One of things that's so angering about Human Rights Commissions is the people who make them up.
Commissioners—you know—the people who make all the decisions on whether or not you've impinged on someone's human rights? Well, have you ever taken the time to examine the kinds of people who make up these commissions?
Take the Ontario Human Rights Commission for example. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure all the people on the OHRC are fine people, but many of them are not even lawyers, nor have experience in mediation, or dispute resolution. They are appointed by an order-in-council, meaning by the Governor General or provincial Lieutenant Governor, who make the appointment at the behest of the prime minister or provincial premier.
No, they are not selected based on a system of objective merit. They are usually selected—like so many other government appointees—along partisan lines. They are patronage appointments.
Understand the type of power that these people have. They may not be able to throw you in jail, but they can certainly frisk you for money, or compel you to commit others acts against your will, such as rehire someone, apologize, install a white-noise generator, clearly mark the direction to Mecca in your office... things like that.
They go far beyond established jurisprudence for "reasonable accommodation" laid out by the courts. For example: the Employment Standards Act in Ontario allows for a probationary period before things like leave for pregnancy and other health related items that may impede your ability to perform you job, even fall under the auspices of the duty to accommodate provisions of the act.
This didn't stop the Ontario Human Rights Commission from fining a military weapons systems company for terminating a man, eight days after he was hired, for failing to disclose they he suffered from severe bipolar disorder, was subject to paranoid-manic episodes, and apparently required up to four months off work at a time. In fact, the person deteriorated into such a state that he became completely non-functional by the end of his first week.
Under Ontario labour codes, there is a 90-day probationary period which would generally protect said company against say, a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.
Instead, the OHRC decided that his termination violated his right to not be discriminated against based on his mental condition. This, despite the fact, he was working with weapon systems, under tight Department of National Defense contracts. But as the OHRC saw it: they should have hired said man, given him leave for four months, after only after a week on the job, hired a second person to replace him for the interim, effectively more-than-doubling their labour costs for the position and exceeding their contract budget—especially when training is factored in—and treat all underlying business considerations as irrelevant.
In real law, there are considerations for cases like this.
The Employment Standards Act has additional provisions to defend against wrongful dismissal in certain cases, even beyond the 90-day probationary period, such as undue hardship. Meaning, if accommodation would be severely damaging to the functioning of the business, that may be grounds for dismissal, or at least negate the need to provide a specific accommodation.
But once again, in HRC-land, the law does not apply.
As we've plainly seen, time and time again, Human Rights Commissions across this country, play by their own game. The commissioners are activists. Not judges. The law doesn't fit into their concepts of social justice.
Take Ruth Goba, of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Well, just read her biography:
"Ruth Goba is Women's Program coordinator and staff lawyer for the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA). She has taught disability issues at Ryerson University, and she clerked at ARCH: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities. Ms. Goba also worked in India on housing and land rights with both the Habitat International Coalition and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing. She was appointed to the Commission in October 2006."
Now, far be it from me to criticize someone for the admirable work of providing legal resources for people with disabilities. That's not what I'm criticizing. But don't you think it's reasonable to ask if someone—who's work in law has been principally motivated by a single political issue—may have trouble with objectivity when being presented with a case of relevant interest to that someone's political views?
Consider this quote of Ms. Goba's from the July 7th 2007, Toronto Star:
"Landlords are saying, `I'm not going to rent to you because you're on welfare. I'm not going to rent to you because you're black or you're aboriginal or because I don't want to modify my unit because you have a disability."
If you're not rented an apartment because you're black or aboriginal, then that's real discrimination. Fine. If I were in that situation, and I had real proof, I'd even try to sue (if I could afford it). This kind of thing is even something I support the HRCs being used for!
But on the third point, one might ask: if you're renting out your basement apartment, and a paralyzed individual shows up and demands you install a wheelchair ramp, at a potential cost of thousands of dollars, you might too be resistant. Especially if you can't afford it.
Remember those clauses about undue hardship in the law? Yeah, well they don't apply.
These commissions are making their own rules, motivated by the political agendas of those running them. And the rulings get nuttier and nuttier by the day. It's appalling how many rulings there have been, contrary to established laws and jurisprudence.
Repealing Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, designed to limit political speech, is a first and necessary step to curtailing the powers of these commissions of false justice. But it's becoming more and more apparent as we look deeper into how these commissions truly work, just how much reform these quasi-judicial bodies need, if not outright disbandment.
Karen Sellick has a great talk on Human Rights Commissions from last summer's Liberty Summer Seminar. Worth watching. (about 1:12:00)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=9136235613980772477
When I was completing the Bar admissions program we were subjected to several seminars on work place accommodation, given by idealogues like the one described above. Some of it was fair, but a lot of it was tremendously unfair to other employees. For example, if there was a psychological condition that made a job too demanding, then the job would be split so another employee - one whose experience and seniority had elevated them above this task - would have to share it. It didn't matter that other people had hopes and ambitions, and had paid their dues to climb up the ladder. Instead, they would be dragged down. And maybe that's what it's all about, isn't it?
In a "real" court of law, if a judge has a particular interest in the subject matter of the case, he can be recused from hearing it, and the task given to another judge.
Yet we have activists in the HRC who are hearing cases based directly on their particular activism fetish?
Ok.... under that Through the Looking Glass mentality, I would like to be put in charge of hearing cases on terror and Islamic immigration. Where do I sign up?
RG
"This, despite the fact, he was working with weapon systems, under tight Department of National Defense contracts."
Ya jumped the shark, Mikey boy. He wasn't testing "weapons systems", he was testing software. Better correct or I will spank you all weekend over this.
Better correct or I will spank you all weekend over this.
I'm looking forward to the modest bump in traffic.
BCL - since "weapons systems" can include "software" it would help if you identified just what sort of software the gentleman in question was working with. While "weapons systems" may be unjustified hyperbole (or may not...), I have trouble with the argument that an employer has an obligation to retain an employee in any capacity after a one-week period of employment when their suitability for employment was so greatly misrepresented in the hiring process. I have particular trouble when the most pertinent legislation has specific clauses dealing with the right to terminate within a short period after employment commences.
"He wasn't testing "weapons systems", he was testing software."
Spoken like someone who has not a clue about either subject.
Does anyone else want to Fisk that statement or shall I?
Smitty,
I can tell the difference between an artillery shell and a software program, beanhead.
He wasn't testing "weapons systems", he was testing software.
Software which happened to be part of a weapons system.
"OK, gentlemen, we need to test fire this system, the guidance control program of which was checked out by a man undergoing a paranoid psychotic episode. Any volunteers?"
BCL:
From the OFRC Decison: More particularly, the position that caught Mr. Lane’s attention was an ongoing project for the DND involving software for artillery used by the Canadian Armed Forces in training and in the field.
I'd call that "working with weapons systems" or "testing weapons systems" unless you have contrary knowledge, say that the software was for purposes not related to fire control, target acquisition, aiming (etc). I didn't read Mike's original text as indicating the presence of (personal) weapons in proximity to the bipolar employee, thus presenting the risk of inappropriate use, but as an indication of the critical importance of his work. This guy was not going to be checking for flaws in T-shirts; he was involved in development of equipment that would require life-and-death dependence by the Canadian Forces units that train or deploy with it.
Feel free to spank Mike all weekend, if that's your preference.
"If you're not rented an apartment because you're black or aboriginal, then that's real discrimination. Fine. If I were in that situation, and I had real proof, I'd even try to sue (if I could afford it). This kind of thing is even something I support the HRCs being used for!"
And you call yourself a libertarian? Don't you believe in freedom of association?
If you guys can't tell the difference between doing quality control on a piece of software that sits on a laptop and helps you aim your field guns, and tapping an artillary shell with a little red hammer to see if its live, then there's no arguing with that. But remember, Mike is trying to convince normal people that HRCs are bad, not the usual gang of right wing kooks. He won't be able to do this if he goes around mistaking the one for the other.
THIS, more than anything, is why Ezra's revolution is going nowhere.
(And here Mike is following Ezra, who first claimed the guy was testing artillary rather than artillary software.)
And you call yourself a libertarian? Don't you believe in freedom of association?
I call myself a civil libertarian to put a finer point on it. I think, ideally, that yes: we shouldn't need commissions like this at all. But I think that when it comes to housing and employment, which are foundations of basic livelihood in our society, discrimination for no other reason that racial, ethnic, sex or other preference should be subject to some form of redress.
When I say "redress", I don't mean from a crime per se. I don't think it's "criminal" to discriminate. But say that an employer refused to hire someone because they are black, even if they were the most qualified candidate. Then I think the argument could be made for civil action to redress that discrimination, in the form of a lawsuit or action by a regulatory body. Cases like this should be held to a high standard of evidence, however. That is to say: the decision by itself, not to employ said man, because he is black should not be grounds for action.
That being said, I don't believe that an employer should be compelled to hire the individual for no other reason than they are black, either.
I'm only advocating for equal-opportunity in employment and housing, based on merit.
It's really a tough issue, and it does have conflicts with my libertarianism. I acknowledge the need for modest social equity laws, but with seriously high standards of enforcement.
While I certainly don't want to endorse HRC in any way it never ceases to amaze me how employers/landlords get into trouble renting/hiring , etc.
As a former small business owner I cringe at the stupidity of telling someone they didn't get hired because they were old/black/stupid etc. Whatever happened to saying" sorry but we picked someone else" No reason has to be given.
I once had a JW working for me and it came time for Christmas bonuses. She said "sorry I can't accept the money cause I'm a JW" OK by me, I'll just put the money back in my pocket.
My daughter owns an apt. which she rents out. I help her with selecting the applicants. When we get an applicant we sumnit their name to a company that does background searchs.
Native indian, in the garbage. Welfare recpient-in the garbage. Bad credit history-in the garbage.
The weapons software tester is a good example of a company not doing the proper background check. I'm sure, had they checked, they would have found out this person was absent from work a LOT. Red flag-in the garbage.
Horny Toad
I assume Horny singles out Natives and Welfare Recipients to rent to because from experience he have found they high risk clients for not paying, bringing in 'friends' and relatives to live not on the lease, or worse, bringing in a boyfriend to create loud arguments and mayhem.
When gov't forces people to hire, keep, rent to, etc serve potential customers, regardless of even common sense discrimination between the likely 'good behaviors' and the likely 'bad', not only does it punish the 'good's' chance of getting a good apartment from a nice responsible person, but it forces risk onto a provider they do not want to take. Further, where to heck is the incentive for the bad behavior to ever change if NO discrimination of any kind is ever allowed?
Late to the party. However, Mike, I completely disagree with you that HRC's have any valid purpose, nor do most laws on "equality". For example, if someone wants to rent their basement suite to men only or women only, who cares, that's their business. People choose their doctors, their friends, their shops, their heroes on discrimiantory bases - big deal. However, assuming we're going to take away people's freedom of choice and association and have Animal Farm style equality laws, why should anyone get a free pass to legal redress? If I'm turned down for a job, or fired, because someone thinks I'm ugly or stupid, I have to hire a lawyer myself. Being turned down for one of these reasons is at least as personally insulting, if not more so, than an approved human rights reason - and leaves you just as badly off; the consequences to the individual are the same - without a job. I fail to see why discrimination as to sex, race, etc. is treated as so extraordinarily deserving it relieves individuals of all responsibility except to complain. If we're going to interfere with people's freedom, let the new class of supposed victims get serious with their own time and money and sue in court like anybody else.
More than who makes up the human rights commissions, is what most human rights commissions stand for. Whenever I hear about human rights commissions I run in the other direction. Most of them are in the business to deny us real human rights. You know like the right to life, the right to decide our children's education, the right to exercise our faith without being thrown in jail for political dissent or in America-a hate crime. Human rights activists are the most dangerous people on the planet and wouldn't know a true human right if it slapped them in the face.