Muslims and Human Rights Complaints … The Resident Canuck Weighs In
Babs, there is a statement Ezara makes in his opening statement that I essentially agree with:
I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state.
I think there is a good argument that human rights legislation has more recently been amended to cover issues that it was never intended to. And probably shouldn’t be. “The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas.” He is probably right there.
But first of all, that does not, in and of itself, make the premise of human rights tribunals wrong. And that’s where Ezra and I disagree. He complains because the complainants don’t have to pay lawyers but the defendants do. He’s right. And the fact that the complainant doesn’t have to pay for their lawyer is one of the main reasons I am in favour of human rights tribunals. Let’s face it, the large majority of individuals can’t afford the services of a lawyer. I know I sure can’t. That’s why things like small claims courts and human rights tribunals were created.
And in the case of human rights tribunals, I am completely in favour of an individual who feel they are being discriminated against bringing forward a complaint for an independent body to look at and then decide whether it will proceed to a hearing. There is no absolute right for a complainant to be able to get a ‘free’ lawyer to argue their case. Many, many casesÂ (in fact, likely the majority) are turned away at the door for various reasons.
Â And as I said before, I also disagree when people like Ezra and Warren spouts off about kangaroo courts, the defendantâ€™s right to due process being withdrawn and reaching judgments on the basis of no fixed law. As I said before, thatâ€™s just wrong. There are no violations of natural justice allowed, meaning that the defendant certainly has his â€œdue processâ€™ rights. They do indeed have to rely on â€˜fixed lawâ€™ and are subject to review by the courts in both regards.
But yeah, the legislation in some places has no doubt went to far. Couple that with the fact that we should hardly be surprised if some Muslims attempt to use our own institutions against us, and its not a pretty picture. But really, isn’t it the perfect
God Allah-given irony from their point of view? Westerners think they are so free and pure, free speech and the everyday man has access to an impartial legal system … well, watch this … we will use their own institutions and their own supposed tolerance against them and win in their own courts.Â Or human rights tribunals. Or wherever.
Does that mean we should throw out human rights tribunals? Does that mean we should throw out the entire court system, given that Muslins are also bringing patently-ridiculous cases forward there as well? If there’s one thing I firmly believe, it’s this … any good, even excellent idea, that a human being can come with can and will be abused eventually by some other human being. Think about it through the course of history, we see it again and again. So every time something is abused, should we dismantle it? Or perhaps just never implement or create anything new ever again … after all your next pain killer created for use by the terminal cancer patient will be abused by some drug addict eventually.Â And, given past exprience, it probably won’t take long.
To go back to what I think was your original question … do I think this is a valid complaint? As in one that should win?Â Hell no! However, without reviewing more material, such as the submissions placed in from the commission that made the decision to carry the matter forward to a hearing, I will reserve my opinion,Â on whether its a case that should proceed through the tribunal, to give the matter an open hearing and set proper precedent.
Â So there you go, now you know.
~ Carried over from the a comment thread at Lex’sÂ ~