Wednesday, January 23, 2008

MARK STEYN: "Human rights" for me but not for thee



"Human rights" for me but not for thee





Tuesday, 22 January 2008

Just to clarify, I have no interest in Richard Warman except insofar as he illustrates, at best, the superfluousness of Section 13 (if this provision is so necessary to Canadians, how come this one lone Canadian has been a plaintiff on every single Section 13 case since 2002?) and, at worst, the corruption of its administration by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. However, I was struck by a couple of things in this decision by the CHRC. This is the case of Kulbashian vs Warman from 2006. In essence, Warman had taken Kulbashian to the CHRC and Kulbashian retaliated by taking Warman to the CHRC. After all, Warman posts message at the same "hate" website Kulbashian does - as the "investigator", Sandy Kozak, conceded, technically:

Bearing the above in mind, this complaint is not clearly lacking in merit as the respondent [Warman]'s actions do amount to communicating hate messages albeit in a very limited context.

Hmm. However, Investigator Kozak declined to proceed with the complaint on the following grounds. Since filing it, Mr Kulbashian had been found guilty by the Tribunal in the Warman vs Kulbashian Section 13 case. Therefore, Investigator Kozak concluded:

Given these findings by the Tribunal, it can be deduced that the complainant [Kulbashian] is not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act or of s.13.

Do I understand that right? Because Kulbashian had been found "guilty" of Section 13 "hate", he had no right to accuse anybody else of Section 13 "hate"? Because his conviction demonstrated that he was "not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act", he had no right to avail himself of its provisions?

Whatever happened to equality before the law? Suppose I decide to countersue, say, the Canadian Islamic Congresss and the Osgoode Four - Elmo's kids - because they've exposed me to "hatred and contempt". And suppose, while that complaint was being considered, the CIC/Maclean's suit was decided (as it almost certainly will be) in the plaintiffs' favour. Would the CHRC then deny me the right, as the author of the offending Section 13 "hate" speech, the right to make a complaint under Section 13? Would the fact that I have said repeatedly that the CHRC should not be in the thought-police business be taken to demonstrate that I was "not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act" and therefore should have no recourse to it?

By the same token, if you call for the introduction of private health care to Canada, should you be denied treatment in the Royal Victoria?

This is joke jurisprudence made up as they go along. More on the extremely active "activist" here