|
Another
organization explains and exposes the dangers of the
outdated, unnecessary and bullying tactics of human
rights tribunals operating under Human Rights Acts.
"No longer do they seek just to defend legal rights,
but to protect people's feelings. This is not an appropriate
extension of state power" said Rebecca Walberg,
Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Canada
Family Action has long called for the dissolution of
these misguided government power extensions of the Trudeau
era rule. Quasi bodies without proper training in areas
of law, rules of evidence, process of examination all
add up to a blight on the ideal of Canadian justice.
Here is a line out of the Alberta Act that should frighten
all citizens: Procedural rules: (2) Evidence
may be given before a human rights panel in any manner
that the panel considers appropriate, and the
panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence
in judicial proceedings.
If
that is not enough to make you shudder hear this one:
Protection from giving evidence:40(1) No
member of the Commission, nor the director of
the Commission or any other employee mentioned in section
18, shall be required by any court
to give evidence relative to information obtained
for the purposes of this Act. (2) No
proceeding under this Act shall be deemed invalid by
reason of any defect in form or any technical irregularity.
So
errors, omissions, even false statements can not be
grounds for a " mistrial". Do those clauses
mean that the Commission is above the law then? Or is
there any law that applies to the function of human
rights appointees?
Rebecca
Walberg also pointed out that "Our Criminal Code
protects all Canadians from hate-mongering; the civil
courts provide ample remedy for Canadians who find their
reputations harmed by published or broadcast untruths."
"Human rights commissions are obsolete bodies whose
moment has passed. That they can be exploited by a narrow
lobby seeking to impose its doctrine upon other Canadians
is a serious problem."
Canada
is currently debating the Court Challenges Program that
the Conservatives thankfully "killed" in court.
Groups have taken to court their demand for tax funded
lawsuits of certain interest bunches who challenge our
Constitution and Charter. So taxpayers pay these select
groups legal bills and WE also pay government lawyers
and staff defending the issue. This is " super
size me " conflict.
The
HRCs operate in somewhat a similar fashion as Frontier
Centre for Public Policy points out. In the case of
the Macleans or Steyn vs. Canadian Islamic Congress
the Centre says "That the CIC can do so at the
expense of Canadian taxpayers, while Macleans and Steyn
must spend their own money to defend themselves, is
a travesty of justice." CFAC agrees and it is a
violation of Charter section 15.(1)... equal before
and under the law with equal protection and benefit
of the law... But then if human rights operates as it
wishes do they care?
The
time has come indeed to rid Canada of these obsolete
bodies at provincial and federal level.
|
