The Sault Star - By Christina Blizzard - Ontario Human Rights Commission out of control
Once upon a time, it was simply a pain in the butt.
For the last two years, though, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has become an out-of-control juggernaut, rolling over unsuspecting bystanders in its path.
Fair enough, OHRC has always been a tad controversial — some might say off-the-wall — in its rulings.
But recent changes, and the way they are being implemented by Commissioner Barbara Hall, are pitting human rights protection against our fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Hall, a former Toronto mayor, appears to have gone completely over the top in her comments on an article by journalist Mark Steyn, “The future belongs to Islam,” that appeared in Maclean’s magazine.
Responding to a complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress and some law students, Hall stated, correctly, the OHRC has no jurisdiction to hear the case. All the same, she went on to say this:
“The Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media ... ”
So she basically said the OHRC can’t judge the issue — and then proceeded to judge it.
The Rest.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In the Sault paper now LOL
Despite the large amount of snow Ontario received this last Winter (from Mother Nature and Mother Lynch/Hall) -neither Hall nor Lynch have the depth to comprehend the consequences of a Snowball picking up snow and steam.
Out of control?? maybe. Needing control? - for sure. No politician in their right mind would allow Barbra Hall to access the media as a provincial appointee again after the earth shattering gaffe of her OHRC statement on Maclean's and her "vision quest". After the reveleations of radical Islamist and anti-majority axe grinders on the commission, even McGuinty must see this type of high profile media spot-lighted Stalinist lunacy as a vote killer. Remember it was axe grinders from in the OHRC who convinced him to implement Sharia law. That damn near cost him an election.
Hall's screed was probably the most unnerving thing I've ever heard emanate from the mouth of a Civil servant. Possibly equaled only in ghastliness to some things said by Alan Rock.
IF the things said by Hall are not just her own dystopian mutterings but actually reflect those of elected politicians and the judiciary, then we, my fellow Canadians, are past the point of elections curing the rot.
If Hall and her vindictive axe-grinders are not reigned in and are allowed to indulge their morbid witch hunter fantasies, we will see serial charter violation by bureaucrats legitimized by both the government and the jurocracy...the civil fallout will be horrendously divisive and could trigger what passes for political upheaval in this nation.
I am always shaken by the fact that inept vacant fanatics like Hall can ever get and keep public office in the nation. In a democracy with a electorate who are not comatose, ham-fisted quid nuncs like Hall would never get near public office...we are looking at the distinct possibility of her doing a lot of constitutional damage before she's stopped.
The struggle between Church and state goes a long way back in Canadian history, long before there were Human Rights Commissions. I refer you to the Guibord case of 1874. What follows is the text from a wikipedia entry.
The case centred on a man named Joseph Guibord, a member of the Institut Canadien, a liberal association that strived to limit the Catholic Church's influence over the Quebec government, which was at that time significant. Hence, when Guibord died, the Church opted not to give him a religious burial. The Church’s decision allegedly contradicted its role under the civil law to give burial, but the Church argued it would carry out the burial anyway and that Guibord not being buried in holy ground was a question of religious freedom.
As Professor Rainer Knopff argues, the J.C.P.C. compromised between two decisions of the lower courts: that the religious freedom argument was frivolous on one hand; or that the courts, not being a Catholic leadership, could not rule on whether a burial should be carried out in accordance with religious procedure on the other. The J.C.P.C., conversely, concluded that while the courts were not Catholic leaders, they could uphold the people's rights and Guibord was entitled to a burial in holy ground. However, the Court did not compel other religious ceremonies to be performed because it was not a Catholic institution. Although burial anywhere could theoretically be justified under the law, the J.C.P.C. ruled burial in holy ground was appropriate in this case and advised the other ceremonies to be performed. The reasoning was that if Guibord was not buried in holy ground, his reputation would be damaged. As Guibord was a good person, he should not be defamed while a terrible person, on the other hand, probably could be denied religious burial.
Following the court ruling, Ignace Bourget, the Bishop of Montreal, went to Notre Dame des Neiges Cemetery and deconsecrated the burial plot where Joseph Guibord was to be buried. Twelve hundred soldiers were needed to escort Guibord's body into the cemetery because of the angry mob gathered to oppose the burial.
Another shot into the skeleton - this time from the Toronto Sun. Oooh that will hurt.
Christina Blizzard Wed, May 7, 2008
Human Rights Commission is out of control
By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD
Once upon a time, it was simply a pain in the butt.
For the last two years, though, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has become an out-of-control juggernaut, rolling over unsuspecting bystanders in its path.
Fair enough, OHRC has always been a tad controversial — some might say off-the-wall — in its rulings.
But recent changes, and the way they are being implemented by Commissioner Barbara Hall, are pitting human rights protection against our fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Hall, a former Toronto mayor, appears to have gone completely over the top in her comments on an article by journalist Mark Steyn, “The future belongs to Islam,” that appeared in Maclean’s magazine.
Responding to a complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress and some law students, Hall stated, correctly, the OHRC has no jurisdiction to hear the case. All the same, she went on to say this:
“The Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media … ”
So she basically said the OHRC can’t judge the issue — and then proceeded to judge it.
I can’t decide whether this mood swing at OHRC has come about because of changes made to its mandate by former attorney general Michael Bryant, or whether it is because Hall is putting her personal imprint on it.
The commission no longer vets complaints of individuals and advocates on their behalf. It rules on sweeping issues of “systemic” discrimination on behalf of complainants who are rich enough to have a lawyer advocate for them.
Hall’s predecessor, Keith Norton, tackled high profile, controversial issues. But he wrought real change. He was especially effective for people with disabilities, when it came to accessing fast food restaurants and movie theatres.
I admired him not for some of his more outrageous reports (such as one on transgendered washrooms at Queen’s Park), but for the fact he was fearless and thoughtful — and accountable. He would release his reports with much fanfare and then hold a media availability to defend them.
REPORTS ONLINE
Hall’s reports just show up on the OHRC website. I called her office yesterday requesting an interview for this column and was told she was not available until 10:30 today.
New Democratic critic Peter Kormos says Hall is over-reaching her boundaries.
“Clearly Ms. Hall believes that she has been given powers that give her a scope above and beyond the areas of discrimination provided for in the Human Rights Code.
“I would argue that this does not extend to areas that are already clearly protected by charter provisions, like freedom of speech,” Kormos said.
Tory critic Christine Elliott said ruling on the Maclean’s piece without giving the magazine or Steyn an opportunity to respond is wrong.
“In basic legal terms, it’s a denial of natural justice or the right to be heard because you can’t just go out there and say things about people when they have no ability to respond in any forum,” Elliott said.
In another worrying decision, the OHRC last week ruled Christian Horizons, a religious agency that operates 180 residential care facilities for 1,400 developmentally delayed individuals across the province, could not require an employee, Connie Heintz, to sign a “morality statement.”
After being employed for five years by Christian Horizons, Heintz “came to terms with her sexual orientation as a lesbian,” the report said. Her lifestyle contravened the morality statement and she was fired. The OHRC awarded her lost wages and damages and, more troubling, ruled that religious organizations such as this one cannot require employees to sign such statements.
In her statement, Hall had this to say:
“This decision is important because it sets out that when faith-based and other organizations move beyond serving the interests of their particular community to serving the general public, the rights of others, including employees, must be respected.”
This comes perilously close to telling people of faith what they may and may not believe. It reinforces fears expressed when same-sex couples won the right to wed that religious institutions that are morally opposed to same-sex marriage would be forced to perform such ceremonies.
It’s a slippery slope.
Attorney General Chris Bentley and Premier Dalton McGuinty should rein Hall in before she tramples every right we hold dear.
Post a Comment