Friday, June 10, 2011

Those (well intended) “human rights” codes must be abolished

Kathy Shaidle observes that even some of their strongest critics allow that Canadian human rights codes originally had noble intentions. She thinks not, hasn’t for some time and is gratified that others are now coming round to her thinking:
[Karen Sellick]:
... bulldog ... Ezra Levant describes the human rights system as "a beautiful idea -that failed." He credits it with the "noble goal of eliminating real discrimination ..."
Human rights codes have fabricated a phoney "right" to be free from discrimination and used it to override a panoply of genuine human rights, including: freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of contract and control over one's private property. There can be no such thing as the right to violate someone else's rights. It's a contradiction in terms. The only solution to this seeming paradox is the complete repeal of the human rights codes, not mere changes to the enforcement mechanisms.

[Chris Scafer]:
Now that Tim Hudak, leader of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party, has backtracked on his plan to scrap the province’s Human Rights Tribunal if elected, the focus of debate has turned to reform.
... if history has taught us one lesson, it is that a government that is powerful enough to outlaw discrimination by individuals is also a government powerful enough to compel discrimination when the public mood of the majority changes. This is why Ontario’s human rights system must be abolished.
Couldn’t agree more. Though I still think, like Ezra, that the meddling liberal social engineers responsible for enacting the “human rights” codes actually did have good intentions. They always do, don’t they? Good intentions are what mesmerize liberals - to the point that they are incapable of thinking them through to their logical, very often rotten conclusions.


Anonymous said...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

dmorris said...

This is the perfect example of what C.S. Lewis was speaking about in your side line quote.

I agree with Ezra,the people who founded the HRC's probably saw themselves as noble humanitarians whose gift to the people would have them celebrated for centuries to come,maybe even a national holiday or two named after them.

Alain said...

Anonymous beat to it, for that was exactly the comment I was going to make. Whether or not the originators had good intentions we do not know, but I tend to agree with Kathy. Originally it was supposed to protect people from discrimination in housing and employment, which is already a direct attack against private property rights and blatant government interference in a free market. I recall as a young unmarried male that some landlords would not rent to me; not because of my skin colour, my ethnic group or my religion but because of too many bad experiences of young single guys wrecking the place with wild parties. I accepted that reality and moved on to find a place that would rent to me after a hefty damage deposit. Personally I would never invest in rental property under a government that does not allow me to decide to whom I rent. It was much the same with employment, whereas now any unqualified applicant who happens to belong to one of the sacred groups simply claims discrimination. I have seen this over and over again, so it is not imagination on my part.

JR said...

I can see the argument about property rights. And I suppose the reason private property rights are not constitutionally protected in Canada is the mentality of the liberal 'elites' who formulated our flawed "human rights" code. The same mentality permeates the appointed HRC enforcers who twist themselves into hypocritical pretzels attempting to justify their 'protection' of favoured groups. "Good" intentions or not, it's no way to run a free society.

Alain said...

JR, actually private property rights were to be included but were left out to appease the NDP.