From the National Post’s Full Comment section: Richard Moon: The Attack on Human Rights Commissions
Richard Moon was hired — not simply “asked” as he phrases it — to produce a report for the CHRC. He has a business relationship with them. Does this not constitute a conflict of interest when he testifies on Monday?
From his praise of the CHRC and his obvious disdain for those of us who oppose the fascist censors, it’s apparent he’s taken the following to heart:
Shania Twain – Dance With The One That Brought You
{ 8 comments }
The Moonies will be tested in front of parliamentary committee Monday. Many who are familiar with the documented facts of this issue will be watching the testimony very closely and perjury before committee will be acted upon. I hope their lie their little statist hearts out so their lack of credibility is on public record.
I’m mildly interested in watching. Is testimony before this committee treated that seriously? So there could be perjury implications then? That would be grand!
I still say that Moon should be declaring his bias in favour of the CHRC — he received money from them for his report. Well, maybe that point is know already to some on the committee.
Help me out here. I’m having trouble with the complexities. Somebody says something. Somebody’s feelings are hurt. She/he complains. The CHRC-CHRT-CHRA bureaucray goes into action. The complaint is investigated. Then it is adjudicated. Feelings were hurt. And feelings are feelings. They’re not right-or-wrong. We can’t get inside another person, so we have to take his word for it. Based on his word, damages are assessed and assigned. Why the mock trials? Why not real judges and juries? With real black-and-white, innocent or guilty justice?
Exactly — real judges, real courts. Still, how the heck do you legislate feelings? That’s what makes it all such a joke.
And regardless of the outcome of these hearings in Ottawa, Canadians should refuse to recognize these busybodies.
The CHRCs have a couple of curious jobs.
By allowing private citizens to bring complaints, they allow Canadian’s to spy on each other and act as vigilante “thought police”. We don’t allow vigilante’s on our streets when real crimes are committed, why would we allow vigilante’s to press charges when “thought” crimes are committed?
The second is the public paying for all this mock legality. We have set up a system where the public has to pony up for all the costs of this. A very strange little system.
I looked the thing up on Wikipedia and it was enacted in 1977. By Trudeau, The Canadian Human Rights Act. A little steaming pile he left for us. When Trudeau made a mess, he really made a mess. Another one of his little piles was the Court Challenges Program from 1978 and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women from 1971. Trudeau left a real legacy. His stuff is still stinking up the room 40 years later.
Yep — it was Trudeau that left us this mess. It’s interesting that one of the architects of Canada’s Human Rights agencies — Alan Borovoy — is today horrified at how they’ve expanded into infringing on free speech rights, since they were never intended for that purpose. He says, “There has to be a right in a democracy to say unpleasant things.”
Yes, it is like vigilante justice. And it’s despicable that Canadians have to fund it.
I read Richard Moon’s epistle, the comments, and also Exra Levant’s response on his blog site.
This is interesting stuff. Clearly there is an academic using his position to leverage a blogger. There is a lot of animus here and it colors everything being said. Moon calls Levant a liar. Levant calls Moon a liar. Both defend their positions with “facts”.
The one thing that caught my eye in reading Moon’s material. He writes at length about the CHRCs in a defensive and supportive way but at no point does he try to explain why they are useful or necessary in our society. That struck me as a little odd.
Moon’s report concluded that Section 13 (PDF of report), the censorship provision of Canada’s Human Rights Act, should be repealed. But he almost immediately backpedaled somewhat (he played down his conclusion) when he remembered who paid him to write the report — which is why he seems so defensive and supportive about the CHRC (in my opinion).
Because Jennifer Lynch, head of the CHRC, was unhappy with Moon’s report, she commissioned a new report and chose to ignore Moon’s. You can read more about that here: Jennifer Lynch tries to bury the Moon Report — and turn real police into thought police and here: Canadian Human Rights Commission wants more censorship.
Levant and others have done an amazing job documenting abuses by these organizations. Some people argue that Section 13 should go but the HRCs themselves are needed to protect minorities and those with disabilities from discrimination. But when you read about some of those cases, many are quite outrageous: eg. the transsexual who still had all his male parts and wanted to use the women’s change room at a health club; the BC comedian who is being sued for poking fun at two drunken lesbian hecklers who were disrupting his act; the medical marijuana user who sued a family-oriented restaurant/bar for not allowing him to stand in the restaurant’s doorway to smoke his pot. All those are HRC complaints — the complainants pay none of the costs even if they lose; it’s all tax-payer funded. The respondents, on the other hand, whether they win or lose, they’re out a lot of money defending themselves against often ridiculous charges.
In my opinion, the whole system is useless — it’s duplicating our real justice system, except that the HRCs are unbalanced in favour of the complainants. With them, you’re guilty unless or until you can prove yourself innocent.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }