LONDON (Apr. 13, 1992) - In a day-long session of discussion and formal presentations, Fp leader Robert Metz and Fp provincial secretary Robert Vaughan found themselves virtually dominating the day's agenda of the Ontario Human Rights Code Review Task Force.
Despite receiving front-page attention in the London Free Press and plans to have attendees break up into various informal groups to discuss the contentious issue of prohibiting systemic discrimination, there were not even enough attendees to form one discussion group. At most times throughout the day, members of the task force and the Human Rights Commission and their entourage outnumbered those in attendance.
The lack of public interest and citizen input illustrated by the poor participation level was a sign that most Ontarians still do not comprehend the significance of their government's current interest in issues of racism, discrimination, and prejudice. As a result, many may soon find themselves victims of the government's policies.
At the heart of the Ontario government's task force on systemic discrimination is its political desire to be able to convict employers, landlords, and service providers of discrimination - without the necessity of having to produce objective evidence, or without having to deal with discrimination complaints in an objective court of law. Ironically, the government recognizes that anti-discrimination laws are virtually unenforceable, since basic principles of justice require evidence and proof before convicting someone of breaking the law.
Instead, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has chosen to investigate the enforceability of systemic discrimination - discrimination based on statistics, not on the intent or actual behaviour of a particular employer or landlord in a specific case.
As a consequence, employers or landlords could find themselves subject to investigation and charges that are irrelevant to their own behaviour. For example, an employer may be found guilty of discrimination because the percentage ratio of minority workers he/she has hired is much lower than the percentage ratio of such minorities within the community from which they were hired. Therefore, according to the philosophy of the task force, this employer could be declared guilty of systemic discrimination, and face fines and penalties that would be prescribed by a tribunal, and which would be generally immune from any recourse in an objective court of law.
Metz charged that the Task Force's mandate was to attack Ontarians' freedom of association as it is outlined in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is government (not private individuals) which should be prevented from discriminating along certain criteria, argued Metz, and yet it is the government that is doing the discriminating.
The task force's mandate is a perfect illustration of how, through a complete and subjective re-writing of basic definitions, governments repeatedly get away with totalitarian legislation and trample upon individual rights and justice.
"So extreme is the avoidance of individual justice," argued Metz, "that you would actually entertain the question: 'Should statistical evidence be accepted as proof of systemic discrimination without proof of an individual case?' I really have to ask myself how an effort supposedly dedicated to the reduction of prejudice would be so willing to entertain such a prejudicial point of view.
"Prejudice, as defined by the dictionary, is described as 'a judgement or opinion held in disregard of the facts that contradict it.' It is clear that by this definition, both the concepts of systemic discrimination and statistical evidence, which both explicitly deny the relevance of facts in individual cases, are blatantly prejudicial. That is the definition of 'systemic' - a prejudiced way of approaching an individual problem.'
Worse, the Task Force's 'Issues Paper' defined the word equality as: "recognizing and accepting differences between people."
"It is particularly ironic, and somehow self-defeating, that it would be suggested we expend extra energy to 'recognize and accept differences' when, from the view of trying to minimize discrimination, we should be doing the exact opposite.
'We shouldn't be preoccupying ourselves with our differences since that is natural, but people choose to associate on common grounds, common interests, similar interests, parallel objectives - not on their differences. You don't see people getting together and forming a club because they all believe in something different; they get together because of their similarities."
GET THE DETAILS! Copies of the Task Force's report, Achieving Equality, can be obtained from the address listed under 'Highlights of the Ontario Human Rights Code Review Task Force.' Many of the task force's more disturbing and significant recommendations have also been reproduced on that page. Transcripts of the comments made by Metz and Vaughan are available to Fp members and supporters through Freedom Party.
Page
last updated on April 30, 2002