I was talking to my good friend, Connie Fournier of Free Dominion, tonight about a few things. While I was mentioning the latest developments of my Access to Information Requests to the CHRC, we got on to the topic of how the Commission keeps itself busy and its bureaucrats employed. We all know what Barbara Hall thinks about the current light workload over at the OHRC. Based on Connie’s synopsis below, it seems that drumming up business is a definite necessity in keeping the Kangaroo Kourts hopping.
Check out this little business tour of the professionally aggrieved. It’s good to know that a government Victim Facilitator needs to poke his clients to ensure their human rights are not violated.
- Posted by PachecoIn June, 2007, the Warman/Lemire CHRC Tribunal heard the testimony of Harvey Goldberg, team leader for strategic initiatives for the CHRC.
Two significant documents were entered into evidence.
The first document is a report that Mr. Goldberg wrote to Ian Fine, Director General of the Knowledge Centre. The subject is: “Report on meetings in Toronto, June 29 to 30, 2006″.
Apparently, Mr. Goldberg attended three meetings in Toronto during that time period. The first was with a group called Ontario Government Hate Crimes Working Group. The group consisted of representatives from “a wide variety of religious and ethnic groups that are often victims of hate”. Their mandate was to report to the Attorney General of Ontario on best practices for combating hate.
Mr. Goldberg reported that the panel members had “little knowledge of section 13″. He went on to say, “A couple representatives of the Muslim community expressed concern that the threshold for hate was too high and that much of what they perceived as anti-Islamic comments in the media and elsewhere would not be included in the current definition of hate.” Goldberg continued, “They also questioned whether the Commission would accept complaints dealing with anti-Muslim sentiments. I assured them that the Commission was fully committed to fulfilling its mandate under section 13.”
Goldberg also assured another panel member that the Commission would welcome input from community groups.
Harvey Goldberg’s second meeting was with the Canadian Jewish Congress to discuss their initiative to “take proactive measures to ensure that the internet systems they (telecom executives) run do not knowingly include content that could contravene the Criminal Code or the CHRA”. Goldberg did not make a commitment as to the level of involvement of the CHRC in this project.
Mr. Goldberg finished his tour with a meeting with the Canadian Arab Federation where he briefed their representative on section 13. The Canadian Arab Federation representative “welcomed the Commission’s outreach on this issue, noting that the OHRC had been active on issues regarding anti-Arab and anti-Muslim issues but that he felt the CHRC had been quiet until now.”
The Canadian Arab Federation was assured that the Commission would we willing to provide a session on section 13 for CAF’s constituent organizations.
Goldberg finishes his letter by saying, “Overall I think this round of meetings was successful in the continuing process of networking with key stakeholders and of furthering the Commission initiatives in the areas of disability and hate on the Internet”.
The second document that was submitted in the Lemire hearing was a follow-up letter to the Canadian Arab Federation.
Goldberg says, “Thank you for meeting with me last week in Toronto. As we discussed, the Commission is very interested in working with any group of Canadians who may be victims, or potential victims, of hate on the Internet. We believe that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is an important tool in the fight against hatred in Canada”.
He also reiterates his desire to meet with their representatives to “brief them on section 13″.
So, why is a government employee taking a trip on our dime to try to drum up section 13 business for the CHRC? Is the Mark Steyn case a result of the Commission’s “outreach”?
As usual, it seems we are left with more questions than answers. (Source)
Connie and Mark have been doing a fantastic job of putting flesh on the skeleton of the CHRC. There is some very interesting material on Steyn’s site this am as well including this nugget from the Toronto Sun.
It seems from the Steyn post that many (including Binky) and a student (who has posted on the Western Standard) are compiling all the various anti-CHRC/OHRC articles.
The idea of a “War Council” might make some sense if only to coordinate the work and investigations such that there is no duplication of effort. There are many things that we still donot know.
Anyway – the article:
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.