HRCs: the unfair process is the punishment
The real punishment, when it comes to the Human Rights Commissions, is not the potential ruling that comes from the tribunals. The process itself is the real punishment.
Paul Tuns - September 25, 2008
Being hauled before a human rights commission is a serious ordeal. It is nearly impossible to defend oneself against a complaint because HRCs are not like real courts and the normal rules of evidence and the procedures that typically protect the rights of accused simply do not exist in these kangaroo courts.
The complainant has his costs picked up by the state, while the accused must pay for their own legal counsel. Hearsay evidence is permitted. Hearings can be held in secret. The accused usually do not face their accusers. Most importantly, the presumption of innocence so vital in our common law tradition is suspended as the accused must prove their innocence, rather than complainants or the state proving their guilt. If a complainant claims to be ‘offended‘, it is virtually impossible to prove that a person has not had his or her feelings hurt. The process can last years.
It is no wonder that Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren famously noted that the process is the punishment.
Many defendants do not use legal counsel, defending themselves to avoid the enormous legal costs in a system that many consider rigged; defendants cannot even access legal aid. In a court of law, plaintiffs must pay for their own counsel and, if the case is found frivolous, can be forced to pay the legal costs of the defendants. This discourages frivolous lawsuits. Link Byfield, a senator-elect from
It often seems that HRCs never consider a case frivolous -- so much so that the odds are stacked in the favour of the complainant. As Mark Steyn often says, the
As Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women, has said, “If a complaint is laid against you, you’re automatically found guilty.” Yet, not once has an individual punished by these tribunals been found guilty in an actual court of law of an actual hate crime.
In the regular court system, the principle of double jeopardy applies -- that is, defendants can only be charged once -- the offended can “forum shop” among human rights commissions. If one jurisdiction rules against a claimant, he can pursue his case elsewhere. The complainants against Maclean’s filed in three separate jurisdictions. That’s three times the cost of defending themselves.
Furthermore, niceties such as facts and truth are irrelevant to human rights tribunals. Reporting facts such as statistics and anecdotes, studies and reports, or quotes is no defence if these facts cause offence. Yet, self-reporting of the highly subjective standard of hurt feelings is admissible -- indeed the basis of action.
Also, tribunals can require guilty individuals to pay large fines, apologize, change their behaviour, stop expressing certain views or undergo sensitivity training. As Tristan Emmanuel of the Equipping Christians for the Public Square Centre has said, not even murderers can be made to apologize to their victims (and victims’ families), but those found guilty of uttering words deemed offensive must apologize to the insulted and publicly prostrate themselves. One question: are such apologies even meaningful? It is one thing to be punished for holding certain views; it is another to have to admit you are wrong. What freedom is there in that?
With all this, the system seems to be rigged. Human rights codes limit who can make a complaint to those from “historically marginalized” groups, so if homosexuals or atheists do something to offend Christians, that’s too bad. It is so terribly one-sided that it effectively enforces a politically correct orthodoxy.
Human rights commissions are in the business of violating real human rights -- the right to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of religion -- to protect people from unpopular views and having their feelings hurt. You would think such a threat to liberty would raise more concern among those that purport to defend our freedom, whether they call themselves liberal or conservative. But you would be wrong.
Paul Tuns is editor of The Interim,
We desperately need your support to cover the legal bills and costs associated with this challenge of Internet Censorship
v It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist
Stop Section 13 of the