We’ve mentioned several times now the piece by Pearl Eliadis on Human Rights Commissions in the Montreal magazine Maisonneuve.
The article is now available online.
About the Author
Law is Cool
5 Comments on "Maisonneuve Article Online"
Comments are closed.
Although the article gives a particular perspective on HRCs that may not be shared by all, it is worth a read by everyone. In particular, it explains in fairly accessible language what HRCs are and what they actually do, as well as some of the legal issues pertinent to the current discussions taking place around the role of HRCs in human rights law.
You might want to get a little more current and read the Moon Report and find out precisely why HRC’s have no business regulating speech.
Jay Currie: would you care to elaborate?
Eliadis’ op-ed is, I thought, quite well written and worth digesting. Nor is it exclusively one-sided, as one might fear of someone so heavily vested in the institutions she is writing about (Eliadis was director of policy and education at the OHRC and her livelihood rests partly on the application of the statute in question) — for instance, she highlights important procedural shortcomings whose repair she advocates.
However, I was disappointed with the sidebars that Maisonneuve magazine added. They try and pick out to highlight the worst of the anonymous comments on the articles of some of these blogs. It’s a classic association fallacy, it’s textbook sensationalism, and it doesn’t belong alongside a serious and well-argued opinion piece — arguments stand or fall based on their merits, not based on who supports them.
Dear Serge, Thanks for your thoughts and critiques. I only check these web sites out every few months, and you are likely long gone.
However, in the event that you ever come back, I do want to ask why you think I am “heavily vested” in Canada’s human rights commissions? I left the Commission 8 years ago and have been in private practice which is almost exclusively international. In that time, I have had precisely one file for a Canadian commission and one file on the other side. I do not represent parties before tribunals either. My involvement on the Canadian issue has been because Canadians are being lied to by Levant, et al..(as has been pointed out, incidentally, Mr. Currie, by Prof. Richard Moon himself).
No one sees more clearly the many faults and blemishes of the commission system than people who have been “up-close” like me. That is also part of the reason why people interested in reforming the system have retained me. There is a lot wrong that needs fixing, which I have pointed out since the beginning. Whether one is on the left or the rights, the problems are the same and so are the gripes about using a system that does not always work well – maybe we (and this is a generic we) can agree to have that conversation. Otherwise, litigation will continue. Why bother saying all this? Because people like Levant and Steyn are misleading Canadians – and unfortunately people read the bloggers and believe them. Does it really matter whether hate speech is dealt with in civil / human rights proceedings in the courts or commissions? Not especially, but it is important that these recourses extist, somewhere. Moreover, critiques of commissions, their staff and their processes be accurate and reflect basic journalistic principles. That has been my issue, and again, I would encourage a careful reading of Moon’s report on precisely this issue. And have a look at the follow up letters in issue 30 of Maisonneuve (should be online soon).