Posted on 05/30/2008 7:58:42 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
The Conservative government has introduced a motion to Parliament's Justice Committee proposing an investigation into the abusive, corrupt practises of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion specifically refers to public "concerns" about the CHRC's "investigative techniques" and their "interpretation and application" of the section 13 thought crimes provision.
The resolution, which you can read here in both official languages, was put forward by Rick Dykstra (pictured at left), the Conservative MP from St. Catherines, Ontario, with the knowledge and approval of the Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson. Here is an e-mail from Nicholson, sent to a voter just today, in which you can read his change of approach. An excerpt from Nicholson's letter:
I would like to inform you that my caucus colleague Mr. Rick Dykstra has tabled a motion that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine and make recommendations with respect to the CHRC, including its mandate, operations, and interpretation and application of provisions relating to section 13 of the CHRA, which addresses hate messages. I look forward to that review.
Jason Kenney, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, was also instrumental in getting this issue onto the government's agenda.
Here's the text of it:
Whereas concerns have been raised regarding the investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") and the interpretation and application of section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act (the "Act"); and
Whereas the Commission operates independently and reports to Parliament;
Be it resolved that the Justice and Human Rights Committee examine and make recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in particular:
a) review the mandate and operations of the Commission; b) review the Commission's application and interpretation of section 13 of the Act; c) Solicit and consider oral submissions from the Chief Commissioner and oral or written submissions from other interested persons or organizations; d) Submit a report, including any proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act arising out of the results of the Committee's inquiry.
The government's proposed inquiry comes on top of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's announcement last month that she is investigating the corrupt and abusive conduct of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. And earlier this month, Ottawa police referred a criminal complaint about the CHRC to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are now conducting a criminal investigation.
I don't think the CHRC is going to be a pleasant place to work for the next year or so -- longer if criminal charges are laid.
These official investigations are on top of the nearly-unanimous public outrage at the CHRC's behaviour, which has drawn criticism from across the ideological spectrum. Groups ranging from PEN Canada, to the Canadian Association of Journalists, to the former executive director of EGALE, to the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, to every newspaper in the country from right to left, have united in opposition to the CHRC.
This is not the end of our campaign, of course. As Winston Churchill said after the breakthrough British victory at El Alamein, "this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Back in January, I outlined a two-phase plan:
1. Denormalize the commissions; and 2. Press legislators to act.
It's time to emphasize point two, but we should still keep up on point one. Point one is the easy part; frankly, Canada's HRCs undo themselves on nearly a daily basis. Think about the wall of negative press that's coming their way on Monday, when the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal starts their show trial of Maclean's magazine. When the Government of Alberta tried to censor the press 70 years ago, the Edmonton Journal won a Pulitzer Prize for their resistance, and the government of the day got a black eye. Let's keep helping the HRCs to give themselves black eyes.
But let's really dig in on this Parliamentary inquiry now -- phase two.
From what I understand, the motion has not yet gone to a vote at the Justice Committee, because of other procedural wrangling that's been tying up the committee. The first step is for the committee to pass the resolution, and that requires a majority of votes.
The second step is to make sure that whoever is conducting the inquiry into the CHRC's misconduct conducts a wide-ranging investigation, looking into all aspects of the CHRC's corruption. Just off the top of my head, that includes everything from the CHRC's habits of posting bigoted comments online; to their illegal use of police search warrants; to their refusal to disclose records to respondents as required by law; to their corrupt investigative practises and their inherent conflicts of interest; to their clear anti-speech animus; not to mention the obvious issues of Internet hacking.
No doubt, Canada's grievance industry -- the race hustlers, the second-rate lawyers, everyone who makes a buck off the system -- will be at any inquiry in spades, arguing desperately, maybe even in tears, for the retention of their meal ticket. They have to be countered; this can't become another convention of complainers-for-hire like the Canadian Race Relations farce I attended. It's got to represent not only the aforementioned pro-free-speech groups, but plenty of "severely normal" people, too. I think witnesses ought to include Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, to ask them what they think of the importance of freedom and the price we should pay to defend it.
The inquiry needs to do a lot of homework first, too -- lest it be bamboozled by the PR spin of the CHRC. Had I not read thousands of pages of transcripts and other documents, I wouldn't have known that Ian Fine was lying when I debated him last weekend in Edmonton. Fine might not even have known he was lying, if he was relying on his own staff to tell him the truth about their conduct. When you're going up against serial tricksters, you've got to be prepared.
But that comes later. For now, let's get this resolution through the Justice Committee. We can put together a briefing book for the MPs later, and even put together a raft of witnesses from whom the inquiry should hear. I think that should include everyone from Alan Borovoy to Marc Lemire. And I think Richard Warman himself should be subpoenaed to answer questions about his own online bigotry in the name of "human rights". I'm not sure his "I can't remember" shtick will go over as easily in Parliament as it did before the kangaroo courts. (Question: what is the penalty if a subpoenaed witness is found in contempt of Parliament?)
So let's get to work.
1. Write to Rick Dykstra giving him your support.
2. Write to Rob Nicholson, too. Though he was not the first to join the fray, he has done so. And, though many would have liked him to have moved faster, remember that governments -- especially a minority federal government, in continual jeopardy of an election -- move more slowly than the blogosphere does. All things considered, they're on track.
And though Nicholson's approach -- a Parliamentary inquiry -- may seem too deliberate for those of us who already know that the CHRC is a corrupt, abusive mess, an inquiry is the proper approach for a serious government that is contemplating wholesale changes to the CHRC. The i's must be dotted, and t's crossed. And, though such an inquiry will take months, I don't see it as a delay -- the opposite: I see it as a chance for the CHRC's worst actors to be subpoenaed, pinned down under oath, and grilled. That doesn't happen too often -- but when it does, amazing things happen, as the March 25th hearing proved. Imagine an inquiry conducted by someone who wasn't just a human rights industry patsy like those that stack the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals.
3. Write to the rest of the Justice Committee's members -- of all parties. The list of them can be found here. Encourage them to support the resolution for the inquiry. Remember, this is a non-partisan issue; plenty of Liberals have signed on to reforms, too. And I have just received an encouraging letter from the Bloc Quebecois that I'll post shortly.
4. And take a final moment to write to Jason Kenney and Keith Martin to thank them too. Kenney helped stick-handle this issue through the Conservative side of the aisle; and Martin helped give the issue important early momentum -- and non-partisan credentials -- through his own private member's motion.
We're winning.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
All Human Rights commissions of liberal origin should be buried with greater care than nuclear waste.....in the end, they are absolutely exclusionary, and ruthlessly so....they are, as Warren Buffet might coin, “weapons of civilizational mass destruction”.
“thought crimes”? Is that really part of the Canadian law? How Orwellian.
This is a necessary but not sufficient task.
As long as Canada can tolerate an office called “The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism” this will only pop up again in some other form.
Send these CHRC folks to the Canadian-controlled sections of Afganistan. Tell them they can come back when they have civilized the terrorists so that they respect human rights! Of course they should not be permitted to carry any evil guns!
I attended a lecture by Ezra Levant this week. What an entertaining and gutsy fellow.
We need to see them abolished in Canada so they don’t spread like a cancer into every part of the USA.
“Human Relations Commissions” with less far-reaching powers already exist in many parts of the United States.
-
Ezra, you're gonna catch some flak for that misspelling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.