Liberals following Canadian Human Rights Commission agenda propose implementing "Social Condition"
Very ugly news has surfaced in the LPC policy discussion document which should guarantee that the Liberals never be allowed to govern again.
I've written about the CHRC's latest efforts to implement "Social Condition" as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the CHRA here and here - it is a naked power grab which should be vigorously opposed.
What will "Social Condition" entail? Does the Sub-Prime Mortgage mess ring a bell: For instance, financial institutions may assume that all people who have low paying jobs are an unacceptable risk for a loan.
We were told during our consultations that complaints were filed with the Commission on behalf of single mothers denied mortgages because they were on welfare or could not meet minimum income requirements.
I'd say goodbye property rights but we don't have any written in our charter.
Or, an employer may impose unnecessary job requirements that deny employment to capable people who have low literacy skills as a result of their social disadvantage.
Now with the proposed inclusion of "citizenship status" one can only assume the Liberals are cultivating brave new victim class voting blocks - Can you say Gitmo Inmates for Ignatieff?
BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the next government to ensure that:
• the mandate of the CHRC is expanded to include type of citizenship status and socio-economic class as a ground of discrimination
See page 26 in the policy document.
The Liberals are also in lockstep with the CHRC's desire to march in time to the beat of their cultural marxist masters at the U.N.
The Libs propose:
• the CHRC be given the power to monitor the implementation of our commitments and obligations to enforce its recommendations;
This means subservience to the UN plain and simple, the goal is to do an end run around our elected officials and judiciary. I see new HRC legisaltion calling for an end to the Defamation of Islam as a main plank in the Liberals next election platform. Don't believe me? Liberals - MP Paul Szabo, MP Bonnie Crombie, and Omar Algabra attended the recent Palestine House event which hosted the anti-semitic Sheikh Akrama Sabri (Imam of Alaqsa Mosque) and Bishop Attala Hanna, attendee's were exhorted to vote Liberal as the tide had turned and the majority within the LPC now favoured the Palestinian cause over Israel.
And what else? Not a mention of notorious thought crime law Section 13 (1). And why would they? Liberals are anything but.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Not good at all.
Holeeeeee crapola! Lord save us.
Scary!
The only possible opposition to this loss of freedoms is the Conservative Party of Canada which seems to be sitting on it's hands.
This issue is more important than the current economic morass or the environment. This is an issue for today. I would rather the Conservatives go down fighting on principle than go down with a whimper.
This issue must be fought now. Kim Campbell said an election is no time to introduce issues. The general populace need to be educated and the Liberals are building their rebuttals already with some advice from some quarters.
We may get quite a few Liberals crossing the floor on this one. The blue Liberals would be more comfortable these days in our camp.
The Conservatives must gird for a fight of epic proportions equal or greater than our fight against the crestfallen coalition.
No less than the decay and debauchment of our core principles as a democracy are at stake.
We must be free to speak.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the next government to ensure that:
• the mandate of the CHRC is expanded to include type of citizenship status and socio-economic class as a ground of discrimination;Typical "group think" logic to keep masses of citizens in their respective enclaves. No thanks.
• all legislative bodies, needs and recommendations for the protection of human rights be centralized in the CHRC;"Human rights" determined by the CHRC? What a joke. I wouldn't let any of these characters from our HRC's babysit my kids or even look after my home when I'm on vacation.
• the CHRC be given the power to monitor the implementation of our commitments and obligations to enforce its recommendations;They can't even monitor themselves properly and they want more power to enslave citizens to their mandates?
• the CHRC be accountable to the House of Commons and be given an appropriate budget;You guys need to get a real job. Your budget should be "zero".
• the CHRC put in place temporary or standing sub-commissions such as a sub-commission for children and a sub-commission for gender equity and equality.How about a super-super-sub committee on how to undermine individual rights?
Ezra's right. Canada's various HRC's need to be uprooted and tossed into the trash bin of history. Bon Voyage CHRC!
So that's a resolution - poorly written i might add, that I find it barely coherent - put forward by the Liberal Party Quebec wing. Fine, now presumably the rest of the party will get to vote on it (while meeting to bow down to the leader for whom they never had a chance to vote) and it will be revealed what Liberals stand for: "human rights", like the right of the state to destroy personal property, time, engery, and the common wealth, in the name of rectifying someone's "social condition" (in the future, every Canadian will be a Russian count!), or real human rights.
Let's face it, the battle we have engaged can't be neatly limited to repeal of Section 13. Section 13 exists because of what has become a pervasive "human rights" world view, fueled by White Guilt, which is the view that unaccountable agencies of the state must act from on high as patrons for those "victims" unwilling to negotiate their differences locally, and as individuals living under a universally-applied rule of law.
No doubt, the Liberal Party in Quebec is in large part composed of people in search of government sinecures, people who need a centralizing state religion because their own individual take on faith and ethics is to value some kind of personal will to power.
We cannot gain ground for those who reject victim-creating cults until we advance a new narrative to replace the present "human rights" world view with a real human rights world view. This will be the work of a generation as existing ethical paradigms in which millions of people understand themselves and find their living cannot be changed over night. Even then, there will always be people willing to validate their inevitable resentments by engaging in moral blackmail of the system rather than taking their chances in the freedom of the brutally competitive marketplace where arbitrary discriminations of all kinds are a regular fact of life. So we will always have to fight to keep the system open and free. Let's find the necessary faith, in recognition that it's a lifelong fight, whether or not the power-worshiping Liberal Party gets its just rewards.
I might add, that there need to emerge real human rights organizations, of people dedicated to fighting state oppression, including oppression in the name of false "human rights", and oppression in countries and cultures that the Western left doesn't have the moral sense to expose and fight. Bloggers alone will never change the world. We have to build institutions, jobs, ways of living to replace those we would put to pasture.
Double plus good, Barbara Hall reaches forth to grasp the throats of recalcitrant taxpayers and shake them into line.
"...an employer may impose unnecessary job requirements that deny employment to capable people who have low literacy skills as a result of their social disadvantage."
Yes, you WILL hire the immigrant female from Bongobongo who can't read or write her own language much less English, and who can't understand spoken instructions in anything other than her tribal dialect of Bongospeak. You will hire her to be a fireman. No she doesn't have to pass the physical, that's sexist!
Yes, you WILL hire the excitable Arab gentleman to be the women's washroom attendant at the gym, despite his previous criminal history. Of attacking women. In public. Repeatedly.
Because "social disadvantage" is a terrible, terrible thing you know.
I think this is good. Babs should definitely go for this. Its the only thing I can think of that will wake Toronto voters the hell up. Let Dalton jack the hydro rates and the gas tax too, that'll help get a CPC majority elected.
It's time that all thinking Canadians who live outside the polical class and its klepto culture, came to the realization that for all practical purposes the Liberal and social democrat political parties are dead and gone. They have been replaced by extremist left wing parties driving deconstructionist agendas.
The left of center paries essentially igore Vox populi and implement cultural agaenda....most of which destrit western cultural institutions and erect new soviet styled control systems married to either fascist or kleptocratic economics.
There is nothing less liberal than a partisan liberal and there is nothing less alturistic than a greedy pseudo commie ( now in the guise of global communitarianism)
If you belive in populist democracy, private property, individual freedom and free market economics, avoid the LPC like the plague.
I see Iggster has been butt snorkeling the O-Bot regime kleptocrats and musing about implementing a form of the national socialist corporatism (fascist banking economics) in Kanadar like that infecting Washington DC (District of Criminals). It's not a strech to belive he also admires the political purge politics the Oboma regime runs with Napolitano at the helm.
This resolution represents a massive and fundamental expansion of CHRC powers. It appears that the Liberals are utterly oblivious to the concerns of many Canadians over the deterioration of basic freedoms. The drafters of this resolution are living in a socialist fantasy world, and they want common Canadians to pay the price.
I'm guessing that the resolutions are to be voted on in the next Liberal convention to held from April 30 to May 2. Is this correct?
Yes the proposals are up for debate at the next convention.
If handled properly, this should give the CPC all the ammo they require. IMHO. They need to make Rights vs desires election issues, properly explained
We can hope the LPC is stupid enough to adopt the reolutions;)
I'm with you BCF - give the LPC enough rope and even they can manage to hang themselves without anymor help.
Iggy has turned out to be as disasterous as Dion - just wait until Canadians get to know him.
I wonder if there is a Cole's Notes version of his latest book?
Iggy seems unable to tell the difference between the responsibility politicians have in shaping our daily reality and shaping the plot-twists in a fourth-rate movie script...
I hope Dr. Keith Martin talks some sense into them.
I doubt he can, Iggy came to our door last election, he stated that Martin had "blindsided" the LPC with his PMB on 13(1).
This "Social Condition" thingy could be interesting for bloggers presently under SLAPP suits in Ontario and the West.
It might suggest that one is deprived of protection simply by location in Canada? Naughty!
I love the discussion by none other than litigous lawyers.
This find via h/t to BCL (sorry)
"Quebec set to remedy abusive procedure
By KATHRYN LEGER, Freelance
April 17, 2009
Quebec could soon become the only province in Canada to have a law designed to prevent companies or individuals from filing nuisance lawsuits to intimidate and silence critics.
Bill 9, tabled by Justice Minister Kathleen Weil last week, proposes amendments to Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure "to prevent improper use of the courts and promote freedom of expression and citizen participation in public debate."
The bill is particularly aimed at combating what are known as SLAPPs, or strategic law suits against public participation.
Such suits - typically involving large claims of money for defamation or damage to reputation - are common in cases where citizens or non-governmental organizations speak out against the environmental impact of company operations or development plans.
SLAPPs are outlawed in 25 U.S. states and the bill tabled by Weil is the latest attempt by the Quebec government to make sure citizens are not bullied by corporations for speaking out in public about their concerns.
The government held four days of public hearings early last year following a report it commissioned in 2006 into what kind of measures could be used to remedy SLAPPs from a committee headed by Roderick Macdonald, a McGill University law professor. Bill 99 died on the order paper last fall after provincial elections were called.
One of the important new provisions of the proposed bill is early recourse for defendants who believe they are the victim of a SLAPP or any other kind of abusive procedure.
Judges have a new range of options to deal with complaints about such cases at an early stage.
While there is no special fund to help defendants counter the heavy weight of deep-pocketed corporations, companies, on the decision of a judge, could be ordered to put up money to help pay for the legal bills of the person they are suing.
Another provision designed as an additional deterrent is stipulation that directors and company officers can be held individually liable if a judge determines the lawsuit is indeed an abuse of procedure.
Reaction about the effectiveness of the proposed bill is mixed among lawyers.
"All the measures, if used by the court, are going to be really useful to limit and someday eliminate SLAPPs," said Karim Renno, the Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt litigator who is chair of the legislation and research committee of the Young Bar Association of Montreal.
But Renno said the directors and officers liability provision is "extremely disappointing" because it could have the end result of jacking up liability insurance costs for in-house lawyers. It also endangers privilege because if directors and officers were held liable and had to defend themselves, they would have to divulge details of their own legal counsel.
Odette Nadon, head of the environmental practice group at Lapointe Rosenstein LLP, applauded the concept of companies having to pay up front to cover the legal fees of defendants they are pursing if the case is believed to be a clogging up the Quebec Court of Appeal as plaintiffs questioned any decision against them in the first instance in the lower.
Lawyers who represent companies in defamation suits launched by companies against individuals or organizations critical of their operations say the lack of a definition of what a SLAPP is is a problem.
The proposed bill "is a solution in search of a problem," said one lawyer familiar with some of the Quebec cases described as SLAPPs.
In addition to no definition of what a SLAPP is, the uncertainty created by no test in the proposed bill could result in an overflow of cases simply because it allows those who believe they "may be" the victim of a SLAPP recourse.
What is at issue, the lawyer added, is the right of companies to defend their reputation.
Mark Bantey, a lawyer with Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP who specializes in defamation cases, said that issue could be the crux of the problem if the new bill is adopted.
Bill 9 is similar to article 75.1 of the Code of Civil Procedures, which states a judge can dismiss a proceeding if he finds that it is frivolous, Bantey said.
"Judges have been traditionally reluctant to grant motions and I am not sure that is going to change because judges are very careful to make sure the parties get their day in court and are very reluctant to dismiss a proceeding on a summary basis (at the initial stage) of a proceeding.
"When a defendant moves to dismiss the action, the plaintiff is going to argue I have the right to defend my good reputation and 'you, judge, don't have the right to dismiss my action at a preliminary stage. I want my day in court and it is too early for you to judge my case as frivolous,' so that is going to be the problem."
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
>>