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.