The Human Rights Commission must be abolished.

That such an institution exists in the midst of a free society is alarming, but understandable, disguised as it is by its benign and righteous-sounding name. After all, who could be against "human rights?"

Well, the Human Rights Commission, for starters.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is possibly the closest thing Ontario has ever had to its own official Gestapo. With the exception of shooting people on sight, the HRC already has virtually most of the powers that were exercised by the Gestapo, and has been actively seeking the authority to circumvent the court system entirely.

Its Boards of Inquiries give all "rights" to the complainants, and none to the respondents. It is allowed to accept "evidence" that would never see the light of day in a bonafide court room. Its adjudicators have absolute "discretion" in all matters brought before a Board, and its Boards have the power to order literally "anything" to force respondents to comply with the Human Rights Act. Yes, that's right - "anything."

Remember all the indignant fuss about the report that suggested a change in law so that those brought before a Board would be considered guilty until proven innocent? It seems to me that this was a complete smokescreen created to divert our attention from the fact that that's essentially how HRC Boards of Inquiry already operate.

But the term currently in use is not "guilty until proven innocent;" that would be political suicide. No, the politically correct term for the same concept is "equitable principles requiring parties to conciliate." In fact, the latter concept bypasses the necessity of determining guilt or innocence entirely, which probably makes it worse than being considered guilty until proven innocent.

It also explains why the HRC Board of Inquiry placed a publication ban on our last issue of Freedom Flyer.

In a normal court of law, a person is charged with a crime and then it is determined whether he/she is guilty or innocent of the charges. It is only after the determination of guilt that a sentence or fine is imposed upon the guilty party.

However, under an HRC Board of Inquiry, this process is essentially reversed. If the respondent (i.e., the "defendant") does not agree to "conciliate" - and no innocent person would willingly agree to that - then he is automatically brought before a Board of Inquiry.

That, in a nutshell, is exactly what happened to London landlord Elijah Elieff. His naive faith that a Board of Inquiry operated like a court (i.e., where its main function was to determine his guilt or innocence based upon some form of objective evidence) was what led him to believe that the case against him would be thrown out. (This is exactly what would have happened in a court of law.)

To this day, after representing Mr. Elieff for nine of thirteen days before a Board of Inquiry, I still find it very difficult to adjust my sense of justice to the idea that the long-overdue decision we are still waiting for is not about Mr. Elieff's guilt or innocence, per se. We are, instead, awaiting for the adjudicator to "make an order" that may or may not include any or all of the 18 listed "orders" requested by HRC counsel.

It is most unusual, at least to my way of thinking, to have a request for orders made before a determination of guilt or innocence.

If there's one glaring lesson that I've learned by all this, it is that white people must exercise great caution when associating with individuals of a different skin colour. This is a distasteful thing to have to admit but there's simply no avoiding the reality that that's how things are.

The Human Rights Commission is a blatantly racist organization. It regards all members of "visible minorities" as being weak, vulnerable, and intrinsically inferior to whites, and proceeds to enact legislation based on this racist belief.

The HRC is exploiting the racial differences of Canadians and using those differences to justify a host of government policies that are redistributive in nature, and that have very little to do with justice or equality. I cannot tell you how many times I had to be reminded that Boards of Inquiry deal with matters of the "public interest" (i.e., government policy) and not of justice.

It is tragic to realize that had London landlord Elijah Elieff's tenants all been white (which is his colour), he would never have been brought before a Board of Inquiry for referring to his messy tenants as "little pigs." Similarly, had he been Asian, since the majority of his tenants were Asian, he would also have avoided this fate.

Sadly, the reason the HRC forced Elieff to appear before a Board of Inquiry had nothing to do with his comments or the race of his tenants. It's because of his race.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002