The Disaster of Canada’s “Human Rights” Commissions
Image via Wikipedia
I’ve recently been reading more and more about Canada’s so called human rights commissions. What initially caught my eye was when I observed what a threat they were becoming to freedom of speech in Canada. However, the more I looked into them, the more I realize that they are a threat not only to freedom of speech, but a direct attack on Canada’s common law tradition, and thereby an attack on Canada itself. But let me back up a bit. Just what are Human Rights Commissions?
Well, in theory, human rights commissions are meant to help defend people’s human rights. They are meant to handle cases that the regular court system can’t handle. Yikes, I’ve only written two sentences, and red lights should be going of already. Just what exactly are human rights? In all of my reading so far, I have yet to get a firm grasp on this. In fact, as we shall see, “human rights” are an incredibly vague concept. They seem to mean whatever a particular human rights commissioner thinks they mean, even if it violates all logic.
For example, consider the human rights case that Beena Datt brought against McDonald’s corporation. Ms. Datt was an McDonald’s employee, but due to a skin condition which was irritated by soap and water, she didn’t want to wash her hands. McDonald’s explained to her that if you want to work in a restaurant preparing food, you have to wash your hands, particularly after going to the bathroom. Ms Datt refused, and took McDonald’s to a human rights commission. What do you think the ruling was? Well, not only did the commission rule that McDonald’s Restaurants can’t require Datt to wash her hands when she starts a shift, after going to the bathroom, or whenever a bell sounds reminding employees to wash up, they were also ordered to pay Ms. Datt $50,000 for wrongfully dismissing her. Is making your food with dirty hands really a human right? Who could think this is reasonable?
Which brings me to the second point that got me tripped up. Human Rights Commissions are meant to handle cases that the regular court system can’t handle. Why is this? Because the regular court system is based on the tradition of Common Law, which has certain characteristics. Among these are the presumption of innocence, due process, and a delicate balance between the aggrieved party and the defendant. Human Right Commissions throw all of this overboard. Is this a good idea? In theory, I’d say definitely not. A working, impartial, fair court system is one of the most important characteristics that makes Canada Canada, and not Iran or China. If you are taken before a judge, you should feel that the process is fair and transparent, and based on law. Your case should be fairly heard, and is not going to be determined by the whims of the judge or whoever is hearing your case. From my reading, this is exact opposite of what happens at “Human Rights” trials. I’m going to sign off for now, but I’ve got a lot more to say on this, in particular with regards to the threat posed by human rights commissions to free speech in Canada. For now, I suggest you look at the following two websites to get a glimpse into the threat that Canada is facing as a free society. Here are the links:
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 am
The Canada Human Rights commissions are really bad. That McDonald’s example really shows how bad these human rights commissions are.