(Conservative) Policy you support but think you don't
A short while ago the Conservative party of Canada held a policy convention. The resolutions passed by the conventions are non-binding but are strong signals to the Conservative leadership of what the base wants. Tow policies were (briefly) covered during the news coverage I saw. The first was an abortion issue. Ok, that will never die. The second though is a policy EVERYONE should support, but from the sounds of it everyone but the most savvy political and policy wonks don't.
The second resolution was basically that human rights tribunals not be allowed to hear free speech cases. That sounds awful! Why wouldn't they want human right tribunals (presumably a good thing) to hear free speech issues (a fundamental human right)? The key is in the title: Tribunal or Commission (not court).
We have hate laws and they are a criminal offense (not that they are used, luckily). The rules of the court are over 800 years old and in most people's mind work pretty damn well (needing only tweaks). To alleviate some of the burden on the courts for lesser infractions such as housing discrimination or employer discrimination the tribunals and commissions were formed. These are NOT courts. The usual rules of evidence do not apply. I won't go over all the specifics but a few points will illustrate the difference.
Say I decide to sue you in court for something. If I lose I have to pay your legal fees and both of us are accorded equal privileges by the government for our arguments. In these human rights tribunals (or commissions) the government on behalf of the plaintiff gathers testimony and decides whether to move forward. So it is not the plaintiff and the defendant with a judge it is the government prosecuting the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. Regardless of outcome the plaintiff pays nothing (the tax payer foots the bill) AND the fee incurred by the defendant (days of work lost, lawyer etc) are NOT reimbursed. Thus the resources of the government are used to prosecute a citizen and damages done to the innocent are NOT repaid. Obviously the state could simply bleed a person dry by always summing them to miss work by dragging on a case.
One more point about these tribunals. One of the punishments they can enforce is a public apology! Our murders are not even subject to that and imagine how insincere and ridiculous that would be on a free speech case!
That's the whole point. These tribunals have recently taken (although latter dropped unfortunately) free speech and freedom of the press complaints. In the freedom of the press case was Macleans magazine and the plaintiffs wanted an unedited multi page rebuttal article (link to opinion) because they felt insulted! The very notion that the resources of the government should be used to attack another citizen without renumeration if they are found innocent is unacceptable in a liberal democracy. If I say something that is hate speech or illegal for some reason I should be taken to a court and evidence presented against me allowing for me to defend myself. I should not be subject to a government sponsored witch hunt where I can only lose (money at least and possible more). Thus I submit that the policy that was put out by the conservatives may sound wrong, it is cleary something everyone should support to protect our fundamental freedoms.
The second resolution was basically that human rights tribunals not be allowed to hear free speech cases. That sounds awful! Why wouldn't they want human right tribunals (presumably a good thing) to hear free speech issues (a fundamental human right)? The key is in the title: Tribunal or Commission (not court).
We have hate laws and they are a criminal offense (not that they are used, luckily). The rules of the court are over 800 years old and in most people's mind work pretty damn well (needing only tweaks). To alleviate some of the burden on the courts for lesser infractions such as housing discrimination or employer discrimination the tribunals and commissions were formed. These are NOT courts. The usual rules of evidence do not apply. I won't go over all the specifics but a few points will illustrate the difference.
Say I decide to sue you in court for something. If I lose I have to pay your legal fees and both of us are accorded equal privileges by the government for our arguments. In these human rights tribunals (or commissions) the government on behalf of the plaintiff gathers testimony and decides whether to move forward. So it is not the plaintiff and the defendant with a judge it is the government prosecuting the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. Regardless of outcome the plaintiff pays nothing (the tax payer foots the bill) AND the fee incurred by the defendant (days of work lost, lawyer etc) are NOT reimbursed. Thus the resources of the government are used to prosecute a citizen and damages done to the innocent are NOT repaid. Obviously the state could simply bleed a person dry by always summing them to miss work by dragging on a case.
One more point about these tribunals. One of the punishments they can enforce is a public apology! Our murders are not even subject to that and imagine how insincere and ridiculous that would be on a free speech case!
That's the whole point. These tribunals have recently taken (although latter dropped unfortunately) free speech and freedom of the press complaints. In the freedom of the press case was Macleans magazine and the plaintiffs wanted an unedited multi page rebuttal article (link to opinion) because they felt insulted! The very notion that the resources of the government should be used to attack another citizen without renumeration if they are found innocent is unacceptable in a liberal democracy. If I say something that is hate speech or illegal for some reason I should be taken to a court and evidence presented against me allowing for me to defend myself. I should not be subject to a government sponsored witch hunt where I can only lose (money at least and possible more). Thus I submit that the policy that was put out by the conservatives may sound wrong, it is cleary something everyone should support to protect our fundamental freedoms.
Labels: Freespeach, politics
posted by Eddie | 10:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home