BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE INSANITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNALS

We have endured enough. The Human Rights Tribunals are out of control. They have reduced freedom of speech, religion and conscience to a memory of better, freer times. At present, we live in a post-liberal era, genuflecting to political correctness determined by the appointees sitting on Human Rights Tribunals, who represent special interest groups, not justice.

In just over a year, Provincial Human Rights Tribunals have carried out the following actions:

• In January 2005, Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary distributed a pastoral letter setting out the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality and its opposition to same-sex marriage. Homosexual activists brought a complaint against Bishop Henry before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. The latter accepted the complaint, despite the fact that freedom of religion is a protected right in Canada under the Charter. It only stopped the complaint when it was forced to do so because the homosexual activists withdrew it due to the adverse publicity it had caused.



• British Columbia's Human Rights Tribunal, in 2005, ordered the payment of a fine for "hurt feelings" caused by members of a Catholic Knights of Columbus Council in Port Coquitlam, BC, when they refused to rent their hall to a lesbian couple who wished to use it for their wedding reception. That is, there was a collision of rights between religious freedom and homosexual rights, and the homosexual / lesbian rights triumphed. Although the decision acknowledged the right of the Knights to refuse to rent the hall to the lesbian couple because of their religious beliefs, they, nonetheless, were fined and had to pay costly legal expenses to defend themselves under this ruling.



• Calgary based Western Standard magazine, reprinted some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed - originally published in a Danish newspaper. These cartoons served as a pretext for Muslim militants to stir up riots around the world. Mr. Syed Soharwardy, President of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, at first attempted to have Mr. Levant, the publisher, arrested by the police. When this failed, he lodged a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against the magazine and its publisher. This august body, instead of tossing the complaint out on the grounds it suppressed freedom of speech, decided instead to proceed with the complaint, thus requiring the Western Standard to retain a lawyer at great expense to defend itself.

• A Christian printer in Ontario was ordered to print letterhead for a homosexual organization and pay a $5,000 fine for refusing to do so (Brockie 2002);



• A Christian in Saskatoon was ordered to pay a fine for inciting hatred against homosexuals when he placed an ad in a local newspaper during gay pride week, specifying references in the Bible rejecting homosexuality. The ad also included stick figures of two men holding hands with a diagonal line through the depiction (Hugh Owens, 2002). The Saskatchewan Queen's Bench upheld the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal. Fortunately, however, on April 13, 2006 the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal's decision. Mr. Owens who was forced to pay his own legal expenses had to argue the case himself. If the homosexual activists, who laid the complaint before the Tribunal, decide to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Owens will be obligated to defend himself again as best he can.



• A British Columbia teacher who wrote letters opposed to homosexual activity, published in the local newspaper, was suspended for one month without pay for behaviour unbecoming a teacher by allegedly "poisoning the school environment" by his letters. There is no evidence to that effect or any complaint made against the defendant teacher. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal refused to hear the teacher's complaint (Kempling, 2006).



• A pastor in Alberta had letters published in the Red Deer Advocate newspaper (between June and September 2002) objecting to homosexuality. This resulted in a University of Calgary Assistant Professor Darren Lund laying a complaint against Pastor Boissoin before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. Although the Commission initially dismissed the complaint, Mr. Lund successfully appealed that decision and the Tribunal has now re-heard the case, and its decision is expected to be handed down shortly.

Human Rights Tribunals have Become Official Censors

Human Rights Tribunals have become official censors and guardians of politically correct thought. They have assumed this role with no one in authority having the sense and decency to rein them in.

Background to Human Rights Commissions

The Human Rights Commissions were set up initially to protect vulnerable Canadians from being refused employment, accommodation, or services, for example, being refused service in a restaurant on account of colour, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. In order to assist and encourage the complainant, all his expenses are paid by the Human Rights Commissions. The commission's staff investigates the complaint, carries out mediation between the parties and then finally shepherds the complaint to the Tribunal for disposition. That is, the complainant is assisted both financially and morally by the Commission, while the unfortunate defendant is left to his own devices to try to protect himself.

Under these circumstances, it is difficult to describe these Commissions as "impartial" The theory behind the human rights system may be reasonable, but, in practice, they have become twisted and ugly instruments of censorship and social engineering, imposing politically correct thought on their hapless victims.

Alan Borovoy, long time general legal counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who helped design the Human Rights Commissions in Canada, stated in a letter published in the Calgary Sun (March 16, 2006) that he believed the actions of the Tribunals are unacceptable. He stated:

… during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech.

Mr. Borovoy further stated that human rights laws should be changed to prevent censorship occurring in the future. "It would be best…to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation." Although the British Columbia Attorney General in 2002, and, more recently, the Ontario Attorney General, in April 2006, attempted to streamline their Human Rights Commissions to rid them of their heavy back log of cases, they have failed, nonetheless, to eliminate the very worst characteristic of these Commissions, namely, their biased procedures and decisions.

In fact, the recent amendments to the British Columbia and Ontario Commissions have made the Tribunals even more dangerous for the general public. That is, the "gate keeper" role of the commissions has been eliminated and instead, they now permit complaints to go directly to the Tribunal for resolution. All this means is that if a complaint is laid against an individual, then his goose is cooked that much more quickly! Moreover, the defendants still have to defend themselves and pay their own legal costs. The Tribunal officials continue to represent special interest groups in their decisions and continue to pay all the complainants' costs. Moreover, the Tribunal panels do not necessarily have any training in law, nor are they required to follow any of the safeguards developed by the Courts to protect an accused, such as following the rules of evidence. In short, Human Rights Tribunals still have unrestricted freedom to conduct hearings any way they choose. Absolutely nothing has been done to correct the prejudicial and biased hearings of the Human Rights panels. Consequently, Human Rights Tribunals remain kangaroo courts to be approached with extreme caution, with the full knowledge that the accused will almost always be found guilty as charged.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS