In 1947, Saskatchewan was the first province to establish a Human Rights Commission. The Commission was established to protect individuals from discrimination in four areas: employment, accommodation (renting premises), services (as in a restaurant) and membership in organizations.
The human rights machinery, as established, is comprised of two parts: the Commission, which sorts through the facts and evidence and mediates the complaint between the parties. If there is no resolution, then the Commission refers the case to the Human Rights Tribunal. The latter consists of individuals appointed by the government to adjudicate such cases. These tribunal members are not necessarily lawyers, and they frequently represent special interest groups or liberal activists, such as feminists, homosexuals, etc.
Other provinces quickly followed Saskatchewan in establishing human rights commissions and tribunals. The federal government established its commission and tribunal in 1977.
In recent years, possibly because of the dwindling number of genuine human rights offences, these Commissions have begun to concentrate on the provision in their legislation, which prohibits speech that exposes individuals to hatred, ridicule, belittling or otherwise affronts the dignity of a person. Applying this broadly worded provision has led to human rights tribunals becoming the arbiters of free speech in Canada – resulting, in many cases, in the denial of the right to members of certain groups to openly express an opinion.
Unfortunately, the tribunals are not bound by normal legal rules, but may choose to use whatever evidence strikes their fancy, including hearsay and mere speculation. Intentions do not matter, nor does the truthfulness of the statement. This has led to some very bizarre decisions, such as a $17,000 fine paid to a Filipino family for restraints placed on their son from eating (in Filipino tradition of cutting his food with a fork and scooping it noisily into his mouth with a spoon) in a school cafeteria. This habit apparently disturbed the other children, but the Tribunal found that the school had discriminated against the boy on the grounds of race and ethnicity. An obese woman living in a condominium was given compensation by a Tribunal for being denied a parking spot close to the front door of her building; an employee in a McDonalds restaurant in Vancouver, with a medical condition, was, apparently, discriminated against because she was required to wash her hands; Ontario transsexuals were given the right to have surgery from surgeons who are not qualified to perform that type of surgery; and the rights of an individual who had bi-polar disorder and had manic episodes was discriminated against because he was refused the right to test artillery devices in Ontario.
The list of these bizarre, new human rights, discovered by the Tribunals, is, if nothing else, ingenious.
Complainant Does Not Have to Experience Discrimination
An odd quirk of these commissions is that one doesn’t have to actually be directly affected by the supposed discrimination in order to lay a complaint. One merely has to lay a complaint, on the basis that an offense might have discriminated against a specific group, even though the complainant is not a member of that group. He then reaps a financial reward for laying the complaint.
An example of this is the complaint laid against youth pastor, Stephen Boissoin, in Alberta for a letter he had published, opposing homosexual activities, in his local newspaper. A complaint was laid against him by a heterosexual Calgary education professor, Darren Lund. In 2008, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal member, Lori Andreachuk, imposed a lifetime ban on Mr. Boissoin re: speech on the issue of homosexuality, as well as the payment of a $5,000 fine to be paid to Mr. Lund “for his hurt feelings”, along with an apology to him. Similarly, an Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, although not Jewish, has made a comfortable sum of money ($45,000) for himself in the last few years by laying a series of complaints, alleging discrimination against Jews.
All this is a bizarre twist on the meaning of “human rights”, put into the hands of powerful special interest bureaucrats, appointed to impose political correctness on the public by way of forced apologies, outlandish remedies and stiff fines – punishments approaching those allowed by an actual court of law.
Saskatchewan Proposed Solution to this Distortion of Human Rights
In April 2010, Saskatchewan Justice Minister Don Morgan proposed that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal be scrapped and any complaints that the commission can’t resolve should be referred directly to the courts (the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench).
According to Saskatchewan’s Justice Minister, since the government appoints both the commission, which receives the complaints, and the tribunal, which adjudicates the complaint on referral from the commission, this gives the appearance of collusion, which is not a healthy indication of either impartiality or justice.
In an editorial (April 17, 2010), the National Post stated that the proposal by Saskatchewan to abolish its Human Rights Tribunal and move the caseload to the courts was a great idea. The editorial stated that the application of due process, including a proper hearing in front of a judge fully trained in Canada’s constitutional traditions, was a welcome change from the “Star Chambers” or kangaroo courts previously provided by the tribunal.
Unfortunately, the Saskatchewan Justice Minister has stated that the Commission intends to continue to pay all the costs of the complainant, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, if necessary, while the respondent must still foot the entire bill for his defense. Nor, under this system, can the respondent apply for dismissal of a nuisance or frivolous lawsuit – but must go forward to defend himself, no matter how absurd the complaint.
Conclusion
Although we appreciate the Saskatchewan government’s proposed changes to its Human Rights Commission, its proposal is very limited, and will in no way, protect Canadians from these power-mad commissions. Instead, the commissions should be permanently disbanded.
|
