Saturday, April 17, 2010

Why Get Rid of Only Half the Problem?

After applauding Saskatchewan's plan to get rid of its "human rights" tribunal (the tribunals being the "Order" portion of Canada's Law and Order racket) and give the case load to a real court (that has due process and stuff), and after noting that, since there isn't much actual "bigotry" around these days, these tribunals mostly adjudicate joke cases (the hefty chick with the parking issue in Quebec; the sense of humour-challenged lesbian heckler in B.C.), an editorial in the National Post still sees a place for the "Law" portion of the "human rights" system--the "human rights" commissions. Here are the important things the Post says we should keep the HRCs around to do:
They can promote human rights principles through education and outreach, compile statistics on the dwindling phenomenon of bigotry, and perhaps even provide legal aid to those few litigants who truly do need to prosecute their cases in court.
I disagree. The commissions are as outmoded as the tribunals. Do we really need to spend millions of dollars each year so these useless bodies can perform useless "outreach" and compile useless statistics? And, with the "Order" portion of their racket gone, really, what's the point? It would be like trying to separate Siamese twins who were joined at the head--an operation that would likely end up in the death of both. Then, too, considering all the damage both these un-democratic, unnecessary bodies have already wrought on our body politic, the country would be far better with both of them gone. For our own good and the health of our country, we need to get back to basics--valuing, promoting and protecting real rights. At this stage, the only "human rights" statistics we should be compiling are ones on the dwindling phenomenon of the "human rights" system.


Deborah Gyapong said...

Absolutely! The kind of "human rights" the commissions advocate for are a far cry from the civil rights that have been part of our western heritage.

flaggman said...

I'm afraid our beloved Post is lurching to "the centre" as its management tries to figure out the riddle of how to make a profit in print. The proliferation of Salon/Slate/NYT syndicated material is an indication that it is seeking to broaden its readership. Its editorial board has been ridiculous on countless issues lately. A feckless strategy, to be sure. But a very Canadian one.

scaramouche said...

flaggman--It could be a lurch. Then again the Post has long prided itself on its "diversity"--i.e. the stuff (that I never read) by the likes of John Moore. Sometimes I think it prints stuff it knows will get up its readers' backs, just to be provocative.

Deborah--I don't know why the Post is being so timid and calling only for the elimination of part of the racket. You can't say it even bothered to make an especially strong case for retaining the HRCs (compiling stats, outreach--puh-leeze!).

Patrick Ross said...

To classify the problem as "bigotry" is to mischaracterize it. The problem of bigotry is one that can never be solved. The problem of discrimination -- what the HRCs actually exist to fight -- is the one that must be righted.

We would be remiss to pretend that discrimination doesn't occur in Canada. So long as it does, the HRCs will have a role in our society.

Kill the Tribunals, kill the problem.

Revnant Dream said...

Absolutely!!! Your on the right trail.

scaramouche said...

You think the likes of Jen, Babs, Heather et al are going to "cure" us of "bigotry"? 'Tis to laugh. These outfits don't tackle prejudice, they inculcate political correctness. They have taken some Marxist mumbo jumbo and married it to Trudeaupian multiculti. The result is that the "majority" is viewed as always and inevitably prejudiced, while the minorities are seen as always and inevitably virtuous and persecuted. In the real world, though, some of the most vile prejudice is engendered by members of protected "victim" groups.

Salman Hossain, anyone?

RkBall said...

Human rights commissions largely exist to promote sexual rights that were "read into" the Charter by activist judges, at the expense of quashing fundamental rights, such as the rights to conscience, expression and religion.

And this human rights commissioners are happy to do.