News has been slow lately. I’m not complaining. A slow news day is generally a good sign these days.
Alright, here goes.
First off, a bit of a grab-bag. The Stephen Boissoin case is mentioned here ( don’t want to name the blog; it’s a bit, erm…anti-‘zionist’ to be polite ), while the Boissoin appeal decision is noted by Truthseeker24’s anti-N.W.O. corner. Meanwhile, Blazing Cat Fur talks a little more about the next complaint soon to be launched against Mark Steyn before the Ontario Human Rights system, and I Luv SA talks about The Weakness of Government and The Lack of Desire: There Goes Free Speech, in relation to the Canadian government’s rather weak stance on freedom of expression, vis a vis the HRCs.
Second, Andrew Lawton writes, via Strictly Right: The Myth of Human Rights:
There was a great episode of the Michael Coren Show a while back which my friend and fellow blogger RightGirl was on where one of the panelists posed the legitimate question of “What is a human right?” Coren agreed in his own British fashion and the discussion moved to a topic far far away. However, I think they may have touched on something important…which is that “human rights” are ridiculous. The Constitution guarantees certain inalienable rights such as freedom of association, religion, expression, press, freedom from discrimination, etc. Why does it need to go any further than that? There are no rights denied to any Canadians on a systemic basis. I’m sure there’s a case that discrimination and racism do exist within Canadian and American borders. However, on a governmental level, I’m hard-pressed to find any examples of denial of rights to anyone (heck, even terrorists have rights now for whatever reason).
“Human Rights” implies that there are rights necessary to humans that exist outside of the constitution. If these rights were so important, then they would exist within the constitution. The reason they don’t is because the Canadian Human Rights Act doesn’t offer any additional rights, but rather limits freedom. The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s parliamentary report on freedom of speech and the internet even goes so far as to say that “no freedom is absolute,” and that freedom of speech has limits. I agree completely, freedom of speech that qualifies as hate speech is taking that freedom too far. However, certain individuals feel *cough* Jennifer Lynch and Barbara Hall *cough* that legal non-hate speech should still be prosecuted…enter Canadian Human Rights Tribunal!
Third, by Andrew Chung, via the Toronto Star: A place de résistance for newcomers:
MONTREAL–Doggedly determined to succeed, Mounia Oulias makes a near-daily trek to a strip-mall immigrant settlement agency to use its aging computers to try to find a job.
For three months, the secretary by training from Morocco has been doing the same thing.
She hasn’t even had one reply.
“Of course, I didn’t think they would roll out the red carpet for me,” Oulias says with a shy smile. “But I didn’t think it would be this difficult.”
As Oulias is beginning to discover, among the provinces that receive the most immigrants – Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec – she has chosen the most challenging one in which to try to integrate.
The Quebec Human Rights Commission released a report in April following up on a 2001 law designed to promote equal access in public institutions to groups historically discriminated against. Eight years on, “visible minorities are poorly represented in all public bodies,” the report said. It also noted general “resistance” to meaningful measures to address the problem.
The commission criticized the Sûreté du Québec for a “near absence of visible minorities among the police personnel.” The level was just 0.4 per cent. Minorities are also markedly under-represented in the civil service.
Read the rest here.