What’s Wrong With Canada’s Human Rights Commissions (HRC’s)


•    Originally designed to arbitrate employment and tenancy issues, HRC’s are now monitoring and enforcing politically correct speech and thought.
•    Government always provide the lawyers for the complainants; there are no limits to how much can be spent.  Defendants have to pay their own legal fees, and do not qualify for “legal aid” for HRC cases.
•    HRC’s are subject to “Forum Shopping.”  Complainants can freely file their grievances in multiple jurisdictions – with the legal costs for each complaint paid for by the taxpayers – in the hope that at least one of them will provide relief.  Defendants are stuck with paying multiple legal bills in multiple jurisdictions.  (In a real court, defendants can only be charged once; anything more than that is called “double jeopardy”.)
•    In the case of the federal Commission, recently-released court documents show that employees have used entrapment techniques online, disguising their identities and trying to elicit “hate speech” to provide additional evidence against people who are already under investigation or the subject of a complaint.
•    HRC’s are used to make criminals out of people who have not broken the law.  (No one convicted in an HRC case has ever also been convicted under criminal “hate speech” provisions.)
•    In HRC hearings, historic legal conventions are reversed.  Instead of the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” for a conviction, complainants in HRC cases only need to claim they were “offended”.
•    There is a presumption of guilt; parties accused before these Commissions have to prove their innocence.  (That’s tough to do.  How do you prove you “didn’t offend someone”?)
•    In the 30-year history of the CHRC – the “federal” commission – no Section XIII case which has gone beyond the initial “discovery” stage has ever resulted in an acquittal of the defendant.   That’s a 100% conviction rate.
•    Objective truth is no defence in an HRC case. (Facts may be facts, but if they offend, they are actionable.)
•    HRC hearings are generally conducted in secret – reporters are never admitted.
•    HRC’s may only advocate for individuals who can lay claim to being “historically marginalized”.  This means that these Commissions, by their very nature, cannot take up cases on behalf of Jews or Christians, because theirs has historically constituted the “dominant ethos” in society.
•    Following from this, a substantial preponderance of cases before various HRC’s are explicit attempts to marginalize the expression of traditional “Judeo-Christian” thought, morality, and ethics.
•    HRC’s can order defendants to undergo “sensitivity training” against their will, and can also order them to apologize for their thoughts and their speech, while even the most heinous and violent criminals cannot be forced to apologize for their actions.

3 thoughts on “What’s Wrong With Canada’s Human Rights Commissions (HRC’s)

  1. Dear Ezra, You don”t mind me calling you dear I hope? lol.
    My name is Marc and I have three beautiful children. The oldest ,is my daughter Lorraine she is 11, the middle, my son CJ, he’s 9 and the youngest Danny is 7.
    Ezra I need to ask you a few questions,. Now being that you’ve delt with the HRC, I was wonderring if anyone had ever gone after the HRC on the bassis that. If there should be anything that should be a human right, it should be! A child, or children in my case, wanting to have equal access to their father even as their mother has access to them,You know .Even at their age they know the diferance between what is even and what is not!
    Why is it that woman have the right to reduce a man to being nothing more than a sperm downer and a wallet, and too be able to render her children hostage with no way out? At least not till they turn 14? This can’t be healthy for the children?! #2 Ezra, How old does one have to be, to become a human being? and how old does one have to be, to be able to exercise his human rights? And why won’t the great defenders of our human rights (HRC) do any thing to fight for my childrens rights” Or for my rights as a father? I would have thought that under the charter of rights and freedoms, these issues would definatly be a human rights issue ! One would think that children wanting to recieve equal access to their father and their father to them that this would be a human right! But when I asked them, they (HRC) inforned me that they didn’t do this kind of law! ! Didn’t your Imam friend that took you before the HRC allready have law’s in place to deal with his hate crimes issues? So why was he afforded free legal representation? Now the HRC informed me that there were other laws that delt with my kind of issues! Again! Was there not allready laws in place to deal with this Imam issues? Ezra My children and I and a whole lot of broken hearted fathers out there could really use your help in helping us fight these bad laws that are in place. Thank you for taking the time to read this article!
    Sinceraly : Marc, Lorraine, CJ, and Danny Labelle and a whole lot of other Fathers out there!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s