André Schutten - May 16, 2012 - Apparently veganism is a creed, a deeply held conviction that ought to be protected by law and with the power of the state. This is not the first time I've heard this, (click here for earlier reports) and I suppose it won't be the last. Ms. Camille Labchuck argues that the Ontario Human Rights Commission ought to protect vegans from anyone who would fail to adequately provide for their dietary needs.

The problem with this expanding of definitions for what constitutes a "creed", this broad protection for any sort of ideology, this watering down of creed or religion (the Marijuana Church presents a similar problem) is that those of genuine religious faith and creed get watered down too.

Bill C-304, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), passed a vote at report stage in Parliament on May 9^th, 149-129. This bill, sponsored by Alberta MP Brian Storseth, aims to repeal the most contentious clause of the CHRA, Section 13. Similar to the vote at second reading, the yeas and nays were disappointingly split along party lines, with Liberal MP Scott Simms the only opposition MP to vote with the governing Conservatives to protect our freedom of expression. Our Prime Minister again rose in support of this bill.

The working atmosphere of the CHRT begs the question - if it needs to be investigated for harassment among other things, how can it be in charge of determining "human rights" offenses for the nation?

Selection from the Vancouver Sun, April 23 2012: The Ottawa Citizen has also learned that the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commission has launched an investigation into the tribunal workplace — a relatively rare move by the body charged with investigating and ruling on wrongdoings in the public sector and protecting “whistle blower” public servants from reprisals. It’s the integrity commission’s policy to neither confirm nor deny an investigation is taking place, a spokeswoman said, but if investigators find a complaint to be valid, their reports are made public.

In upholding the two harassment complaints against Chotalia in January, independent investigator Philip Chodos described her dealings with a low-level probationary clerical worker as “baffling, if not bizarre.” Read the full article here.

With the prospect of a new party coming to power in Alberta, Canadians are taking a closer look at the policies of the largely-unknown Wildrose party. What they are discovering includes a platform that would see the Alberta Human Rights Commission being replaced by a new division within the provincial court system. "“If anyone is ever denied service for any reason then our new proposal for how we would deal with that is with a separate division of the provincial court,”said party leader Danielle Smith. 

Vancouver Sun, March 21 2012: On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the appeal of Moore v. British Columbia Ministry of Education. Among other things, this case will decide whether the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has the authority to dictate what services the B.C. government provides.

Jeffrey Moore started grade school in 1991 and was soon diagnosed as dyslexic. When he was in Grade 3, his parents were advised that he would have a better educational outcome if he enrolled in a publicly funded program tailored for dyslexic children called "intensive remediation." But in 1994, the cash-strapped North Vancouver school district defunded the program in an effort to save money - just weeks after Jeffrey had been referred for help. As a result, the Moore family paid approximately $100,000 over nine years for Jeffrey's private education. Keep reading

Pamela Howson clearly knows how the human rights system works.

First, claim membership of a “protected” group. In Ontario, their Human Rights Code includes protection on the basis of “family status”, which has been interpreted by the provincial tribunal as granting privileged status to mothers with children. Ms. Howson has three children, so she qualifies.

Second, find a grievance and, by extension, a target. Any grievance will do, but it helps to target the type of individuals or organizations that the province’s Commission is currently scrutinizing for its next wave of human rights education. In this case, the OHRC is waging a campaign against zoning laws in municipalities across the province. Ms. Howson wants to park her car on her front lawn, in contravention to current zoning laws, so it appears to be a match made in human rights heaven.

Update: See how your MP voted on C-304 here.

Last night the House of Commons voted 158 to 131 to pass Bill C-304 "An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)." It will now go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where it will be studied in detail. This vote is critical because it shows that a majority of MPs (though not by a large margin) recognize the serious problems with the Canadian Human Rights Act and are willing to stand up against it.

There have been many instances in which the courts have curtailed the excesses of human rights tribunals across the country. This happened again today, in the case of two black lawyers who claimed they were discriminated against by a legal librarian in 2008.

The incident occurred in a courthouse lounge that was restricted to lawyers only – paralegals were not permitted. Melissa Firth, a librarian/administrator for the Peel Law Association, approached the two lawyers and asked for their identification, since she did not recognize them and thought they might be paralegals. They immediately accused her of racial profiling, and a verbal altercation ensued.

The bill, introduced by MP Brian Storseth, seeks to ensure greater protection of freedom of expression in Canada by removing the government’s power to censor speech through section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

This is just what we need – more disincentives to get involved in politics.

We can all agree that sitting on the sidelines and grousing about our politicians, without doing much about it, isn’t doing our society any favours.

Mike Del Grande doesn’t seem to be one of those individuals. His track record includes two decades of membership in organizations like the Silver Springs Community Association, the Scarborough Homeowners Alliance for Fair Taxes, and the local Neighborhood Watch program. He was awarded the Volunteer of the Year award in 1991, served as a school trustee for three terms, and has been elected to the Toronto city council since 2003.

Yet Del Grande was rewarded for his service to his community by being hauled before a human rights tribunal.