Category: Rights

That’s how we like to think of ourselves, isn’t it? Wonderful Canada, a towering bastion of the Championing Of Human Rights® and a shining example for the other nations of the world. Gives us all a warm, fuzzy, self-satisfied kind of feeling, doesn’t it? We just love to think of ourselves and being the ones to whom others look to for guidance; that we set a great example for others to follow.

Well, it turns out that we’re setting an example, all right; just not in the way that we’d like to think we are. It seems that there’s a lot of talk across dinner tables in the Cayman Islands about us. It seems some bunch down there calling themselves that “People’s Progressive Movement” (always beware of any cadre with the word “progressive” in their name) is proposing some changes to their constitution and, just the way we like it, plenty of people in the Islands are pointing to our example.

The problem is, they’re pointing to us as an example of what NOT to do (emphasis and commentary are mine, of course)…

More than a dozen members of Cayman’s clergy attended a meeting organised by the United Democratic Party concerning the constitutional changes proposed by the People’s Progressive Movement.

Of particular concern to the clergy in the proposed changes is having a Bill of Rights enshrined in the new Constitution and the constitutional establishment of a Human Rights Commission. […]

Mr. Glidden said there were two ways Cayman could codify the UN Conventions on Human Rights; either through local legislation or by enshrining a Bill of Rights in the new Constitution. He pointed out that the Constitution would be much more difficult to change if the people of the Cayman Islands ever decided they wanted to change some aspect of the Bill of Rights.

Reverend Nicholas Sykes spoke about his concerns about the formation of a Human Rights Commission, the provision for which is proposed by the PPM to be included in the new constitution.

Mr. Sykes said the proposed Bill of Rights and its related quasi–legal structures “are likely to affect us at the deepest levels of our lives” [you have NO idea how much, Nick -D].

Referring to page 13 of the PPM’s Explanatory Notes to the Summary of Proposals with regard to the constitution changes, Mr, Sykes noted document states the new Human Rights Commission would, in addition to seeking to ensure that human rights are respected, “also help individuals with credible complaints about breaches of human rights by mediating those disputes or, if necessary, help them bring their complaints to the courts or other appropriate bodies [sound familiar? -D].”

Mr. Sykes drew attention to the “other appropriate bodies” part of the statement and said he would give examples of the workings of other appropriate bodies and particular Human Rights Commission elsewhere in the western world.

“I can assure you that justice in the eyes of these newly–conceived bodies has been quite unlike the justice to which we are accustomed,” he said. “I suspect, though we are not told, that chief among the other appropriate bodies being referred to in the [Explanatory] Notes would be an arm of the new Human Rights Commission itself. That is the way it works elsewhere.”

In addition to calling the stated proposed purpose of the Human Rights Commission – “to ensure that human rights are being respected”– a utopian measure that seeks to conform to international treaties and to the Bill of Rights, Mr. Sykes said the system would be one–sided.

“The function of the commission and any related appropriate bodies is to assist the complainant, to assist the bringing of complaints, to help individuals with credible complaints about breaches of human rights,” he said. “What about the other side of the issue? The literature given to us does not dignify the one being complained against with a description. Let me call him the defendant. All the assistance goes to the complainant, but where is the assistance given to the defendant?

“The system is one–sided, and in this matter alone, is offensive to a reasonable person’s sense of justice.” […]

“Personally, I would go further and say that the social experiment in human rights that Britain and the European countries have engaged in has been an unparalleled disaster for them.”

Mr. Sykes detailed several cases taken on by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.

“In [Human Rights Commission] the defendant’s right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law and by simply agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.” [pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it? -D]

Mr. Sykes said over half all of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions “hate crime” cases have been brought by one person who was a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. […]

“This is the sort of madness you’ll face in Cayman if [the Bill of Rights] comes,” he said. […]

Mr. Ebanks warned that many of the judges and other who would interpret a Bill of Rights in Cayman would be coming from countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, where post–modern thinking is widely accepted.

So there you have it. In a nutshell: “After the unholy mess that these Miniluvs have made of people’s rights in Canada and elsewhere, you want to bring them here?!? Are you mad!?!”

The worst part of all this is, that they’re absolutely right. These Leftist bureaucratic abominations have done more to run roughshod over people’s rights than anything else in free western history that I can think of. I, for one, am more than a little embarrassed to find that another free state within the Commonwealth is finding themselves looking to us, not as an example of the heights to which they may aspire, but rather the depths to which they can sink. Caymanians would be wise indeed to pay close heed to the words of warning of at least one Canadian, who wrote in a recent letter to the editors of the Cayman Compass:

Speaking as a Canadian, I would strongly urge all your readers to pay heed to Mr. Sykes and avoid any notion of a bill of rights like the plague.

Twenty–five years of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has done nothing but diminish the freedom of Canadians to speak their mind and associate with whom they wish, and turn what were once the assumed rights of Englishmen into privileges to be decided by ever more intrusive government meddlers.

The recent Internet videos showing the ordeal of Ezra Levant before one of our provincial Human Rights Commissions has made a laughingstock of Canada; Mr. Calder is entirely correct in describing it as madness.

I don’t know if anyone from the Cayman Islands ever comes by here or not but if they do, I cannot suggest strongly enough that they heed the warnings of men like Messrs. Sykes and Ebanks. They clearly have your best interests at heart and even if they didn’t, their actions cannot but be of benefit to you in the long run.

Trust me on this one. I come from a land that has learned this bitter lesson the hard way.

… for any MPs that happen to stop by here.

No further commentary needed, really. This guy says it quite well all on his own.

No, not the band; ME! That’s right, I’m better than Ezra!

Chew on this, Levant… 😛

Ezra Levant seems to think he’s all hot stuff just because he managed to video tape a little interview that he had with an HLC Inquisitorâ„¢ somewheres out in Wild Rose Country and managed to slap it up in bits and pieces on YouTube. Well, la-dee-da. Isn’t that special?

Sit back and relax, ladies & gents, as I prove once and for all that I am, in fact, Better Than Ezra. It’s my very first real scoop, dontcha know? Unlike Ezra — who just managed to tape a little preliminary thingamawhatever — I have gotten my hands on… wait for it…

Actual footage of a complete Human Lefts Commission hearing!!

Yes, you read that right; the entire proceedings from beginning to end! If this doesn’t convince people that we need to get rid of these things, nothing will. And yes, the footage is authentic. I have personally conducted exhaustive research and fact-checking on this (20 minutes of surfing and 11 hours, 40 minutes to get through 3/4 of a case of Moosehead) and I can assure you that that is, in fact, Richard Warman. Don’t take my word for it, though; see it for yourself and gasp in awe of my journalistic sleuthing skills:

What the fiddlesticks is an “HLC,” you ask? Why, I’m talking about Canada’s infamous Human Lefts Commissions®, of course. Sure, that’s not what they call themselves; they like to call themselves “Human Rights Commissions.” I don’t call them that, though (or, to be more honest, I can’t call them that; not with a straight face, anyway).

I’ve grumbled about these things before. The simple fact of the matter is that they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with human rights! What they are about is, trampling people’s long-established –not to mention hard-fought– rights and liberties and ramming a dystopian, leftist agenda down the throats of the Canadian public, whether they want it or not.

By now, just about everybody’s heard about the funhouse rides that Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and MacLean’s Magazine have been dragged into by these kangaroo kourts. What you probably haven’t heard about (unless you’re a bit of a wonk for stuff like this, the way I am) are all the ordinary folks that have been beaten over the head over the years with this state-sanctioned blunt instrument. By “ordinary folks,” I mean the kinds of people that don’t have the buttloads of money and resources required to stand up to these Ministry Of Love bullies when they get dragged into Room 101. Traditionally, those have been the favourite targets of the HLC thugs. The reasoning is simple, really: like all bullies, they prefer prey that isn’t likely to be able to fight back.

You see, plaintiffs in HLC cases have all their bills picked up for them by the state (i.e., by your tax dollars and mine, whether you approve of what’s being done or not). The condemned, however, is entirely on the hook for every penny of his defense, whether he wins or not. We’re not talking chump change here, either: fighting off an HLC inquisition runs up a bill in the tens of thousands of dollars. That’s just if you win (not that anyone ever has; Miniluv has a 100% conviction rate). The process itself is a punishment before you’re even “convicted” of whatever the hell it is that you’re guilty of supposed to have done.

As if that weren’t bad enough, they only do anything about complaints that fit in line with their personal ideologies. That’s right: they pick and choose who they do and don’t listen to based on nothing more than their own personal prejudices! No guidelines enforced, no oversight, no accountability. Nothing. No rule of law, here; just a few little pisspot tyrants running their little fiefdom any way they damned well please. Ezra Levant points this out himself today in a pretty damn good post, titled “How the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the rule of law (with my own emphasis added, of course):”

Andrew Guille filed a “hate messages” complaint with the CHRC. He complained that a website called Recomnetwork.org, run by an “anti-hate” group, contained hateful messages that contravened section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, by discriminating against people based on race, colour, national origin, religion and sexual orientation.

So what happened? Did the “anti-hate” group in question, with all of the bigoted remarks on their website, become the first defendant ever to be acquitted in a section 13 trial? Or did Guille pull a Richard Warman — slam-dunk a bigoted website and collect a few thousand dollars for bringing the complaint to the CHRC’s attention?

Neither, actually. The CHRC refused to take the matter to a tribunal hearing, ruling it a frivolous complaint. But look at the grounds upon which this complaint was dismissed: Andrew Guille, said CHRC investigator Dean Steacy, is the “sibling of both Melissa and Chris Guille”, who Steacy implies are racist. Steacy — whose job it is to investigate complaints of bigotry — indeed conducted an investigation. But not into the website and its hate messages. He investigated Guille himself. Steacy met with Sgt. Don McKinnon of the London Police Force to get the low-down on Guille; he spoke with “anti-hate” activists with their own axes to grind and books to sell. None of this was done under oath; none of this was done with Guille there to cross examine his defamers (or to challenge McKinnon’s right as a government employee to disclose Guille’s personal information without permission). But even those offensive procedures aren’t the point: the point is the CHRC simply wouldn’t accept a complaint from someone they didn’t like, for the most tenuous and circumstantial reasons.

Even if their hunches and their gossip was right — even if Guille was, himself, a racist — so what? If a website is bigoted, isn’t it the CHRC’s job (an immoral job, an improper job, but their job nonetheless) to investigate it? Does the offensiveness of the site in question depend on the character of the complainant? Is the question of whether the Canadian Human Rights Act, a law of Parliament, is violated depend on who brings an alleged offence to the attention of the commission?

Compare that sloppy, vindictive, capricious standard to the aforementioned lengths real police and real prosecutors go to, to ensure that the law is applied evenly to all citizens. What Steacy has done here is exactly the kind of arbitrariness the rape shield law was designed to prevent. If a prostitute complains that she was raped, it is improper for the police to say “she has no standing to complain about rape” or “we know that, in the past, she has consented to sex with strangers — no use investigating.” An even more exact analogy would be if a convicted rapist complained of having in turn been raped himself. That would not excuse the police from ignoring the rapist’s own complaint.

The CHRC isn’t governed by the rule of law. It is governed by the whimsy of men — in this case, Dean Steacy, who himself admits to making anonymous posts on bigoted websites.

Say whatever you like about Ezra Levant, but you have to give him credit for being a man that sticks to his principles even if it turns his stomach. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Ezra, as a Jew, found the thought of speaking up for a “white nationalist’s” rights to be a little… shall we say, distasteful? [Come to think of it, there’s probably more than a few chuckles to be had over what Guille might think about being defended by an Agent Of ZOGâ„¢, but those’re some giggles we can save for later.]

I don’t think Ezra’s too worried about that, though. He’s likely thinking about another fellow; one named Pastor Martin Niemöller. You might have heard of him. After 1937, Niemöller was imprisoned in the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau. He wrote something very profound, that goes something like this:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

In case you think Ezra’s making stuff up, here’s a .pdf of an internal CHLC document for you (taken from his site). There’s also Connie Fournier’s two cents over at Free Dominion.

Then, there’s one other little thing that Ezra mentioned today: besides being wannabe Orwellian totalitarians, they’re also a bunch of God damned racists! No, Ezra didn’t put it quite in those words, but I just did and if some HLC out there doesn’t like it, well…

What Ezra did do was to put up a link to a chart compiled by Marc Lemire (you can get it here, too) and make a very simple observation. The chart lists every section 13 decision up until November of 2007. What Ezra observed was the ethnicity of the respondents. There it was, over and over again: white, white, white, white, white… over and over again. The name “Richard Warman” pops up a hell of a lot, too (but that’s another post).

Come to think of it, I’m going to start a running tally of reasons to get rid of the HLCs altogether. If nothing else, it’ll give me something to do in my spare time (which I have too much of right now, anyway). So, what do we have so far?

1. They only support Leftist causes (sound familiar?).
2. The complainer gets all costs paid while the accused is forced to pay out of pocket (again: familiar?).
3. The very process itself IS a punishment.
4. The conviction rate is 100%!! (No, I’m not making that up) I don’t think even the Gestapo managed to pull that one off.
5. They plant fabricated evidence and willfully use it against the accused.
6. They only prosecute people of one race.
7. The rules change from case to case, as needed to ensure that the accused’s rights are properly violated.
8. Truth is not a defense.

How is it that I just know that that list’s just going to get longer?

Hey, kids.

Not a whole lot of time for shooting my mouth off this morning so, instead, I’ll just point you over to a damned good post by Hunter over at Climbing Out Of The Dark that I just tripped over.

Ever since the passing of Bill C-484, the usual feminazi, pro-infanticide suspects have been screeching about how the Big Bad Toriesâ„¢ are wrecking Canada’s abortion laws (as if we had any). Well, Hunter takes these assholes to task. And for the record: Hunter’s a chick, so you can take your little Patriarchy Oppressionâ„¢ argumentum ad hominem and put it back in your pants…

Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act had some help in passing into committee, Liberals 27, NDP 1, Bloq 0, Ind 1, Conservatives 120. Not one of those Liberals, NDP or Independents were female, NOT ONE!

ALL Liberal, Bloq and NDP Females voted AGAINST, and one Conservative female. SHAME! They cry about having more women as MP’s, well if this is what we get, no thanks.

Click the link and keep on reading. It’s worth it.

Well, this dude’s managed to bash the nail right on the head, hasn’t he? (a big ol’ tip o’ the toque to Hunter for bringing this to my attention in the first place) Now, if someone could just explain to me why it is that this Brit seems so much more concerned with our freedom of speech than most of the Canucks that I bump into lately…

I’ve been bitching and bellyaching for a long time about the abuses delivered by Canada’s infamous Human Lefts Commissions. Yes, you read that right: “Lefts” commissions. Calling them “rights” commissions is sheer stupidity requiring mental acrobatics of doublethink that would give George Orwell a nasty hangover. These commissions have nothing to do with human rights. What they’re about is trampling people’s rights in order to promote Leftist ideology.

This guy seems to have that figured out; why don’t the rest of us?