Getting It Right/ed

Canadians have been given a recent lesson on the current problems inherent in our various human rights commissions, provincial and federal. Their feeble attempts in the areas of human rights distinctions that they were never tasked with to begin with when they were initiated, makes a mockery of their purpose. The manner in which they interpret our most basic freedom guaranteed all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms leaves them open to contempt.

Originally instituted to counter the real and nasty problems faced by minority groups, particularly visible minority groups, the societally dis-enpowered and the working poor, to ensure that their human rights entitlements were not swept under the rug with respect to racist practises in avoidance of offering employment and housing for society's vulnerable, they now offer themselves as champions in other areas.

Effectively poking their noses into affairs already more than adequately covered by the hate-propaganda section, 319, of Canada's Criminal Code. It is subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, dating from its inception in 1970 that now seeks to interfere with Canadians' right to freedom of expression by stifling written comments felt by some to be demeaning or offensive.

Those individuals who feel so hard done by with respect to criticism and comments levelled that appear to degrade their ideologies or religious beliefs to a degree that they feel it to be hate-mongering have the time-honoured option of bringing litigation against the source, in a court of law. This does require determination, it does require an outlay of funds to support the judicial system in operation.

Whereas the various human rights bodies act ostensibly to protect citizens' human rights against instances of outright acts and professions of hatred or contempt. An aggrieved party sets things in motion by filing a grievance which the human rights body can deny or accept. On acceptance, an investigation is launched, at no cost to the complainant. There is, however, a cost in legal fees imposed upon that person or entity against whom the complaint is lodged.

While the human rights tribunal sets about investigating the complaint, that person or entity against which the complaint has been lodged must seek all possible means of defending himself, as well as paying for all associated costs. The complainant can settle back with a sigh of contentment and allow matters to unravel as they anticipate they will.

A tribunal originally set up for the mos progressive social reasons at the time, to help in addressing social injustice no longer has its original purpose to keep it busy due to a steep decline in morally objectionable instances of social discrimination. Because most of its petitioners were poor, no cost was ever levied, and now it appears that anyone with an axe to grind, and unwilling to shell out legal fees can approach these commissions and have them perform on their behalf.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association's chief, Alan Borovoy, having originally championed the creation of these human rights tribunals, deeply regrets not having had the foresight to realize that they would eventually use their auspices as a blunt club to stifle free speech. He is but one among many. An outstanding example of one who has become sufficiently outraged at the situation is Member of Parliament Keith Martin.

Mr. Martin's libertarian instincts have been assaulted and insulted that relatively minor observations borne out by reality can be stifled and their authors hauled up before a court of enquiry simply because they exercised their right to freedom of expression. He has introduced a private member's bill into the debate in the House of Commons in favour of revoking subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In so doing, he seeks to redeem the situation, ensuring that our privileges of freedom of expression and association can no longer be threatened by a quasi-judicial body that has overstepped its authority. No longer should a petty grievance be stickhandled at no cost or effort to benefit those clever enough to use Canadian guarantees of equality and opportunity to create their singular version of what is permitted and what is not.

Mr. Martin's actions bespeak the backlash of a society that does not appreciate having its nose frivolously and with malevolent intent, tweaked by those whose actions actually subvert our freedoms and communality.