Buckle up your seat-belts…
First: The Human Rights Act is now officially extended to include all First Nations peoples and governments. In a sense this is appropriate – people of all races and backgrounds should suffer equally under easily-abused laws that inhibit their freedoms.
However, bringing First Nations under the Code will be easier said than done. Since the Indian Act remains in force, the question remains as to who is responsible to pay for all the entitlements under the Code: the federal government or the local band.
Langtry said the jurisdiction of who pays for what may actually have to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In other words, prepare for another costly legal fight in which you pay for both sides, taxpayer!!
Second: Guy Earle has filed his petition for judicial review in BC Supreme Court. Among his arguments:
“Further, there was, and is, systemic bias in that taxpayer funded counsel was, and is, available to the complainant, Lorna Pardy, whereas no such provision was, or is, available for respondents, such as Mr. Earle,” the petition states. “The Tribunal incorrectly decided that it had jurisdiction over the content of entertainment pursuant to s. 8 of the Code, and that the purpose of s. 8 of the Code was to restrict the expression of artists and entertainers.”
While there’s no doubt I’m pulling for ya, Earle, there’s no point arguing about the “intended purpose” of the Code. The Tribunal has stated many times that the “intended purpose” of the Code is to change society as they see fit, damn those torpedoes (real rights).
Third: Rob Breakenridge on the OHRC’s housing-ad crackdown:
Not only that, but the OHRC apparently has no problem with inserting itself into the affairs of private businesses, either, by forcing websites to censor ads and to include OHRC literature.How exactly does all of this improve human rights in Canada? If anything, it’s incredibly detrimental to human rights in Canada.If you’re living in an apartment, and you’d like to take in a roommate, then the government has no business inserting itself in that decision.
And as is often the case, human rights efforts are notoriously counter-productive:
It seems likely that this would scare off a lot of people from posting ads for roommates or even considering a roommate. That could mean fewer housing options.
Fourth: A Saskatchewan NDP blogger writes in the Regina Leader-Post that human rights protection should be extended to protect people from the natural consequences of using their fundamental freedoms – completely at odds with the whole notion of “freedom” to begin with.
You may not perceive any great risk in accepting an invitation to join a group on Facebook, or in posting a single tweet on Twitter – precisely because so many people engage in those actions without apparent consequences. But even these may be dangerous if a private interest notices an action and uses it as reason to discriminate.
Fifth: Kevin Libin attended the annual conference of human rights hucksters the other day. Any questions of the zelousness of the attendees was quickly answered by a conversation he overheard:
…one delegate was heard checking with her neighbours if it was acceptable if she ate her banana nearby.
“They can get pretty stinky,” she worried
Dan Shapiro of Sheldon Chumir waded into the shark-infested waters:
When Dan Shapiro, research associate at the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, argued that commissions would be better not prosecuting offensive publications, rather than chill useful debate, delegates spent the question-and-answer session lessoning him on how this could only lead to a boom market in hate speech. Only by government diktat would school superintendents see cause to implement anti-bullying classroom codes, guaranteed one. There must be “consequences” for those who cause “suffering” with words, insisted another.
Still got all your fingers, Dan?