- Joined
- Jul 29, 2015
- Messages
- 6,280
- Reaction score
- 0
So, now that I’m living in Canada I’ve been reading Canadian news and learning quirky little things about America’s hat and I just stumbled around a really great sounding thing called the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Upon looking into it I’m getting a bit concerned, though I admit that my research is cursory so far and I have yet to get far. Basically, this seems like it’s – or, at least, a tribunal it can enact at its discretion - a court outside of the court system that doesn’t have to follow the rules of a court, having far lower and more flexible standards of proof, pays for the legal fees of the accuser but not the accused, admits hearsay as evidence, and can even go so far as to put the burden of proof on the accused in a fairly broad range of scenarios that would never fly in a real court. On top of this, this tribunal can impose both fines and jail time. It only rules on “human rights” issues – workplace harassment, hate speech, etc In short, it seems like it’s a something with many of the powers of a court but few of the restrictions.
(the commission itself, for your interest – this is the organization that can create these tribunals if issues brought to them are not resolved:
http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng
Has anyone else heard of this thing? Am I just reading this whole thing wrong? Something like this existing in an age of Canada’s bill M103 is potentially troublesome, as there might already be an arm of the “law” in place which can punish like a court but doesn’t have to follow the rules of a court prior to punishing.
Some further fluff on the commissions and its tribunals:
“In June 2008, the National Post published an editorial which harshly criticized Canada's Human Rights Commissions (HRCs). The Post writes that "It is increasingly obvious these commissions were set up deliberately to lower the standard of proof and get around rules of natural justice, thereby ensuring people who would never be convicted in court are punished to the satisfaction of the activists and special interest groups that hover around the tribunals."[19]
The Post criticized the procedures and structure of HRC hearings, citing a number of specific problems:
(if anyone can find this article, that would be great – Wikipedia is hardly trustworthy as a source - and saying things like "the truth is not a defense" immediately flies a red flag for me)
What’s more, it seems like certain actions of the Tribunal have, over time, *hugely* disproportionately targeted white people with certain types of cases.
· ONLY ONE respondent have ever won a section 13 case before the tribunal.
· 100% of cases have Whites as respondents
· 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
· 90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
· To date, $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.
· 37 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.
· 72.4% of complaints specifically identify "jews" as victims.
· 48.8% of all cases are by Richard Warman (all but 3 cases since 2002)
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/06/section-13-series-discrimination-in.html
The act itself, if you’re interested.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/page-1.html
(The act on which the commission/tribunal is based – it seems section 13 has been repealed)
Honestly, I don’t have time to look into this in its entirety and the negativity directed towards this human rights commission may just be hyperbole/misrepresentation. Is anyone else familiar with this organization? Is it really this bad, or is that unfair and a misrepresentation?
(the commission itself, for your interest – this is the organization that can create these tribunals if issues brought to them are not resolved:
http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng
Has anyone else heard of this thing? Am I just reading this whole thing wrong? Something like this existing in an age of Canada’s bill M103 is potentially troublesome, as there might already be an arm of the “law” in place which can punish like a court but doesn’t have to follow the rules of a court prior to punishing.
Some further fluff on the commissions and its tribunals:
“In June 2008, the National Post published an editorial which harshly criticized Canada's Human Rights Commissions (HRCs). The Post writes that "It is increasingly obvious these commissions were set up deliberately to lower the standard of proof and get around rules of natural justice, thereby ensuring people who would never be convicted in court are punished to the satisfaction of the activists and special interest groups that hover around the tribunals."[19]
The Post criticized the procedures and structure of HRC hearings, citing a number of specific problems:
- Third parties not involved in the alleged offences may nonetheless file complaints.
- Plaintiffs have sometimes been given access to the commissions' investigation files and given the power to direct investigators.
- Truth is not a defence.
- Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers.
- Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply.
- Hearsay is admitted.
- The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his/her own.[19]”
(if anyone can find this article, that would be great – Wikipedia is hardly trustworthy as a source - and saying things like "the truth is not a defense" immediately flies a red flag for me)
What’s more, it seems like certain actions of the Tribunal have, over time, *hugely* disproportionately targeted white people with certain types of cases.
· ONLY ONE respondent have ever won a section 13 case before the tribunal.
· 100% of cases have Whites as respondents
· 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
· 90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
· To date, $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.
· 37 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.
· 72.4% of complaints specifically identify "jews" as victims.
· 48.8% of all cases are by Richard Warman (all but 3 cases since 2002)
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/06/section-13-series-discrimination-in.html
The act itself, if you’re interested.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/page-1.html
(The act on which the commission/tribunal is based – it seems section 13 has been repealed)
Honestly, I don’t have time to look into this in its entirety and the negativity directed towards this human rights commission may just be hyperbole/misrepresentation. Is anyone else familiar with this organization? Is it really this bad, or is that unfair and a misrepresentation?
