6/11/2008

Rights Tribunal "Unfairly" Criticized

Thus spake Donald Crane of the Vancouver Sun.
A few facts are in order.

Or so he tells us.
First, the tribunal does not seek out victims on which to impose its view of moral rectitude...

Then how does one explain the ongoing criminal investigation by the RCMP which involves allegations of entrapment and Internet identity theft? As a lawyer, Mr. Crane ought to know well that entrapment does involve a certain level of "seeking out."
It simply does what the legislature has required it to do which is to receive and adjudicate complaints under the Human Rights Code.

What a spin this is!
The CHRC was never intended to deal with the type of complaints it currently handles. The CHRC was intended to deal with low level complaints in order to free up the court system. It was not intended to deal with "hate crimes" or "exposure to hate" or "thought crimes" or "hateful intentions" as it now does.
Anyone who doubts the need for such restrictions should review the large body of human rights cases

Indeed, they should.
Unfortunately, intelligent individuals will come to the very opposite conclusion of our good Mr. Crane. A thorough review of recent human "rights" cases will reveal that due process of law is frequently ignored, complainants do not even have to show up in order to win their case, there need be no victim in order for there to even be a case, the CHRC frequently far over-steps the boundaries laid out for it, and there is now, apparently, such a thing as a thought crime in Canada. Furthermore, an intelligent individual will find that not only is truth not a defense, but neither is freedom of conscience or religious expression. Such things are merely a "guise" for intended hate.
Under our code, and under the circumstances of this complaint, the tribunal had no choice but to give all parties a fair opportunity to be heard...

A fair opportunity? Then why was council for the defense forbidden to ask about the complainants political views? Said views are highly relevant to the case at hand, especially since certain elements within the CIC have called for the annihilation of Israel and have declared any Israeli adult a viable target for terrorist attacks.
There is, however, nothing in the process that warrants the vitriolic attacks against the tribunal which have appeared in the press.

The Human Rights Tribunal, in every province, is not only worthy of so-called "vitriolic attack," but of severe scrutiny down to the very last bureaucratic detail.
Mr. Crane, if you are so certain that the HRC operates within its mandate and has never done anything worthy of criticism, then why don't you go and dig up every case ever examined? I would like to know their conviction rate... and don't tell me they don't convict. That they view their sentences as remedial and not punitive is of no account. The HRC punishes the wallets of hard working, middle class Canadians who do no more than stand up for their religious views. How many cases are dismissed? How many people are found not guilty? How many people are forced to pay out, and to what amount?
Ironically, I found the above piece when I was looking for a story on the RCMP investigation of the CHRC. Such a piece has yet to appear.
And Crane complaints about media vitriol against the tribunal.
Sigh.

2 comments:

Brian said...

My ... I wonder what shade of HRC tinted "rose" glasses this guy wears ?

It seems that logic and facts escape his reasoning , but that seems the norm for the HRC apologists.

Anonymous said...

Good fisk Ruth!!

bluetech

Listed on BlogsCanada Blogarama - The Blog Directory Powered by Blogger FeedBurner Blogging Tories
Southern Ontario Conservatives