Good old Human Rights Commission

[jolinar of malkshor]

Time to scrap this useless witch hunt program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5dwU...eature=related

[Flashpoint]

Calgary Muslim leader Syed Soharwardy says he is withdrawing his Alberta Human Rights Commission complaint against former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant.

The complaint was launched in February, 2006, after the Western Standard and the Jewish Free Press reprinted cartoons from a Danish newspaper that many in the Muslim world felt insulted the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons sparked violent protests in a number of countries.

National Post

I watched the videos when this thread came up, and while I have no great love for Levant or the Western Standard, I am pleased how this worked out. Free speech should trump religious "protocol" every single time.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

National Post

I watched the videos when this thread came up, and while I have no great love for Levant or the Western Standard, I am pleased how this worked out. Free speech should trump religious "protocol" every single time.

I was kind of hoping that it would go through with a decision so Levant could take it for judicial review where real judges could look at it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...n-sawmill.html

Yup, this is a Human rights complaint.


Good God.

Two Sikh sawmill workers have launched a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal after they weren't allowed to work because they refused to wear hard hats over their turbans.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...n-sawmill.html

Yup, this is a Human rights complaint.


Good God.

Two Sikh sawmill workers have launched a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal after they weren't allowed to work because they refused to wear hard hats over their turbans.

This country is so far down the crapper when it comes to pandering to special interests that no amount of plunging will get it back. NOT ONLY do these guys file a complaint, but they say they are "considering" taking what is presumably a desk job *with* back-pay. They weren`t even ordered to remove their fancy hats to put on a hard-hat...but could wear one over top. I suppose it`s against their religious principles to wear anything over the turban, but it`s not against their principles to be maimed and killed.

And do you think that they`d sign a waiver of liability for head injuries? Not bloody likely, I think.

«/rant»
WTF? My keyboard has changed to French mode...? Weird, É?

[Daradon]

People need to realise, if they put themselves in special situations they wont always be treated the same. Not cause of discrimination, but because of rules, laws, safety and common sense.

It used to be that if you were different for whatever, you defended it cause it changed the way you live. You were stronger for going through the fight to stick up for what you believed in and GIVING UP other things.

Now you use it as a way to change the rules to your benefit.

Brutal.

I am technically handicapped. I have NEVER used it in a way to get benefits. I have shunned welfare and AISH even in my darkest times. I have seen it as a way to challenge some things but mostly, give up others and become stronger in other areas.

I get so angry when others want to use handicapped or even worse 'special status' to change rules that are important.

Sorry we are NOT all the same. And mostly we choose why.

You CHOOSE to wear that for your religion? Or rather, you CHOOSE that religion? In all seriousness, very good for you. But now it means you need to choose a different job. (Sport whatever)

Religion is a choice. So is culture. So is your job.

My handicap is not, and I understand this.

Choose what is important to you and don't complain about the consequences.

Man up.

[RougeUnderoos]

Swish swish swish FLUSH. I think I saw a beaver chasing the maple leaf down the drain.

What kind of a hopeless country even allows something so frivolous as a "Human Rights" complaint to even be lodged?

It really is disgusting. I love(d) Canada, but this stuff makes me sick. I've actually been considering moving to Saudi Arabia. They don't waste time with this crap over there.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Daradon

You CHOOSE to wear that for your religion? Or rather, you CHOOSE that religion? In all seriousness, very good for you. But now it means you need to choose a different job. (Sport whatever)

Now that you mention this, I wonder when we`ll hear a human rights complaint from a devout Sikh who wants to play in a hockey league with a mandatory helmet rule? There have already been challenges to, and exemptions from, manatory helmet laws for motorcycle riders in several jurisdictions. Not to mention the big dust-up over the issue of Kirpans in schools a couple of years ago.

I`m not trying to bash Sikhs specifically, but rather the fact that we`ve subjugated what the majority of Canadians believe to be reasonable and prudent behaviour in favour of an "anything goes" type of law.

Religion is a choice for which a follower must be prepared to be responsible. It is not a "human rights" issue, in my mind, unless it involves a factor that is inherent and unchangeable. Disability, skin colour, homosexuality, gender, all fall into that category. Religion should not.

Edit: I was reading Hitchens' "God is not Great" tonight, so I`m a little animated...and my keyboard is still in French, which is why most of my apostrophes are backwards.

[evman150]

Anybody read Mark Steyn's article in last week's MacLean's? Dealt with this "problem" from a very predictable viewpoint (if you know Steyn).

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.

[Bleeding Red]

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.

[Flashpoint]

The problem is that it is an extra judicial body, and does not have to obey the same checks and balances of the regular judicial system.

Anybody can walk in, fill out a little form and cause massive problems for the person accused of discriminatory behaviour. The accuser doesn't need a lawyer, they just unleash the HR attack dog, and let them take care of the rest. The person accused has to deal with this comission, hire a lawyer and defend themselves, or risk winding up "convicted".

The risk of frivolity is simply too high when there is no burden whatsoever on the accuser, and no penalty for the accusation being completely ridiculous.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by fotze

Human rights suck!

Down with humans!

[Calgaryborn]

Well I agree with what most folks are saying here. I don't like the HRC at all. One point I take issue with however, is the notion that Religion is a choice. That is only true if your basis for choosing your religion is social networking or to appease the family or something of that sort. If the source of your religious adherence is faith "what you believe to be true" then it leaves the realm of choice. If a Sikh truly believes that wearing a hard hat would be a sin then that is what he believes.
The question is how far should we as a society go to accommodate his beliefs. Not far is the knee jerk reaction, but we tend as a society to try and be inclusive. I for one don't want Canada to be totally intolerant to belief systems that don't make up the majority. It's against my beliefs to swear on a Bible in a court of law. Our legal system allowed for an affirmation to be given instead of swearing on a Bible to accommodate me. If I was to go to war for Canada I would have the comfort of a priest or other official from my religious sect visiting me from time to time. I would even be given time for religious observance. Likewise if I was a Mennonite I would be excused from religious service. We do bend as a society to accommodate one another and that isn't a bad thing. The question is how far. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with no hard hat being worn if he would then be liable for head injuries that he might receive. But, of course if he suffered brain damage because of his lack of a lid we as a society couldn't just leave him to starve. Perhaps in this case he should just look for a different job.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...n-sawmill.html

Yup, this is a Human rights complaint.


Good God.

Two Sikh sawmill workers have launched a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal after they weren't allowed to work because they refused to wear hard hats over their turbans.

So you hate the Human Rights Commission because someone was able to file a complaint with them? They haven't even made a decision yet.

And reading the article, these guys have worked there for 19 years before this became an issue. Why is this an issue now? The company seem swilling to compromise (same pay plus backpay for a non-hard hat position - seems pretty darn fair to me).

It seems to me that there is more to this story, and making a knee-jerk reaction is foolish.

[troutman]

You would care more about human rights, on the Planet of the Apes:

Dr. Zaius: Dr. Zira, I must caution you. Experimental brain surgery on these creatures is one thing, and I'm all in favor of it. But your behavior studies are another matter. To suggest that we can learn anything about the simian nature from a study of man is sheer nonsense. Why, man is a nuisance. He eats up his food supply in the forest, then migrates to our green belts and ravages our crops. The sooner he is exterminated, the better. It's a question of simian survival.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So you hate the Human Rights Commission because someone was able to file a complaint with them? They haven't even made a decision yet.

And reading the article, these guys have worked there for 19 years before this became an issue. Why is this an issue now? The company seem swilling to compromise (same pay plus backpay for a non-hard hat position - seems pretty darn fair to me).

It seems to me that there is more to this story, and making a knee-jerk reaction is foolish.

Whatever...

Your just a crazy left-wing, pro-human. Foolish knee-jerk reactions = news. Why bother yourself with stuff like facts? It's all about the headlines!

[Thunderball]

One of the inherent flaws of systems such as the HRC is while it strives for equality, the end result is all too often some people becoming "more equal" than others.

Its okay to make fun of Christians without fear of reprisal or a nuisance HRC hearing, but to a minority, its defammatory and bigoted.

Its okay to force laws on the majority, like bike helmets (which is a good idea), but its wrong to force people with religious headwear to acquiesce (despite likely saving their lives in the process). Or even like that female soccer player and the hijab... its okay that I can't wear a crucifix (or any kind of non-essential equipment) for my own safety, and the safety of those I'm playing with... but its not okay when that affects the beliefs of a minority.

The spirit of the HRC is sound...but the execution can be rather poor. I have no idea how to fix it offhand. It should be noted that our legal system is the same way... everyone has the right to sue anyone for anything, even if they are completely out to lunch. At least in the legal system, the plaintiff is often on the hook for legal expenses if they are in the wrong.

[arsenal]

If people feel that canada's laws interfere with their religion, then they should sign a waiver claiming that they, and their family cannot sue, claim monies, etc for any injury / death that the person may encounter while on the job, or extra curricular activities that they may enjoy.

ie: Safety helmets not being worn on the job due to religious beliefs, helmet not being worn while riding a motorcycle, etc.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

One of the inherent flaws of systems such as the HRC is while it strives for equality, the end result is all too often some people becoming "more equal" than others.

Its okay to make fun of Christians without fear of reprisal or a nuisance HRC hearing, but to a minority, its defammatory and bigoted.

Its okay to force laws on the majority, like bike helmets (which is a good idea), but its wrong to force people with religious headwear to acquiesce (despite likely saving their lives in the process). Or even like that female soccer player and the hijab... its okay that I can't wear a crucifix (or any kind of non-essential equipment) for my own safety, and the safety of those I'm playing with... but its not okay when that affects the beliefs of a minority.

The spirit of the HRC is sound...but the execution can be rather poor. I have no idea how to fix it offhand. It should be noted that our legal system is the same way... everyone has the right to sue anyone for anything, even if they are completely out to lunch. At least in the legal system, the plaintiff is often on the hook for legal expenses if they are in the wrong.

It also, as far as I know, incurs no direct cost to the individual who registered the complaint. Meanwhile, the person accused has to incur their own legal costs to defend the charge. That's absolutely ridiculous. Even the case of Levant, he had to waste many hours of his time preparing his case, only to have the Imam withdraw his complaint.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

It also, as far as I know, incurs no direct cost to the individual who registered the complaint. Meanwhile, the person accused has to incur their own legal costs to defend the charge. That's absolutely ridiculous. Even the case of Levant, he had to waste many hours of his time preparing his case, only to have the Imam withdraw his complaint.

Exactly... maybe if there was a practice like in civil court where the loser incurs the legal bill, then maybe the cases will be less frivolous and ridiculous, and more to the desired mandate... actual infractions against human rights.