HATE CRIME SERIES – 17

 

THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL                                                                     

THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT also created the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to judge the cases arising through the CHRC. The CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL (CHRT) is a special administrative tribunal directly funded by the Parliament of Canada and is independent of the CHRC which refers cases to it for “adjudication” under the Act. Adjudication simply defined is a formal and often assumed legally binding judgment about a disputed matter. But these judgments still potentially have further redress before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Before a case can be brought to The Tribunal it must go through several stages of investigation and remediation by The Commission. After this process is completed, if the parties are not satisfied, the case will go to The Tribunal.      A Guide To Understanding The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal holds hearings to investigate complaints of discriminatory practices and may order a respondent to a complaint to cease a practice as well as levy fines. Decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are reviewable by the Federal Court of Canada. Tribunal decisions upon review can then be further appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal through the Supreme Court of Canada. The Federal Court of Canada can also issue and enforce decisions made by The Tribunal if violations continue and imprison an offender for contempt of court if a decision continues to be disregarded. This has happened in the cases of John Ross Taylor in 1981 and Tomasz Winnicki in 2006.

If a complainant can show a valid case of discrimination the defendant can rebuke it by showing that their practice was for a justified reason. The process is generally known as the “Meiorin test” which is similar to the Oakes test justification in a Charter challenge. While these “tests” appear to make it necessary for The Tribunal to have proven its decisions correct beyond a reasonable doubt, such are not always the facts. The personal bias of those appointed Chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and its members cannot be overlooked in where judgments have evolved to. Neither can the personal bias of the persons given authority to act through the Tribunals and Commissions of the Provinces and Territories.

Provinces and Territories Human Rights Legislation

The provinces and territories all have human rights legislation and human rights commissions, except for British Columbia, which has a tribunal but no longer had a commission. The commission is however in stage process of being reinstated by the recently elected leftist government.

As a rule, the legislation forbids discrimination, in the absence of a lawful reason, on the basis of race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, creed, political opinion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted (hereinafter referenced as “common grounds”). As a rule, the legislation forbids discrimination in at least five contexts: accommodation, employment, the purchase of property, membership in unions and associations, and publications. The context of publications is where our issue of hate speech arises and the Provincial and Territorial Human Rights acts usually have provisions similar to the following.

Prince Edward Island‘s Human Rights Act, section 12:

(1) No person shall publish, display or broadcast, or permit to be published, displayed or broadcast on lands or premises, or in a newspaper or through a radio or television broadcasting station or by means of any other medium, any notice, sign, symbol, implement or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion upon any subject in speech or in writing.

A person who believes that his rights under a provincial or territorial human rights act have been violated may seek redress through a Human Rights Commission. As a rule, the commission receives a complaint and, if it appears to be within the commission’s jurisdiction, the commission investigates the matter. The commission may try to bring the complainant and the respondent to a settlement, or it may turn the issue over to an adjudicator. In practice, many complaints are successfully resolved through mediation.

THE OFFICE AND ROLE OF THE ADJUDICATOR

Differences between the provinces and territories appear in the authority granted to an adjudicator and in the amounts prescribed for compensation and penalties. All adjudicators have the authority to order a respondent to cease any contravention of the human rights legislation, and not to engage in any contravention from the date of the order. All adjudicators have the authority to order that the respondent compensate the complainant for any loss occasioned by the respondent’s contravention.

In addition, some adjudicators have the authority to order that the respondent pay “emotional damages” to the complainant or pay a penalty for willful or reckless misconduct.  Thus, dependent upon the province or territory, you may find yourself in conflict with a political appointee able to come at you to enforce their own bias. Thus, consider the following Acts.

Nunavut‘s Human Rights Act 2003 allows its adjudicator to order inter alia compensation “for injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect” and “for any malice or recklessness”, and to order an apology.

The Northwest Territories‘ Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the common grounds and on “social condition”. The section regarding publication (s.13) explicitly forbids any means of expression that “is likely to expose any individual or class of individuals to hatred or contempt”. The adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent “to pay to a complainant an amount that the adjudicator considers appropriate to compensate that complainant for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect”. If the adjudicator finds that the respondent “acted wilfully or maliciously”, or that the respondent repeatedly contravened the Act, the adjudicator may order the respondent to pay an amount not exceeding $10,000 as exemplary or punitive damages”.

The Yukon Human Rights Act prohibits treating any individual or group unfavourably on account of the common grounds and “source of income”. The Act does not have any specific provision that forbids discriminatory publications, displays, or broadcasts.

British Columbia is unique in no longer having a human rights commission. Complaints can be filed directly with the province’s human rights tribunal. Under British Columbia‘s Human Rights Code, an adjudicator must order a violator to cease contravening the Code, and may order inter alia that the violator pay to the complainant an amount that the adjudicator considers appropriate “for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them”.

Alberta‘s Human Rights Act forbids discrimination upon the common grounds except for political opinion, but also on account of “source of income”. The Act forbids a publication or display that “is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt”. An adjudicator has no authority to order that a respondent pay to the complainant “emotional damages” or pay a penalty. The authority responsible for the Act is the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC).

Saskatchewan had the first legislation in North America (1947) to prohibit victimisation on account of race, religion, colour, sex, nationality, ancestry, and place of origin. It has been the model for many of the Human Rights Activists, but it will be shown when dealing fully with Hate/Bias crime, defamation, defamatory libel and coercion etc. that both the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission are the tools of special interest groups. This shall be done in a subsequent posting.

Manitoba‘s Human Rights Code allows an adjudicator to order inter alia that a respondent pay damages for injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect in an amount that the adjudicator considers “just and appropriate”, and to pay a penalty or exemplary damages (up to $2000 in the case of an individual respondent; up to $10,000 in any other case) if malice or recklessness is involved. Manitoba’s Code is unique in having an “analogous grounds” provision. Complaints can be based not only on the listed grounds (such as sex, age, national origin, etc.), but also on grounds analogous to the listed ones. For example, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission currently accepts complaints based on gender identity.

The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids discrimination upon various grounds which depend upon the circumstances. An adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent: to pay monetary compensation to the complainant “including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect”; to make restitution to the complainant “including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect”; and to do anything that will rectify the respondent’s violation of the Code. The majority of cases concerning violations of the Code are heard by the quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms  Section 10 prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law. Section 80 provides:  Where the parties will not agree to negotiation of a settlement or to arbitration of the dispute or where the proposal of the commission has not been implemented to its satisfaction within the allotted time, the commission may apply to a tribunal to obtain, where consistent with the public interest, any appropriate measure against the person at fault or to demand, in favour of the victim, any measure of redress it considers appropriate at that time.

Prince Edward Island‘s Human Rights Act has no provision for a payment of “emotional damages” to the complainant. But, the adjudicator may inter alia impose a fine on an individual of not less than $100 and not exceeding $500, and on any other entity of not less than $200 and not exceeding $2,000.

New Brunswick‘s Human Rights Act forbids discrimination upon various grounds which depend upon the circumstances. An adjudicator (Board of Inquiry) may order a respondent “inter alia” to compensate a complainant “for any consequent emotional suffering, including that resulting from injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect, in such amount as the Board considers just and appropriate”.

Nova Scotia‘s Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination upon the common grounds and upon “an irrational fear of contracting an illness or disease”. An adjudicator “may order any party who has contravened this Act to do any act or thing that constitutes full compliance with the Act and to rectify any injury caused to any person or class of persons or to make compensation therefor and, where authorized by and to the extent permitted by the regulations, may make any order against that party, unless that party is the complainant, as to costs as it considers appropriate in the circumstances”.

Newfoundland and Labrador has no provision for “emotional damages” under its Human Rights Code. This probably is a good thing given the unrivaled sense of humor the Newfie has in Canada. The ‘hurt feelings crowd’ in Canada if infecting The Rock would soon place it into an economic despair unrivaled since the time the first immigrant landed on its shores.

The foregoing show quite a variance in what should be ‘one standard for all standard democratic citizens in a nation that is supposed to espouse the equality of all from sea to shiny sea. Si, Senor? Mais oui Madame?  Yo, Bro? Eh? Eh? Eh? Perhaps Your Commissions, Tribunals and Adjudicators are not quite functioning according to your sociological-political-legal theories? So toss the dice Canada and DETERMINE WHERE IT WILL BE least costly in all formats if you are charged under hate/bias crime, eh?

In 2006 Project Cleanfeed was launched by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to institute voluntary measures by Canadian Internet Service Providers to block web sites hosting child pornography. Anything fighting against such pornography should be commended. The list of blocked sites is compiled from reports by Internet users and investigated by the independent organization Cybertip.ca.  Every little bit helps, but voluntary measures just are not stemming the tide of either pornography of all sorts or hate/bias postings on the Internet.

Whatever, in October 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that online publications cannot be found liable for linking to defamatory material as long as the linking itself is not defamatory. ‘To link or not to link’ truly is not he question of prime importance, rather it is the content of what has been linked to, what has actually been published and what should be eradicated from visible existence in accordance with the law. 

Thus, with what is bubbling up in our society as dealing with defamatory material I strongly suggest that all reconnect to such links and solidly familiarize yourself with the topic. I most strongly suggest this to Nathan Jesse, Leisure Services Management; Tom Ludwig, Mayor and Paul Ladouceur, Chief of Police; all of the City of Estevan Saskatchewan. All three have defamed me through actions and statements involving a dearth of common sense and moral judgment surrounding my positions taken as a Christian in their midst.

This now ends the Hate Crimes Series 1-17 and I believe has provided you with a minimum basic ‘legal knowledge’ required to enable your sound judgment in the arena of Canadian hate/bias crimes.

It may also help you contend with the antics of such political fools as Ralph Goodale.

Hopefully this will be the last time I remind you that it is Trudeau and Rabid Islamic Crew that is the most responsible for the Blood as it Shall Flow In Canada as posted on February 11, 2018   But, before the  dust of battle completely settles all the ‘public purse parasites’ shall be eradicated from the Canadian landscape.

 It is a righteous action with God that this take place.

Phinehas

Galatians 4:16    Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s