Talk:Canadian Human Rights Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Ezra Levant case

We should add information about Ezra Levant and the Muhammad cartoons.The human right commission was criticized for its handling in his case.Here are links: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN0325508520080106 http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1024759.html http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10499144 http://www.youtube.com/EzraILevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. Ezra Levant's case is being handled by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission not the Canadian Human Rights Commission. 154.20.165.219 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not according to Mark Steyn it isn't. Where is your source on this? Frankly some more should be put in about how the trial is more an arbitrary tribunal that completely bypasses the basic tenets of British Parliamentary Law, as well as violating free speech in most cases as well. 75.157.91.54 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission is a regional office of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Both are part of the same organization which is charged with enforcing the Canadian Human Rights Act. This act gives the Canadian government the authority to determine what statements Canadians have the right to express via telephone and internet. This authority amounts to electronic book burning in Canada. Alberta and Ontario have gone a step further and extended their authority to censor publishing as well.69.234.217.244 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I emailed the AHRC and asked what their relationship to the CHRC was, and this was their response:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission are two separate entities. The mandates of the two Commissions are different. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction over federally regulated businesses (such as inter-provincial bussing eg. Greyhound, telecommunication, to mention a few) and federal government departments whereas the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission has jurisdiction over provincially regulated businesses, which comprises most companies conducting business in Alberta, and provincial and municipal governments.

So I am going to remove the Ezra Levant info for now. 154.20.160.202 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys are too much :rollseyes: Obviously there should be a single article on all of the human rights commissions in Canada. What was quoted above from the email of the AHRC is quite clearly showing that the primary differences are jurisdictional. Both are ultimately about the same thing. The Levant case is relevant here because it's about section 13(1) and this directly impacts all HRC in Canada. Levant's and Steyn's cases also made it more politically expedient for the recent introduction of a motion in parliament to erase that law, a motion that will almost certainly pass, and that will severely castrate all HRCs in Canada. The seeming inability of 154.20.160.202 to make this obvious connection is either ignorance or purposeful omission because s/he has an agenda. 24.86.200.122 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Part of the problem, with talking about the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is simply trying to identify all these commissions with their national and regional overlapping jurisdictions. But they all have a mandate to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Act and its controversial section 13, which makes just offending someone a crime punishable by imprisonment, fines, and lifetime speech bans. This article should be written in such a way that it addresses all the extra-legal agencies which are empowered to regulate Canadians' fundamental right of freedom of expression. Freedom Fan (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously unbalanced article

In most of its sections, this article focuses heavily on Section 13 of the Human Rights Act relating to forms of expression likely to expose racial and similar groups to hatred and contempt. This issue is of interest to a narrow constituency opposed to the banning of what in the US is called "hate speech". The coverage of that issue is extremely unbalanced, tilted against Section 13. It includes much material which is simply opposed to the existence of the law, but is unrelated to the Commission itself. It relies on partisan sources, including a polemic opinion column in the National Post. Joeldl (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding CHRA Section 13 and its enforcement by the various Canadian Human Rights Commissions is the subject of several legal actions, a current Parlimentary member motion, and hundreds of opinion columns throughout Canada, the U.S. and the rest of the western world.

The emotion surrounding this parallel system of justice exists because of the perceived threat to the most fundamental human right, freedom of expression. For example, much of Wikipedia would be outlawed by the CHRC's application of the CHRA. This act makes no exception for truth as a defense, but merely makes it illegal to use words which are "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt".

This broad language of the CHRA Section 13, allows Canadian Human Rights Commission wide latitude in it's enforcement. Also this has led to allegations of corruption and capricious selection of plaintiffs on the part of the CHRC.

This article contains a small amount of representative information regarding this controversy. If the article is unbalanced, then please provide additional information to balance it, but the information regarding Section 13 enforcement is hardly a subject which is of interest only to some obscure special interest.Freedom Fan (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While enforcement of Section 13 has received some attention, it is far from the most salient information regarding the CHRC. Also, general criticism of Section 13, unrelated to actions of the CHRC, does not belong here. The article is non-neutral because the emphasis it gives to this issue, and its choice of facts to present about the controversy generally give the impression of being advocacy against Section 13 and CHRC's investigations of violations.

I dispute that "much of Wikipedia" would be banned under the provision. The interpretation of the act is subject to the Charter, which means that freedom of expression can only be limited to the extent demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. If attempts to ban things which should not be banned were made, the Charter would override them. In any case, there is broad consensus that in run-of-the-mill white supremacist cases, society's interest in preventing discrimination overrides freedom of expression concerns.

I am not enough of an expert to provide much balancing information, but I know enough to recognize that the article is unbalanced. If it were appropriate to be discussing the merits of the HRA at all, it could, for example, be mentioned that Section 13 has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past. The arguments presented on the other side could be included. Examples of use of Section 13 that most people agree with could be included. Joeldl (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1990 the case Canada Human Rights Commission v. Taylor was upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court with a vote of 4-3. So essentially one person decided that the precious right to Freedom of Speech, guaranteed in the Canadian Charter for all Canadians, could be infringed by the state in cases brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.

The phrase "likely to expose" requires the state to guess at whether a future crime will occur. The phrase "hatred or contempt" requires the state to make a vague, subjective judgement about the intent of the words expressed.

The result is to chill free expression with the threat of fines, imprisonment, lifetime speech bans, and several years' of legal fees, whenever there is any doubt about how discussion of any topic will be subjectively interpreted by government officials with police powers. There is no relief for the truth of the expression, nor is there a provision for fair comment.

No "hate crime" case under section 13 has ever been decided on behalf of the defendant before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals. Furthermore, almost all "hate crimes" are charged against those with Conservative world views; others are summarily dismissed.

Writing for the three-person minority the court said:

But the minority takes issue with the means used by s. 13(1) to pursue this objective. Section 13(1) is broad and vague, the minority finds. It prohibits a great deal of defensible speech without accommodating the important right to freedom of expression.

To establish whether there is a rational connection between a law and its purpose the minority considers not just the intention of the legislators but whether the law is likely to achieve its ends, and whether it may have an effect contrary to its objective. Rational connection may also be absent when the law goes beyond what can be justified by its objects. The minority concludes that s. 13(1) fails the rational connection test because it is not closely tailored to its objectives and because it infringes freedom of speech in unjustified and essentially irrational ways.

The terms "hatred" and "contempt" are vague and subjective; they will catch much expression which presents little threat of fostering discrimination against protected groups. Also, the breadth of the section is widened by the absence of any requirement of intent. While the absence of a requirement to show intent is consistent with human rights laws, it has the effect of extending the section's application. In addition, no proof of harmful effect is required. This means, the minority finds, that the section is capable of catching expression which clearly goes beyond the scope of its objects. It is no answer to the absence of rational connection to say that, in practice, Commissions and members of Tribunals may choose not to enforce the overbroad aspects of s. 13(1).

In addition to finding a lack of rational connection between the measure and its objects, the minority also concludes that s. 13(1) does not impair the right to freedom of expression as little as possible. It interferes with strictly private communication of ideas. Also no defence of truth is provided and therefore true statements can be prohibited by s. 13(1).

In conclusion, the minority of the Court finds that s. 13(1) intrudes on the fundamental freedom of expression in ways that cannot be justified by the objectives it seeks to promote. It catches speech which is neither intended nor calculated to foster discrimination, which may be accurate and truthful, and which merely communicates information by telephone to a single person. In short, s. 13(1) seriously overshoots the mark.
Canada Human Rights Commission v. Taylor

The Supreme Court did not anticipate that enforcement of the CHRA would be extended to suppress speech in the public interest, although it now appears to have done exactly that in several high profile cases. It may be time to revisit the legality of this act in light of the irregularities in its current enforcement.

It should be apparent to any reasonable reader, that many legitimate facts expressed throughout Wikipedia on controversial topics, could be deemed to be offensive to some readers, and therefore could be ruled illegal by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, using the broadly subjective wording of Section 13 of the CHRA.

The outcome of the controversy over the nature and enforcement of section 13 of the CHRA is of keen interest to anyone in the Western world, who is concerned with the fundamental right of free espression.

Certainly other relevant facts about the more mundane activities of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, are also welcome in order to balance the article.
Freedom Fan (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article is not Unbalanced - it is accurate

How is freedom of speech an issue to only a "narrow constituency?" It is an issue to everyone. The CHRC currently seems to think that it, and it alone, has the right to determine what constitutes "hate speech." The CHRC is not a court, so there is no right to legal representation, no rules of evidience, no rules for impartiality, and unlike in civil court, truth is not a defense. This is an issue to everyone - it has galvanized Canadian Liberals and Conservatives and has led to the questioning of just how much power Canada's human rights commissions have and should have. Should a quasi-judicial body, with no requirements of imparitality and training, be allowed to essentially dictate what and what isn't hate speech?

Leftists are supporting the CHRC because CHRC activities are almost entirely directed at the political right. The supporters of the CHRC's recent activities seem to believe in censoring anything that it considered "offensive" and that anybody who doesn't support censoring "offensive" material must be a racist.

Do misunderstand me. The CHRC has done an excellent job of dealing with discrimination in the workplace and against specific people. This is a very important issue and it deserves coverage in this article.

However, the issue I refer to deals with the CHRC prosecuting forms of expression - that is, material that is only "likely" to cause harm to a group. This essentially means that any written or printed material that might cause harm to someone (and it doesn't have to be a specific person) between now and the end of time is hateful and therefore should be censored. The above powers possessed by the CHRC are not considered acceptable to many in a free and democratic society.

Keep in mind that there are proper avenues for dealing with "hate speech." This includes filing civil lawsuits and contacting the police and asking that hate crime charges be filed under the criminal justice system. However, unlike the human rights commissions, the civil and criminal courts have proper protections and procedures that must be followed to guard against abuse.

For those who claim to support the CHRC is banning "hate speech," I ask this question: Where do we draw the line? Should we rely on the CHRC and its politically driven, untrained staff, to decide this? I don't think so (but that's just my opinion.

Freedom of speech - in particular, speech that is controversial - is a right and a requirement for everybody. Thus, this article is accruate. It is true that more could be added about the CHRC's successes against discrimination against specific people, but the issue of censoring anything that is "hateful" is one that deserves considerable space in Wikipedia - and indeed, everywhere.

While "freedom of expression" is an issue of importance to everyone, a particular instance of it being limited (which is permissible in certain circumstances) is not necessarily, as most people do not engage in hate propaganda.

I don't believe Canadians of any political stripe have been "galvanized" by this issue. This is not so much an issue of "leftists" supporting the CHRC as it is one of the CHRC doing, well or badly, what the law asks of it. The law itself has stayed on the books for 30 years through both Conservative and Liberal governments. You are overstating the importance of the controversy.

I cannot address all the charges you level at the Commission, nor could I because I am not an expert on this subject. However, the very partisan nature of the material in the article is evident to anyone. It is drawn in large part from partisan sources, and cherrypicks those facts that make a case against the Commission and Section 13 of the HRA. (For example, it omits mention of the fact that Section 13 was upheld by the Supreme Court or any of the rationale for that.) It mixes opposition to the law itself and criticism of the Commission. Joeldl (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Right - the law has been on the books for over 30 years. However, it is only recently that it has been applied to printed material in mainstream media outlets - that is what the controversy is about (and it is a big controversy).

Second, the fact that one of the CHRC's chief investigator's believes that "freedom of speech" has no value is certainly notable since this man has the power to investigate anyone he thinks is "offensive."

Third, you accuse me of cherrypicking facts. By all means, cite evidence that contradicts what is in this article. If you want to put positive information on the CHRC into this articel - then do so. I won't stop you - in fact, I encourage you to do so.

Fourth, contrary to what you might think, this issue has galvanized a large number of Canadians who have expressed concern that the CHRC is going to far by, in their opinion, entertaining nonesense that would never be considered by a real court. Keep in mind that if Maclean's was really as racist and evil as the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) claims, then the CIC would have filed a civil lawsuit or filed a request with the police to charge Maclean's with a hate crime (incitement of hate is illegal under Canadian Law). The fact that the CIC is using the CHRC to harass Maclean's has led to concern by many Canadians that the Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Law is too board in scope.

You claim that most people do not engage in "hate speech" - but this issue deals exactly with that - What is "hate speech" and when and how the CHRC have the authority to try and censor material that is not considered "hate speech" under civil or criminal law. That is the question - and that it way this article is accurate.

Again - feel free to add material that protrays the CHRC in a positive light. I doubt anyone will complain. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC))