Jay Currie

Update: The CHRC has posted its Special Report to Parliament- Freedom of Expression and Freedom from Hate in the Internet Age

Mark Steyn, Ghost of a Flea, Ken Hynek and BCF all weigh in.

Let the tweaking begin!

In its report, the commission also recommends that people who are the subject of frivolous complaints be awarded costs, and that the commission should leave the imposing of fines to the criminal courts. globe and mail

...

For example, it recommends amending the human rights act so that costs can be awarded to respondents if the complaining party has abused the process. Moreover, the commission says that the system should be changed to allow early dismissal of complaints to prevent a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression. Finally, the commission suggests eliminating provisions that allow fines. globe and mail

Snort!

Dear Lord, if this is what the actual report says the Commision must think Canadians are idiots. The Canadian Human Rights Act allows for fines (which are paid to the Crown) and penalties (which are paid to the complainant). Fines are almost never levied, penalties are. Eliminating provisions going to fines still leaves the Warmans of this world with a lucrative little sideline.

And I love the idea of costs where the complainant has “abused the process”. And what, pray, would constitute abuse of process. Would the substitution of evidence count? Would testifying under oath to one version of events and then changing that testimony count? Would investigating under aliases count? Would obtaining police records to which one is not entitled count? Would improperly conniving with Commission staff count?

And who would decide?

So, in Lynch’s do-over the CHRC would still have the capacity to ask the Tribunal to issue lifetime cease and desist orders, impose penalties, require content removal and, in its own shop: investigate improperly, make under the table deals with police forces and then lie about them, have its investigators consort with serial complainants, operate without proper management oversight, and mislead the tribunal.

And this is supposed to be “Reform”.

Yup, Ezra has it right…Fire. Them. All. Now.

Update: I just got access to a computer and have a few minutes.

More substantively, the CHRC report is out and, lo and behold, the Globe and Mail article could not tell the difference between a fine and a penalty. As it truns out the CHRC, belatedly, wants to be stripped of the power to levy penalties per s.54(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Teach me to rely on the Globe.

The Do-Over is great fun in other respects including the lovely argument that “On the other hand, intent is not relevant in the human rights law context where the focus is on the messages themselves and their impact on their targets. Pairing the CHRA with the Criminal Code allows the flexibility to deal with cases where intent does not exist or cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

One wonders how it would be possible to post “hate speech” with intending to hate? But I am sure a closer reading of this mockery will provide the answer to this and many other head scratchers. But, sadly, I don’t have time to read and post on this until the weekend.

Mark Steyn, Kathy, Blazing and I am sure a host of others are all over this rubbish. FTA