Canadian Human Rights Commission a Waste of Effort

It's the newest cry of the liberal world; Human Rights...in a democracy! Ok, now maybe I am just your 'typical' right-wing nut-job whose had too much read meat and is perpetually ready to jump down the throat of the nearest Left-wing wacko and choke him from the inside, but WHY do we need to worry about 'human rights' in a democracy?? The reason we have a democracy is BECAUSE we respect human rights. Where then do some wack-jobs go about 'demanding' human rights?

Ok, no democracy is perfect and there is always the risk of dictatorship if one is not careful. It has happened before in democracies of the past, namely Weimar Germany and even post-Imperial Russia during the Bolshevik Coup in November, 1917. But they are hardly exemplary and the circumstances surrounding their fall into totalitarianism are more exceptions to the rule than the rule itself.

Indeed, a Human Rights Tribuneral or a 'commission,' as it is sometimes called, would hardly have prevented this from happening as these bodies, in order to operate, would require a level of indulgence by the governing authorities. Totalitarian regimes would never allow this as it would undermine their authority and their political underpinnings. They might 'sign on' to the UN Charter on Human Rights, as virtually all police states then extant did when it was proposed in the late 70's - early 80's. But that is far different than actually allowing Official Human Rights observers to enter and operate within the territory they control.

So, ironically, in countries like Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria, and any number of Islamic states (including erstwhile allies Saudi Arabia), where human rights are clearly a joke and where a Human Rights Tribuneral/Commission might actually do some good, they can't even operate. But in free democratic states, where they CAN and DO operate, they are, essentially, redundant since human rights and liberties are guaranteed by any number of constitutional or legal provisions.

The other problem is scope. In totalitarian or close societies, the people who operate these bodies and organizations are aiming to either work with and/or modify the policies that genuinely violate what has been determined as 'human rights.' They have too, because any suggestion of toppling or overthrowing the host regime or the regime they are criticizing, will lead to charges of "meddling in domestic affairs or stability." That could result in consequences as grave and unpleasant as gave rise to the criticism of that regime's human rights record in the first place.

In western democracies, however, where human rights groups are given virtual free reign, if not legitimized by legislation, the scope of their activities changes. Now instead of battling for BASIC human rights, such as personal privacy, freedom of speech and expression, freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure, as well as due process before legitimate courts of law, and the right to elect their government via secret ballot, they have engaged in social engineering!

Take the so-called Human Rights Commission in Canada. According to its website, http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/default-en.asp, "The Canadian Human Rights Commission administers the Canadian Human Rights Act and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Employment Equity Act. Both laws ensure that the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination are followed in all areas of federal jurisdiction."

The Human Rights Act itself, at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/chra/en/consultation.html, says "The Canadian Human Rights Act works with other laws to protect human rights. The Act applies to federal private businesses as well as the Government of Canada. In contrast, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also prohibits discrimination and protects rights, but only applies to governments. Each province and territory also has a human rights act that covers businesses and organizations within their jurisdiction. For example, discrimination in housing and other types of accommodation would be brought to a provincial or territorial human rights commission.

The Act creates the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Commission is an independent body. Its primary responsibility is to investigate and resolve individual complaints of discrimination and to educate the public. The Act also creates an independent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. If the Commission cannot resolve a complaint, it may send the matter to the Tribunal.

A Tribunal has the power to conduct a hearing, review evidence and make a decision on whether or not discrimination occurred. The Tribunal has the power to.3 order compensation such as, money, reinstatement and preventative measures for the future."

After reading through this politically-charged gobble-de-goop, I have personally come to despise the whole 'Human Rights Commission' process, and consider it nothing more that a sop to degenerate, politically-correct activists and self-serving Leftist groups, professional whiners, and hypocrites (sorry, my 'warm and fuzzy' side just showed up).

IN an 'earlier life' (i.e. when I was a reporter) I dealt with plenty of these sorts people and found them to be some of the most shallow, self-centered, myopic, creeps you can imagine. They love flattery, love agreeableness, and believe they are the 'light' in some kind of perpetual neo-Fascist darkness. They also feel it is their God-given mission to educate dumb-guys like you and me, with what I have always felt was some kind of Socialist 'nobless oblige.'

Patronizing, dogmatic, ideological, and sure of their own importance, these poster-boys and girls for social engineering are a perfect example of "affirmative action" run amuck. Many of those who sit on these "commissions" (every province has one) are not even qualified for the positions they ASSume and appear to have achieved their status on them through some kind politically-correct chicanery to demonstrate our government's commitment to 'diversity' to the rest of us.

One person of this ilk that comes immediately to mind (though I hope she never sits on a Human Rights Commission), is Sunera Thobani, the Marxist theologian and one-time head the National Action Committee on the Status of Women in Canada, a group that draws tax dollars from your pocket and mine, in order to denigrate the society they live in. Professor/Dr. Thobani wasn't even a Canadian citizen when she ASSumed leadership of that body in 1993, although it was 'hailed' as a tremendous leap in progress for women, for the sole fact, it appears, that she is/was 'woman of colour.'

Yet it was this was the same twit, however, that virtually blamed the US for the attacks of 9/11 and accused them of spreading imperialism and evil throughout the world. In her speech (the full text of which can be seen at http://www.casac.ca/conference01/conf01_thobani.htm), Thobani said "US foreign policy is soaked in blood. And other countries of the West including shamefully Canada, cannot line up fast enough behind it. All want to sign up now as Americans and I think it is the responsibility of the women's movement in this country to stop that, to fight against it. These policies are hell-bent on the West maintaining its control over the world's resources. At whatever cost to the people.... Pursuing American corporate interest should not be Canada's national interest. This new fight, this new war against terrorism, that is being launched, it's very old. And it is a very old fight of the West against the rest."

Blah blah blah. Heck, with a bit more time and effort I could have written the speech for her, and with better and more credible language too! The problem is that, like all Leftists, Thobani aims for a higher moral ground while stepping on the people who might actually help her reach it. In other words, she is not interested in the agenda of 'the people' that she claims to support (or to actually represent), but in her OWN.

The same, I fear, is also true of the Human Rights Commission and other such groups. Wrapped up in their own importance and shielded, in Canada's case, by laws that have turned them into a virtual Thought Gestapo, they have ceased to protect the right granted us by our forefathers and have, instead, gone to work to impose a near-Marxist Utopian World view on us.

That said, I'm sure Human Rights Commissions in democratic states have 'some' merit (of course even Communism and Fascism had 'some' merit too) but not enough, in my eyes, to continue to fund these commissions when the only thing they do is waste our money on politically-motivated witch hunts. In-efficient, and rife with bleeding-heart Leftists and doped-out morons best left in the 60's and forgotten, even when they DO make a ruling, it is hardly the end of the matter and often requires a resort to the proper legal system in order for proper redress (read JUSTICE) to be attained.

So what then is their use? What then is the purpose in funding such bodies? In a free and truly democratic society, such as ours, very little; unless, of course, one wants to justify passing legislation that appeals to the very small and self-centered minority that they truly represent. In a totalitarian or closed society, they cannot even operate, nor act effectively. Yet, by allowing these nests of Leftists to have a well-funded perch in our free and democratic societies, by allowing them blab off and adjudicate so-called 'human rights issues' based on some clearly drug-induced Marxist-Utopian notions instead of those reasonable and conservative processes that have marked the development of our democracy, they virtually guarantee it's overthrow FROM WITHIN; the way Weimar Germany's and post-Imperial Russia's nascent democracies were.

This is the final and sickest irony. In a society without human rights, groups and bodies are vital, but cannot operate. In free democracies like ours, they are legal and freely operate, thus undermining their need to exist in the first place. And while it is immensely desirable that the citizens of totalitarian/closed societies to experience genuine freedom and liberty, even to the overthrow of their oppressive regimes, that is not the case within an already existent legitimately democratic society such as ours; that's what our legal system and constitutions are for and guarantee.

Infact, it is to the establishment and stability of such regimes that human rights groups should and must work towards. Once achieved, however, they become redundant and must either step aside or pushed aside, not entrenched in law the way they are in Canada and other misguided societies like ours.

Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses