|
BACK
TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOUR BY THE FEDERAL HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION
If you
are looking to the federal Human Rights Commission for fairness,
reasonableness, or justice, you are looking in the wrong place.
It has now been proven, beyond any doubt, to be a tax-supported
($22 million annually) fraud on the Canadian people.
Instead
of carrying out the principles of the Canadian Human Rights
Act, which is to ensure that all individuals are allowed to
make the lives for themselves that they are able and wish
to have, the Commission is being used to force Canadians to
dance to the peculiar tune orchestrated by the appointed ideological
administrators of the agency. REAL Women has proof of this.
The
expressed purpose of the Commission is supposedly to protect
individuals from discrimination in the provision of goods
and services on eleven separate grounds, including protection
from discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.
The
Royal Bank refused its services to the No Committee 2006,
both in Montreal and in Ontario. (See article, The Twisted
Values of the Royal Bank of Canada, p.8.) Both branches of
the No Committee laid separate complaints with the federal
Human Rights Commission in their respective provinces, on
the grounds that they had been discriminated against by being
refused a service (the right to open a bank account) because
of their religious beliefs. In response, the Human Rights
Commission sent identically worded letters to both the complainants,
rejecting their complaints, and apparently suggesting that
expressing an opinion on sexual orientation is a discriminatory
act according to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The letter
states:
While
the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits an employer or service
provider from discriminating against a person on the grounds
mentioned above, it also provides equal protection to individuals
from being discriminated against because of their sexual
orientation. Based upon the information which you have provided,
you do not appear to have grounds on which to pursue a complaint
of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Since
the rejection letters were identical, it can only be assumed
that the decision to reject the complaints was based on a
policy directive established by senior bureaucrats within
the Commission.
The
response of the Commission was pure jargon, without meaning
or substance. In short, the Commission offered no valid grounds
for refusing the complaint. It did make clear, however, that
it did not want to accept the valid complaint of religious
discrimination, because to do so would have forced it to find
the Royal Bank guilty of giving homosexuals unwarranted and
special rights not provided in the Canadian Human Rights Act,
as the Royal Bank has been claiming.
As a
result of this response, the Ontario Branch of the No Committee
wrote to the Ontario division of the Commission on August
28, 2002, pointing out its failure to provide a valid reason
for the rejection of the complaint, and requested an explanation
for this.
The letter stated:
As
you note, in your letter, the Canadian Human Rights Act
prohibits an employer or a service provider from discriminating
against a person on eleven grounds, including the grounds
of religion as well as sexual orientation. However, in this
case, although we experienced discrimination on the grounds
of religion by the refusal of a service to us by the Royal
Bank, there was no concomitant discrimination on our part
or by anyone else on the grounds of sexual orientation.
There is, you will note, no provision in the Canadian Human
Rights Act which prohibits the expression of an opinion
on the subject of sexual orientation. In other words, it
would appear that there has been no violation of the Act
in regard to sexual orientation, and that the provision
on this ground has no bearing on this case.
It
would appear, therefore, that the explanation you provided
in the above referred-to paragraph does not support in any
way why our complaint should not be accepted by the Commission.
We
would request, therefore, that our complaint be reviewed
and accepted by the Commission.
To date,
the Commission has made no response.
Today,
the problem we are facing in Canada is: What do individuals
and groups do when the government body established to protect
them from discrimination is itself discriminatory? Where do
individuals go who have experienced discrimination twice over,
once by the alleged offender, (in this case, the Royal Bank)
and the other, by the federal Human Rights Commission itself?
BACK
TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
