“There was an email making the rounds in Ottawa this week. It was written by an assistant to a federal Conservative Member of Parliament. I don’t know the assistant’s name, or which MP he (or she) works for, but it doesn’t really matter. The note was sent around to all the other assistants in Conservative MP’s offices. It was a simple request, really…”
Good afternoon everyone,
I am wondering if someone might be aware of an issue with the Canadian Human Rights Commission??? I have received a few emails from constituents complaining about the HRC and I don’t know whether this is just a blanket complaint or whether HRC was recently in the news….?
Can anyone help me shed some light on what this issue might be about???
Thanks so much for your help!
“I was absolutely stunned when I saw this email. I had always assumed that people who worked for – and advised – MP’s would be ‘up to speed’ on issues of national importance, and in my mind there are few things more important in Canada today than the threats the various human rights commissions pose to free speech rights. But the email also illustrates what I’ve long suspected.
“While the Internet is becoming a very interesting place for people of like mind to share information, it is also keeping various parts of our society from truly talking to one another. Conservatives, Christians, libertarians, and other free speech advocates can write insightul blog entries till the cows come home. And through the technology of trackbacks and ‘links’ we can be inspired by each other’s brilliant posts for days on end. We can even email the stuff we really like to our friends. But in the end, we’re operating in a closed circle. We’ve created an online ghetto, and all the rhetorical and polemic brilliance in the world ends up being nothing more than
‘preaching to the choir.'”
(Accordingly, NoApologies is launching their own anti-Human Rights Commission campaign. You can check it out here.)
Wow, I am thinking of launching a HRC about The Star and Globe and Mail focusing on their treatment of the CPC. I find it offensive and I am learning that is all that it take, if something is offensive to me it is violating my human rights, or can one take a case to the federal human right commission against the provincials ones because I am offended they are curtailing our freedom of speech
I thought I nailed this with a short summary.
Al Siebring really nails the HRCs hide with his *shopping List*. Right in the first 6 points.
http://www.noapologies.ca/2008/01/quit-preaching-to-the-choir.html
• Originally designed to arbitrate employment and tenancy issues, HRC’s are now monitoring and enforcing politically correct speech and thought.
• Complainants have free access to virtually unlimited government legal resources, while defendants have to pay their own legal fees.
• HRC’s are subject to “Forum Shopping.” Complainants – as in the Steyn/McLean’s case – file their grievances in multiple jurisdictions in the hope that at least one of them will provide relief. In a real court, defendants can only be charged once; anything more than that is called “double jeopardy”. (Also known as “piling on.”)
• In the case of the federal Commission, recently-released court documents show that employees have used entrapment techniques online, disguising their identities and trying to elicit “hate speech” to provide additional evidence against people who are already under investigation or the subject of a complaint.
• HRC’s are used to make criminals out of people who have not broken the law. (If they had, they could have been charged under Canada’s hate speech laws. But no one convicted in an HRC case has ever also been convicted under criminal “hate speech” provisions.)
• In HRC hearings, historic legal conventions are turned on their head. Instead of the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” for a conviction, complainants in HRC cases only need to claim they were offended or felt threatened. And the very claim is usually enough to elicit a conviction.
• Instead of the defendant being “presumed innocent”, there is a presumption of guilt; parties accused before these Commissions have to prove their innocence. (And how do you prove you “didn’t offend someone”?)
• In the 30-year history of the CHRC – the “federal” commission – no Section XIII case which has gone beyond the initial “discovery” stage has ever resulted in an acquittal of the defendant. That’s a 100% conviction rate! (Would that real courts were as successful in prosecuting real criminals!)
================ Part of Al*s list @ NoOpologies.ca
OK, so I slipped a couple more than 6 in there, but I had to include the 100% conviction rate.
Could that be due to none of us seeing the actions in the *selectively Silent MSM*? = TG