Here are some excerpts of an article from today’s National Post. It’s just amazing how far these jacked up censors are willing to go! Human Rights Commissions are an affront to democracy and they need to be shut down!
Robyn Urback: From Quebec, another human-rights-commission farce
The Quebec Human Rights Commission (HRC) has ordered a man to pay $8,000 in moral and punitive damages to a Montreal panhandler. In a decision released late last month, the court ruled that Robert Delisle had violated the rights of Francine Beaumont, who was a habitual beggar outside of a liquor store in northwest Montreal. Delisle, a store regular back in 2010, was infuriated by Beaumont’s persistent presence outside the shop, and he wrote a letter to the store manager proposing four “solutions” to the problem. Such solutions included “a bullet” to the back of Beaumont’s head and “napalm or flame-throwers,” with a nod to how “Americans used that technique for much better people than this.”
It wasn’t exactly tactful. To the (dubious) extent the letter constituted a serious threat, perhaps it might have been criminal. But police were reluctant to take on the case. When store officials showed Delisle’s letter to officers, the police responded that they could not take complaints from third parties. So the same store officials then showed the letter to Beaumont herself, who was in turn advised by police to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
Three years later, the court has found Delisle guilty of infringing on the panhandler’s right to dignity, reputation and recognition. Delisle is to dole out $7,500 in moral damages — that is, compensation to Beaumont for her pain and suffering — and an extra $500 in punitive damages, which will also go to Beaumont as a deterrent, we are told, to all those other people who might be tempted to go around affronting the “dignity” of others. […]
While it’s obvious that Delisle’s letter was vitriolic and extreme, the decision to rule it a violation of another person’s “rights” sets a terrible precedent for the principle of free speech. Or rather, it adheres to the terrible precedent of censorship already set by provincial human rights bodies across Canada. In this case — as in the cases of Guy Earle in B.C., Bill Whatcott in Saskatchewan and others — the message is clear: hurt feelings trump free expression.
At what point does feeling bad amount to a breach of rights? If someone says something mean to me over the Internet and I’m bummed out as a result, can I take my plight to my local human rights commission?
By the court’s logic, if I write something nasty about a friend in my private journal, and he stumbles on it he can sue me for breaching his ‘dignity’