic subversion that works.

That's from The Gazette in Montreal, March 4th 2000. A couple of years earlier:

No other western nation has so lost its sense of the dividing line between the public realm and the private space. To be sure, there are still peripheral variations: No doubt if Ontario-style public toplessness ever came to Quebec, the provincial government would insist the French breasts had to be at least twice the size of the English ones. But, otherwise for all our smug self-congratulation about Canada's "diversity" and "tolerance," the distinguishing feature of this "tolerance" and "diversity" is the increasing intolerance and uniformity with which it's applied.

Recently, the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission ruled that the mayor of Fredericton was guilty of discrimination for refusing to proclaim an official Gay Pride Week; similarly, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined the city of London $10,000 after its mayor refused to lend municipal approval to Gay Pride Day. It seems that municipalities throughout the diversified Dominion are legally obliged to celebrate Gay Pride. No matter that in our great cities, many gays themselves find the annual Gay Pride marches, with their prancing drag queens and capering transvestite nuns, an embarrassing cavalcade of all the most tired gay cliches.

We are passing way beyond the much-vaunted Canadian virtue of "tolerance" -- for surely, by definition, "tolerance" is a pejorative term, implying something wary, indifferent, grudging, non-approving. So it's no longer enough for municipalities merely to tolerate gayness; they must be compelled actively to celebrate it.

That's from The Ottawa Citizen, January 10th 1998. Contemporary Canada is profoundly hostile to individual liberty, and the Human Rights Commissions are the most explicit enforcers of that hostily. This column is from The Calgary Herald of May 2nd 1998:

I wonder if the Boston Globe's fax machine has run out of paper yet. The other day in Montreal, CJAD Radio was giving out the Globe's numbers and urging its listeners to write to the editors suggesting questions they might like to put to Lucien Bouchard, soon to descend on Beantown (la ville des haricots). Needless to say, the questions are mostly -- stop me if you've heard this one before -- about Quebec's oppressive language laws, the removal of English signs from the hospital at Cowansville, etc.

I suspect Bostonians take a relaxed view of Quebec's oppressive language laws. After all, Americans already think Canada is full of oppressive laws, starting with the one banning private health care. If you accept that the government has the right to run all the hospitals, it surely has the right to decide what language to run 'em in.

So it's a bit late to start moaning about being oppressed. The real choice in Canada is whom to be oppressed by. On the one hand, there's the Parizeau tendency. On the other, there's what I'll call, in deference to the most famous gay in Alberta, the Delwin Vriend tendency.

Let's take Jacques Parizeau first. The old boy travels around Quebec, notes that the overwhelming majority of its population is francophone and feels that this should be reflected in its constitutional arrangements and public face. He can't understand why an anglophone, calling some Quebec City apparatchik to query why his medical card hasn't arrived yet, should feel entitled to service en anglais. For propounding these views, Parizeau is reviled throughout English Canada as a dangerous wacko.

The other tendency is represented by Vriend, the human rights commissions and the courts of Canada. It believes that municipalities should be compelled to lend official support to gay pride days, that religious colleges should be compelled to hire people whose behavior they consider an abomination before God, and that a spouse is no more or less than (in the felicitous words of the Ontario Court of Appeal) someone you "designate" as such -- husband, wife, gay partner or, presumably, a favorite goldfish or budgerigar.

For its willingness to break up Canada on a 50-per-cent-plus-one vote, the Parizeau tendency is denounced as profoundly anti-democratic; for their willingness to break up ancient institutions such as the laws of marriage and contract on the basis of no social consensus whatsoever, the Vriend crowd is hailed as reasonable persons of a progressive tolerant bent. That's why we'll have gay marriage long before an independent Quebec: in Canada, it's easier to come out than get out. But which tendency would you say was more intrusive and coercive? The one that tells you what size of sign you can put in your shop window? Or the one that tells you what size of gay you can rent the bedroom over the garage to?

At which point, to avoid the attention of the human rights commission myself, I'd better issue the usual disclaimer: some of my best friends are gay; I'm entirely relaxed when it comes to penetrative sex with other men. Hang on, that didn't come out quite right. Anyway, the point is being gay -- in the modern, professional, litigious sense -- is not primarily about penetrative sex with other men. Rather, it's about the construction of a round-the-clock identity accorded special protection under the law. The courts and commissions do not extend this consideration to all groups. Quite the opposite. If, following Vriend's example, a devout Catholic were to get a job in a gay bath-house and wander around the cubicles saying Hail Marys, he'd receive short shrift from the courts. We all know that, in media commentary on the Supreme Court decision, "religious," like "rural," is code-speak for "bigot."

In fact, these religious bigots are surprisingly tolerant. For example, I have before me a copy of the Easter edition of The Mirror, a Montreal weekly of vaguely leftish views and entertainment listings. On Page 3 is an advertisement for Resurrection, "the queer dance event of Easter weekend," featuring an oiled, muscular hunk, nude except for several phallic symbols over his washboard stomach and a neon cross over his crotch, his glistening thighs flanked by two urinals. This queer dance event was a benefit party for Montreal Queer Pride/Divers Cite 98, whose, corporate sponsors proudly display their logos underneath the twinkling stud: Canadian Airlines, American Airlines, Glaxo Wellcome. . . . In the diversified Dominion, we must be properly sensitive toward persons of color, persons of orientation and persons of gender, but we can be sneeringly contemptuous of persons of faith, appropriating their most sacred imagery for the crassest of purposes even on the holiest day in the Christian calendar.

Personally, I'm an English Common Law man. In my dealings with employers, landlords and governments, I expect to be treated as an individual, a citizen under the law like any other. But both the Vriend tendency and the Parizeau tendency favor group rights: they wish to treat me on the basis of my ethnic origin, language and sexual orientation. If we must go down this slippery slope, I'll take Parizeau: the Quebec "collectivity" is, at least, a majority. In the rest of Canada, the majority -- any majority -- is a vanishing breed.

[Thucydides]

Following Mark Styen's travails with the Star Chamber is very revealing. http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128/

Some highlights:

The complainant has apparently been able to "shop around" to various provincial and the Federal HRC's. The BC HRC has taken the complaint despite the fact the complainant does not reside in British Columbia.

Student Lawyers from Osgoode Hall attempted to strong arm Macleans magazine a full five months after the article was published,  demanding they receive full editorial control over the cover, artwork and a five page "rebuttal" which was not to be edited except for spelling and grammar. When these demands were refused, they joined in as complainants to the HRC

Grievance #16 on page 6: The number of Muslims in Europe is expanding like "mosquitoes".

Either Dr Elmasry is making the same mistake as Jim Henley and attributing to me the words of Mullah Krekar, or he believes that it's "Islamophobic" to quote accurately leading European Muslims.

[Thucydides]

Now to see the difference between how the complaint is reported and what was being demanded from Maclean's: essentially a complete editorial takeover:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010576.html

The "right" to respond

The Muslim law students who've launched human-rights complaints against Maclean's tell their side of the story in today's National Post. Basically, they say their human rights are being violated because Maclean's - which printed several pages of letters in response to Mark Steyn's controversial article - won't publish their response:

    What should we do when a Canadian magazine publishes an article alleging that many Muslims are "hot for jihad," and that they share the same basic goals of terrorists? True to Canada's tradition of free speech, we decided to engage Mr. Steyn in a debate about his views.

    We decided to follow the example of the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), a small but strident group of self-described "liberal secular Muslims," which has come to the defence of Maclean's. In its most recent media release, the MCC advised: "Mark Steyn's article was definitely alarmist, but the answer to his challenge is to write a counter piece and demand that Maclean's publish it."

    Unfortunately, the MCC's advice came about nine months too late. On March 30, 2007, we met with Maclean's senior editors and proposed that they publish a response from a mutually acceptable source. The response was negative, which resulted in our human rights complaints.

    [...]

    What we did ask for, however, was an opportunity for the Muslim community to participate in the "free marketplace" of ideas. It is our belief that in its truest form, freedom of expression results in a lively debate among all interested parties -- not just among those who play by their own exclusionary rules. If Maclean's wants to publish articles alleging that many Muslims are "hot for jihad," it has to provide an opportunity to respond.

    This issue isn't about attacking journalists or stifling free expression. It's about ensuring that our media outlets provide a forum for open debate and argument. ...

In the United States, there's a big debate over whether the "fairness doctrine" should be reintroduced for boradcast media. Here in Canada, these guys are demanding a "fairness doctrine" for print media, which would actually be pretty funny if the Canadian Islamic Congress newsletter was obligated to run articles by Mark Steyn.

Maclean's editor Kenneth Whyte, incidentially, says the students' demands were just a little greater than they're letting on:

    On Dec. 5, Whyte issued the following statement to clarify what happened at the meeting: "The student lawyers in question came to us five months after the story ran. They asked for an opportunity to respond. We said that we had already run many responses to the article in our letters section, but that we would consider a reasonable request. They wanted a five-page article, written by an author of their choice, to run without any editing by us, except for spelling and grammar. They also wanted to place their response on the cover and to art direct it themselves.

    "We told them we didn't consider that a reasonable request for response. When they insisted, I told them I would rather go bankrupt than let somebody from outside of our operations dictate the content of the magazine. I still feel that way."

Damian P.

[Thucydides]

More on the Star Chamber. Remember, in common law, you have the right to know your accuser:

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=878&lg=_e&isruling=0

beachesboy@aol.com


Complainant

- and -

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Commission

- and -

heather fleming and ronald fleming

Respondent RULING
 MEMBER: Athanasios D. Hadjis
 2007 CHRT 52

2007/11/01
 

[1] The Canadian Human Rights Commission has made a motion requesting an amendment of the style of cause in this proceeding. The complaint identifies the respondent simply as "Drumsaremybeat" and this designation has to this point been carried forward into the style of cause. The Commission is requesting that this name now be substituted with the names of two individuals, Heather Fleming and Ronald Fleming.

[2] The Commission has also requested a direction from the Tribunal that the Complainant's identity not be publicly disclosed, even to the responding party.

More on link

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile (From The Langley Times):

Claim of discrimination against whites dismissed
Long-time tenants of the mall were upset at not having their leases renewed.
Ted Colley, CanWest News
Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The owners of a Surrey mall near Willowbrook are claiming victory.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a claim by three Caucasian tenants that they had been ousted from the West Willow Shopping Mall because of their race.

"We feel vindicated and gratified by the tribunal's decision," H-Mart president Peter Kwon said in a press release. "We were dismayed by the incorrect and unfounded accusations made against us."

H-Mart is the anchor tenant in West Willow, which is near 196th Street and Fraser Highway, and is connected to Stanford Plaza Inc., the mall owner.

"I hope this decision ends all of the ugly speculation and that we can move forward and look to the future," Kwon said.

Rose Farrell of Colour Tech Hair Studio, John Pook of Peter F. Pook Insurance, and Lynn Wallace of Frames West Gallery filed a complaint with the tribunal.

The three former tenants claimed racial discrimination after their leases were not renewed. All had been long-term tenants of the mall.

The allegations of racism arose after the complainants read a Sept. 29, 2006, story in the Vancouver Province that said the mall's new Korean owners wanted to convert it into an Asian-only market.

That story and another on Oct. 3, 2006, led the complainants to believe they were being moved out of the mall because they weren't Asian.

Last month, .

"In the end, I have concluded that the complainants' case is based on little more than conjecture based on what they read in the media and H-Mart's reputation as a 'Korean market,' as seen through the lens of their own unhappiness in being unable to maintain their businesses in the mall," Lyster wrote.

She found the complainants' evidence in support of their claim was not strong and the respondents disputed what they did have.

Essentially, Lyster concluded, the complainants were not able to prove race was the reason their leases were not renewed.

Wallace has relocated her business to Murrayville. She remains convinced she and the others are victims of racial discrimination.

"I can't tell you how disappointed I am," she said of the tribunal decision. "Everyone was just appalled we weren't able to go to hearing."

Wallace said she is awaiting advice from her lawyers about the possibility of pursuing the case in court.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  John Pook is an acquaintance of mine (and may be a distant relative)

These firms have been operating in this mall for some 25 years. 


The previous report in the Vancouver Province.

Mall's non-Korean tenants ousted
'Shock', 'outrage' greet requirement shops must cater to Asians
Glenda Luymes, The Province
Published: Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Business owners in a plaza on the Surrey-Langley border say they're being pushed out by the property's new owner because they don't cater specifically to Asian customers.

John Pook, owner of Peter Pook Insurance, was originally happy to hear the plaza had been purchased by Asian businessmen who would lease the largest building to a Korean grocery chain called H-Mart.

That changed when he received a notice telling him the lease he's held for 25 years would not be renewed.
I was in complete shock," he said yesterday. "I had a verbal agreement with the previous owner, and I just expected we would be staying. They're making this into an Asian shopping plaza and I guess we don't fit the bill."

Pook had three months to find a new location. At the end of October he'll move around the corner to Willowtree plaza.

"They did nothing illegal -- my lease was up," he said. "But the whole experience has left a bad taste in my mouth."

Rose Farrell, owner of Colour Tech Hair Studio, has also been forced to move.

"This is an outrage," she said. "I have customers from many different cultures, but my shop isn't Korean, and I'm not allowed to stay.

"It was terrible. I couldn't sleep, and I lost 20 pounds. It's not easy to find a new place."

Lynn Wallace, owner of Frames West, said that when she learned she'd have to move, she offered to pay double the rent and change her art displays to Asian work.

Her offer was rejected, and come December, she'll move to Murrayville Square in Langley.

"My biggest fear is that they're going to put an Asian frame shop here, and my customers might not notice," she said. "I've been here for 24 years, and I hate change. But the worst thing is that this move is going to affect my family. I told them things will be different at Christmas this year."

May Sprague, director of leasing for Canreal management company, the company that manages the plaza, said the plaza's owners are trying to attract Asian tenants."In the past, this plaza has not been very successful," she said.


"The new owners have realized that 'the same old thing' isn't working, so they are trying to cater to the Asian market. They want to make the shopping centre a place that people from all over [the Fraser Valley] will come."

Sprague could not confirm reports that an Asian insurance broker and hair studio would move into the plaza after H-Mart opens in November.

"If it doesn't work one way, you have to do something to make it work," she said.

The letter from Canreal told tenants their leases would not be renewed.

But June Lee, project manager for H-Mart, claimed that if the tenants had wanted to pay more they could have stayed.

"I have to pay for my mortgage," said Lee. "We know they want to stay but we have to have people pay more."

The issue here is not that the new owners want to cater to Asians. John and the other complainants already cater to Asians.  The issue is, as stated by the Korean owners' management company, Canreal, is that they want Asian tenants and, more critically, potentially Asian tenants that will open up in direct competition with the existing tenants. 

The owners' project manager says it wasn't true that the issue was rents.  But tenants agreed to pay higher rents.  There is a dispute over whether they were actually offered the opportunity to renew their leases.

Fair enuff.  There is a dispute.  It may be racial.  It may be commercial.

John and the rest felt they had reason to believe it was racial and took it the BC Human Rights Tribunal (apparently dealing with Ontario cases).

MY personal concern is this statement: "Tribunal member Lindsay Lyster dismissed their complaint on the grounds it had no reasonable prospect of success and did not merit a hearing"

The Tribunal does its own investigating, does the adjudicating and determines the punishment (Judge, jury and prosecutor as Thucydides notes).  And one of the grounds it cites for not hearing the case is "it had no reasonable prospect of success". 

Well, I suppose the Tribunal knows its own mind well enough to be able to determine what is going to be successful and what isn't.  Would that the Police had that level of certainty when they presented their findings to the Crown Prosecutor; when the Crown presented the case to a Jury; when the Jury presented their findings to a Judge for sentencing. 


 

[Shec]

"The owners' project manager says it wasn't true that the issue was rents.  But tenants agreed to pay higher rents.  There is a dispute over whether they were actually offered the opportunity to renew their leases."

So much for the common man's economic maxim that money is colour-blind.  But I guess the common man test that is fundamental to legal decision making doesn't apply to administrative tribunals that accomodate the rights-based agenda of  the myriad of special interest groups that only seek to peacefully and equally co-exist in our supposedly diverse and pluralistc tolerant society.   

[Kirkhill]

Money is a tool. Guns are tools. Tribunals are tools.

It doesn't matter what the tool is.  The only thing that matters is what is done with the tool and the doing is done by people.  The problem is that you can't determine proactively how people are going to use the tools available to them.  That requires reading minds to determine intent.  And people regularly change their minds.  Consequently you are stuck having to wait to see what people do then judge them on their past actions and the effect that their actions had.

[whiskey601]

Rex Murphy does another great job in this one tearing up the ease with which social activists can abuse our system of justice:

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/human_rights_gone_awry.html


 

[CDN Aviator]

Well done Rex, i could not agree more.

[Spanky]

Well done Rex!  

[newfin]

Just viewed the video - thanks for the link.  As usual, Rex is far more articulate in 3-4 minutes than I could ever be in a year.  Political correctness has infested our society like a plague.  It is something that bothers me more everyday and that is the underlying message of his piece.  Today, it seems, everyone relishes in identifying themelves as a victim of someone else's abuse.

Thankfully, there is someone like Rex who has a platform to express his opinions.  Although, I still think he is one of the hardest looking Newfoundlanders I have seen in a long time.  He looks like all of my Dad's buddies from "back home".  He has an appearance of someone that looks like he would be more comfortable on a trap skiff than in front of a camera in a studio.

[D Squared]

Rex Rules!

[Greymatters]

Rex Murphy does another great job in this one tearing up the ease with which social activists can abuse our system of justice:

A good job by Rex Murphy!  It is pretty obvious that human rights commissions have overstepped the bounds of what they were created for, which was primarily to assist individuals who were being discriminated against by employers, but lacked the expertise and resources to fight their claims.  If individual special interest organizations have a complaint, or feel they they have slandered or libelled, they have their own resources with which to hire lawyers and tackle such issues, instead of using taxpayer money.     

[retiredgrunt45]

Right on Rex, as usual a great 4 minutes!

It seems that in this country, we are expected to bend over and kiss every other minority a****. It also seems that we cater to every other ethnic group but our own. I'm sure that if we tried to impose our "western ways" on people in other countries were these groups come from, we would be either shown the door, imprisoned as a radical infidel or just plain executed. So why do we as Canadians put up with this in Canada? I really think it's time we said enough is enough already. The human rights commision is scared to do anything else, but to conform to these people in fear of looking bad on the world stage. Get a backbone!

 I say we take a page from Australia and start putting our Canadian values first and if the rest can't conform, Bye, Bye, and don't let the door hit you on the a** on the way out.

Basic tolernance is one thing, but to expect me to conform in every way to their way of life is quite another.

[Bandit1]

I think this is a matter that comes down more as a free speech issue, as outlined by the author of the original piece in question.  I've posted his response to the complaint lodged by the CIC against Macleans below and would love to hear your thoughts on it...

Why should free-born Canadians require the permission of the state to read my columns?

Mark Steyn | Jan 3, 2008 | 11:36 am EST

Do you remember a cover story Maclean's ran on Oct. 23, 2006?

No? Me neither, and I wrote it. Such is life in the weekly mag biz. But it was an excerpt on various geopolitical and demographic trends from my then brand new tome, America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It. I don't know whether my bestselling book is still available in Canadian bookstores, but it's coming soon to a Canadian "courtroom" near you! The Canadian Islamic Congress and a handful of Osgoode Hall law students have complained about the article in Maclean's to (at last count) three of Canada's many "human rights" commissions, two of which have agreed to hear the "case." It would be nice to report that the third sent the plaintiffs away with a flea in their ears saying that in a free society it's no business of the state to regulate the content of privately owned magazines. Alas, I gather it's only bureaucratic torpor that has temporarily delayed the province of Ontario's en­­thusiastic leap upon the bandwagon. These students are not cited in the offending article. Canadian Muslims are not the subject of the piece. Indeed, Canada is not mentioned at all, except en passant. Yet Canada's "human rights" commissions have accepted the premise of the Canadian Islamic Congress--that the article potentially breaches these students' "human rights."

Since the CIC launched its complaint, I've been asked by various correspondents what my defence is. My defence is I shouldn't have to have a defence. The "plaintiffs" are not complaining that the article is false, or libellous, or seditious, for all of which there would be appropriate legal remedy. Their complaint is essentially emotional: it "offended" them. And as offensiveness is in the eye of the of­­fended, there's not a lot I can do about that.

But, given that the most fundamental "human right" in modern Canada is apparently the right not to be offended, perhaps I could be permitted to say what offends me. I'm offended by the federal and British Columbia human rights commissions' presumption that the editing decisions of Maclean's fall within their jurisdiction. Or to put it another way, I don't accept that free-born Canadian citizens require the permission of the Canadian state to read my columns. The eminent Q.C. who heads the Canadian Human Rights Commission may well be a shrewd and insightful person but I don't believe her view of Maclean's cover stories should carry any more weight than that of Mrs. Mabel Scroggins of 47 Strathcona Gardens. And it is slightly unnerving to me that large numbers of Canadians apparently think there's nothing wrong in subjecting the contents of political magazines to "judicial review."

Let's take it as read that I am, as claimed, "offensive." That's the point. It's offensive speech that requires legal protection. As a general rule, Barney the Dinosaur singing "Sharing is Caring" can rub along just fine. Take, for example, two prominent figures from Scandinavia. Extremely prominent, as it happens. In his Christmas address to the Swedish people, King Carl Gustaf hailed the dawn of "one new Sweden. Young people with roots in other cultures put Sweden on the map in musical styles, in the field of sports, with business ideas that were not there when I was younger...To welcome changes and to let the mix of cultures and experiences enrich our lives and our society is the only road ahead." Blah blah blah. Usual multiculti bromides. Could have been our own Queen's Christmas message or her vicereine on Canada Day. Stick it in the Globe and Mail and no one would bat an eyelid.
 
By contrast, here's another Scandinavian head of state. Two years ago, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, musing on Islamic radicalism in her own country, said that people need occasionally to "show their opposition to Islam... It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and very lazy. And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."

Can you still print the Queen of Denmark's remarks in a Canadian publication? To be honest, I'm not sure. If you examine Dr. Mohamed Elmasry's formal complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about my article, Grievance #16 objects to the following assertion:

"The number of Muslims in Europe is expanding like 'mosquitoes.' "

That claim certainly appears in my piece. But they're the words not of a notorious right-wing Islamophobic columnist but of a big­­shot Scandinavian Muslim:

" 'We're the ones who will change you,' the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. 'Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.' "

Given that the "mosquitoes" line is part of the basis on which the HRC accepted Dr. Elmasry's complaint of "Islamophobia," I'm interested to know what precisely is the of­­fence? Are Mullah Krekar's words themselves Islamophobic? Or do they only become so when I quote them? The complainants want a world in which a Norwegian imam can make statements in a Norwegian newspaper but if a Canadian columnist reprints them in a Canadian publication it's a "hate crime." It's striking to examine the Canadian Islamic Congress's complaints and see how many of their objections are to facts, statistics, quotations--not to their accuracy but merely to the quoting thereof. But, of course, they've picked the correct forum: before the human rights commissions, truth is no defence.

Just for the record, my book is not about Islam, not really. Rather, it posits Islam as an opportunist beneficiary of Western self-enfeeblement. The most important quotation in the entire text is nothing to do with Muslims or mosquitoes but a bald statement by the late historian Arnold Toynbee:

"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."

One manifestation of that suicidal urge is the human rights commission. It is an illiberal notion harnessed in the cause, supposedly, of liberalism: gays don't like uptight Christians flaunting the more robust passages of Leviticus? Don't worry about it. We'll set up a body that'll hunt down Bible-quoting losers in basements and ensure they'll trouble you no further. Just a few recalcitrant knuckle-draggers who decline to get with the beat. Don't give 'em a thought. Nothing to see here, folks.

The Canadian Islamic Congress is now using this pseudo-judicial shortcut to circumscribe debate on one of the great central questions of the age: the demographic transformation of much of the Western world. The Islamification of Europe is a fact. It's happening. It's under way right now. Are Canadian magazines allowed to acknowledge that? And, if they do, are they allowed to posit various scenarios as to how it might all shake out? The CIC objects to articles that suggest all Muslims are jihadists and radicals. Very well. Are we permitted to try and calibrate what proportion is radical? For example, a recent poll found that 36 per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 believe that those who convert to another religion should be punished by death. That's not 36 per cent of young Muslims in Waziristan or Yemen or Sudan, but 36 per cent in the United Kingdom. Forty per cent of British Muslims would like to live under sharia, in Britain. Twenty per cent have sympathy for the July 7 Tube bombers. And, given that Islam is the principal source of population growth in every city down the spine of England from Manchester to Sheffield to Birmingham to London, these statistics are not without significance for Britain's future. Can we talk about it?

Not if the CIC and their enablers at the human rights commissions get their way. I note, too, that the Ontario Federation of Labour is supporting the Canadian Islamic Congress's case. As Terry Downey, executive supremo of the OFL, primly explains, "There is proper conduct that everyone has to follow"--and his union clearly feels my article is way beyond the bounds of that "proper conduct." Don't ask me why. I don't pretend to understand the peculiar psychological impulses that would lead the OFL to throw its lot in with Dr. Mohamed El­­­masry and the CIC. Except that there seems to be some kinky kind of competition on the Western left to be, metaphorically speaking, Islam's lead prison *****.

Oh, dear. Is that "offensive" to the executive committee of the OFL? Very probably so. I may well have another "human rights" suit on my hands. Heigh-ho. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.  Or we could all grow up and recognize the dangers in forcing more and more public discourse into the shadows. As David Warren put it, the punishment is not the verdict, but the process--the months of time-consuming distractions and legal bills that make it easier for editors to shrug, "You know, maybe we don't need a report on creeping sharia, after all. How about we do The Lindsay Lohan Guide To Celebrity Carjacking one more time?" Canada is not unique in the urge of its bien pensants to pre-emptive surrender: Australian publishers decline books on certain, ah, sensitive subjects; a French novelist was dragged into court to answer for the "Islamophobia" of one of his fictional characters; British editors insist books are vacuumed of anything likely to attract the eye of wealthy Saudis adept at using the English legal system to silence their critics.

Nonetheless, even in this craven environment, Canada's "human rights commissions" are uniquely inimical to the marketplace of ideas. In its 30 years of existence, no complaint brought to the federal HRC under Section XIII has been settled in favour of the defendant. A court where the rulings only go one way is the very definition of a show trial. These institutions should be a source of shame to Canadians.

So I'm not interested in the verdict--except insofar as an acquittal would be more likely to legitimize the human rights commissions' attempt to regulate political speech, and thus contribute to the shrivelling of liberty in Canada. I'm interested only in getting the HRCs out of this business entirely. When it comes to free speech on one of the critical issues of the age, to reprise Sir Edward Grey on the eve of the Great War, the lamps are going out all over the world--one distributor, one publisher, one novelist, one cartoonist, one TV host at a time.

http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?id=7&content=20080103_113631_1360&page=1

[NL_engineer]

Right on Rex, as usual a great 4 minutes!

It seems that in this country, we are expected to bend over and kiss every other minority a****. It also seems that we cater to every other ethnic group but our own. I'm sure that if we tried to impose our "western ways" on people in other countries were these groups come from, we would be either shown the door, imprisoned as a radical infidel or just plain executed. So why do we as Canadians put up with this in Canada? I really think it's time we said enough is enough already. The human rights commision is scared to do anything else, but to conform to these people in fear of looking bad on the world stage. Get a backbone!

 I say we take a page from Australia and start putting our Canadian values first and if the rest can't conform, Bye, Bye, and don't let the door hit you on the a** on the way out.

Basic tolernance is one thing, but to expect me to conform in every way to their way of life is quite another.

1+

[Infanteer]

I liked Stein's article as well.  Amazing how unprincipled some of these quasi-judicial organizations can get....

[Thucydides]

I liked Stein's article as well.  Amazing how unprincipled some of these quasi-judicial organizations can get....

Not to mention ignorant; read on:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjY1YWJhNDc5ZTkyYzE4NTE3NTYyM2Q1ZTBkZjIxYzQ=

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Alien ideologies   [Mark Steyn]

At the National Review/Thomas More College event in New Hampshire last night, several NR readers were kind enough to enquire about my prospects of "victory" against Canada's "Human Rights" commissars. I think they're best summed up by this exchange from the Warman vs Lemire hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (page 4793 of the transcript). Dean Steacy is the principal "anti-hate" investigator of the HRC:

    MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

    MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

    MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

    MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.

Mr Steacy is wrong. It is not "freedom of speech" that is the kinky foreign imposition but his own Orwellian "human rights" regime, set up in the late 1970s and wholly alien to Canada's legal tradition. Why he is so unacquainted with English law as to believe "freedom of speech" is an "American concept" is something I look forward to exploring with him face to face. I happen to believe that freedom of speech is a Canadian right and, if Dean Steacy and the Islamic Congress think it's "their job" to take it away from Canadians, then let's have the dust-up and settle it once and for all. 

Incidentally, Reuters today has quite a good up-sum of the story so far. And I see both the Human Rights Commission and I are through to the final round of this year's Fiskie/Fallaci awards. 

[DBA]

I like the quote at the bottom of the Reuters article:

But he added, "In using quasi-judicial coercion to squash debate, they make one of the central points of my argument -- that a proportion of Islam is inimical to Western traditions of freedom -- more eloquently than I ever could.

I find it very disturbing that they discount one of the four FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

It's a disgusting perversion when a quasi-judicial body attempts to decide what people must think, believe and are allowed to express to others.

[Zip]

Go Ezra!

http://ezralevant.com/