Canadian Human Rights Commission vs Conservatism

[Mark Fournier]

Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
July 21, 2007

<center>Canadian Human Rights Commission vs Conservatism
Why we fight and how we’ll do it</center>

To state the obvious, Free Dominion is not a hate site. The irony is rich in that a website that was set up to combat the liberal hatred of liberty is now being accused of inciting hatred itself. But it’s not in the least bit surprising, in fact, it was inevitable. Liberals must try to silence conservatives because they cannot compete with conservatives in the marketplace of ideas.

Enter, the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a perfect example of something that shouldn’t be allowed to exist in a free society. Its primary function is to provide liberals with power they cannot legitimately wield. Dressed up as a part of the legal system, the Canadian Human Rights Commission operates completely outside of natural law, yet it has the power to impose its decisions upon Canadians (as individuals and as a people) as if its decisions were legislatively empowered. Every one of their decisions effectively ‘writes law’ as potent as legitimate laws passed in the House of Commons.

It is essential that people understand that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is entirely a political instrument. Its transparent window-dressing as an arm of the law is cosmetic only.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s record of attacking conservatives and conservatism speaks for itself. What they did to one of their latest victims, Scott Brockie, was unconscionable, but the outcry his case engendered was not powerful enough to discourage the CHRC. They are now moving further up the conservative food chain and are going after non-establishment conservative political leaders and conservative websites.

This has gone on as long as it has because we, as conservatives, have allowed it to happen. Unless we draw a line in the sand, they will not stop. Why should they? They are only carrying out their true mandate.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has apparently decided to draft Free Dominion to stand across the line from them.

We will answer their call.

To understand this coming battle we must first examine the terrain. As with all these standoffs between the CHRC and conservatives, much of the battle will be fought behind closed doors where few normal checks and balances apply. Playing on their field by their rules is a losing proposition, so we are going to take the battle to the people of Canada and beyond.

The CRHC has virtually unlimited resources at its disposal and a cimmera of legality with which to clothe itself. It has an impressive array of firepower, though much of it is to a free society what nerve gas is to war. Its problem is that its opponent has no physical reality (outside of a server in America and the backup copies that exist). Free Dominion is much more than a database in a computer somewhere, it is an idea, an expression of a political philosophy that we have chosen to call principled conservatism.

It is apparent from the nature of the complaint, and the CRHC’s participation in its execution, that the goal is the silencing of Free Dominion. The only thing certain in all this is that that isn’t going to happen. The reason that I can say that with such certainty is the Canadian Human Rights Commission doesn’t have the power to silence Free Dominion.

The second part of this battle is going to be waged on the internet and in other media and the real judges will be the people of Canada, and beyond, who we will treat to a grand tour of the CHRC. The CHRC wields total power behind closed doors, but they wield none in the marketplace of ideas provided by the internet, and that’s where we will fight the second war.

We have taken long term strategic measures against this day and we are implementing tactical procedures in preparation for what is to come. In this part of the war the CHRC will be playing on our turf, and in the marketplace of ideas they are at a distinct disadvantage.

What we are witnessing here is the inevitable result of the culmination of incremental chains conservatives have allowed liberals to impose on us all. This had to happen because we allowed the groundwork to be laid. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t view this as an opportunity to turn the tide.

Principled conservatives understand what is at stake here, and they understand how we got here and where we, as a nation, went wrong along the way. This battle the CHRC has drafted us into will cover many fundamental ideas and concepts and will clearly show the perversity of having an institution on the loose that operates above the law. With the internet we now have the ability to bring these many concepts right into the homes of Canadians.

Let the dialogue begin. Our country will be a better place for it.

[Fabulous Fred]

There are many faint hearted warriors here E2. Perhaps that will change as time passes.

[Mr. Valentine]

The point that should be emphasized in this case is that the CHRC sent a letter demanding a reply within two days of allegations that were not even detailed.

They opened the fight with that huge mistake. It should and hopefully will, haunt them.

[virgey]

Hopefully if enough people take up the fight against this trampling of freedom, we can eradicate this cancer called "The Canadian Human Rights Commission". I find it hard to type the words "human rights" which makes up part of the title of the commission's name which is actively fighting against human rights.

[politics101]

Hopefully if enough people take up the fight against this trampling of freedom, we can eradicate this cancer called "The Canadian Human Rights Commission". I find it hard to type the words "human rights" which makes up part of the title of the commission's name which is actively fighting against human rights.

The CHRC is a lot like radical feminnism and unions. In theory they serve a relevant puropose, yet have become too big and bloated for its own good.

[bulldog905]

Well written, and to the point, ES.

I can only add that it is an assault on liberty, freedom of speech, and association as well.

[Yoda]

Hopefully if enough people take up the fight against this trampling of freedom, we can eradicate this cancer called "The Canadian Human Rights Commission". I find it hard to type the words "human rights" which makes up part of the title of the commission's name which is actively fighting against human rights.

The CHRC is a lot like radical feminnism and unions. In theory they serve a relevant puropose, yet have become too big and bloated for its own good.

In a free and open society a "human rights commision" would not exist because rights are in spite of government, not because of government.

[Fabulous Fred]

Hopefully if enough people take up the fight against this trampling of freedom, we can eradicate this cancer called "The Canadian Human Rights Commission". I find it hard to type the words "human rights" which makes up part of the title of the commission's name which is actively fighting against human rights.

The CHRC is a lot like radical feminnism and unions. In theory they serve a relevant puropose, yet have become too big and bloated for its own good.

In a free and open society a "human rights commision" would not exist because rights are in spite of government, not because of government.

Quite right!

Our rights are intrinsic, the lefties are working hard at making them extrinsic through the U.N. and globalization. Our governments are cooperating. This is subversion in the truest meaning of the word. The USA is suffering this intrusion every bit as much and likely more than Canadians are.

[politics101]

If it wasn't for government stepping it at some level we'd still live in a society dominated by heterosexual white Christian males (which I am one) but want no part of that kind of world. All I'm saying is they have taken a step too far. Been saying that for years though.

[Anyman]

This has gone on as long as it has because we, as conservatives, have allowed it to happen. Unless we draw a line in the sand, they will not stop.

I stated this several times on this forum before I was banned. Conservatives should have fought back hard from the moment the first "nazi" was silenced, and never let up. But people just sat on the sidelines because their opinions weren't being silenced, it was just some "freak" on the fringe.

I don't think the majority of the people on this forum will put up much of a fight for free speech. But I do hope that the ones that do care about this very important issue will pick up the slack. And I hope that Connie and Mark don't back down. Even though I have been banned (Grody), I will be sending an anonymous cash donation to help out. And if the battle wages on, I will continue to donate the money that I used to give the Conservative party.

Good luck

[bulldog905]

The poster above has a point.

Once you establish the principle of the suppression of non-violent or non-libelous free speech, the rest is mere details.

Sort of like prostitution: once the fact is established, the rest is all about the $.

The term "slippery slope" wasn't come up with for nothing.

[leewgrant]

This is a PM I just posted in response to a query. I think it can be aired publicly:

My background and experience is solely at the federal level. I have participated in many complaints and also have been the target of some. My background is business and I have never initiated a complaint.

The CHRC has cleaned up its act considerably over the past few years. That is partially due to a scathing report on the Commission by the Auditor General in the late '90s and their implementation of many of the recommendations of the La Forest report (2000) examining the CHRA.

But the reality is that this Commission is run by people who are social activists and who would like to push the human rights envelope. At the senior level there are people who wish to run the Commission as non-confrontational and in a cooperative, inclusive way as possible but that is hard in a process that by its very nature is adversarial. And it is my opinion that the only conservatives in the loop in the CHRC consultation process are business types with no interest in socon matters.

Nothing can be done until the Commission itself has a more conservative hue. Rob Nicholson recently appointed Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. as the Chief Commissioner. There is nothing to suggest she is not qualified for the job but her background is too government oriented for my tastes. ( http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/ ... 31985.html ) Clearly she is someone who will carry on the status quo, not surprising with this government. And of course in appointing the other Commissioners (and above all) Tribunal chairs nothing will be achieved until these individuals are drawn from conservative ranks.

The Act has long been criticized for making the CHRC judge and jury as well as investigator. This is still true to a degree that calls its impartiality into question but any reform would require implementation of the La Forest recommendations requiring legislative action. That is not going to happen. Anyway La Forest made a number of other changes that I guarantee that conservatives would not like.

[virgey]

Hopefully if enough people take up the fight against this trampling of freedom, we can eradicate this cancer called "The Canadian Human Rights Commission". I find it hard to type the words "human rights" which makes up part of the title of the commission's name which is actively fighting against human rights.

The CHRC is a lot like radical feminnism and unions. In theory they serve a relevant puropose, yet have become too big and bloated for its own good.

In a free and open society a "human rights commision" would not exist because rights are in spite of government, not because of government.

Yes I agree, and very well said.

[Red Green]

First off, even if FD was a hate site, I would still support its right to exist even if I disagreed with the message.

The problem here is "hate speech" laws. Such a thing should never exist. The ability to hate and the freedom to express that should be protected as much as any political speech or religious expression.

I said it before on another thread but it's worth stating again; when govt seizes a particular power, it's not a question of whether the power will be abused, but when it will be abused.

[leewgrant]

First off, even if FD was a hate site, I would still support its right to exist even if I disagreed with the message.

The problem here is "hate speech" laws. Such a thing should never exist. The ability to hate and the freedom to express that should be protected as much as any political speech or religious expression.

I said it before on another thread but it's worth stating again; when govt seizes a particular power, it's not a question of whether the power will be abused, but when it will be abused.

That's one of the basic problems. So long as the Commission was dealing with discrimination it was in the area of (almost) cut and dried. Was Joe fired because of his race? Was Janey denied accommodation because of her sex?

But then things got murky - thanks to the courts (not the legislator) it entered the field of harassment and then the courts ruled that sex discrimination included sexual orientation. Then it got in the hate business. This has all caused trouble.

The CHRA is too blunt an instrument to deal with harassment. There are better legislative alternatives. Once you get into "hate" messages you are now restricting rights, not expanding them. And anything to do with gays is all politics.

And of course pay equity, a stupid concept that has caused the CHRC a shitload of grief.