Quote:
Originally Posted by evman150
I see this as similar to the concept of being innocent until proven guilty. We as a society believe that it is better to let an arbitrarily large number of guilty criminals go free to save the freedom of one innocent person. This conception is a fundamental part of any free country. The connection to the HRC should be obvious, but I will state it explicitly: It is better to allow an arbitrarily large number of frivolous complaints to be lodged and be given their due process than to deny even one legitimate complaint. Sounds pretty fundamental to me.
|
Fair enough, but the HRC's "due Process" and seeming inability to quickly dismiss "frivolous complaints" bothers me.
A process that puts all the onus on the accused runs opposite to your "fundamental" freedom - the HRC's process is guilty until proven innocent.
This process also invites frivolous complaints as there is no downside to the complaintant - no fines for losing.
Also, for a system that was meant to free up the courts by deciding minor landlord-tenant or minor labour issues, HRCs seem to be taking on complaints out of their pervue. Parliament clearly need to update or clarify the HRCs mandate to include freedom of religion issues with societal perameters. A safety issue with repercussions to soceity (in terms of likely health care costs born by the state) trumps freedom of religion. On a construction site you must wear a hard hat or else the company and the state are not liable for any injuries you may incur - you pay.
The complaints against Levant and Styen were clearly frivolous and should has been dismissed outright. They were both issues of "I am offended and deserve compensation" either in fines or print. You do not have the right to not be offended.