Civil Liberties and Human Rights should remain important for all Canadians

There is no doubt that essential civil liberties and basic human rights should remain constitutionalized, important and intact for all Canadians and their Canadian livelihood, but when special agendas begin to pick and choose whose liberties and rights can trump others, that is when one must question the actions of government assisted commissions and associations one the point of principle alone.

Recently in Ontario, Human Rights Commissioner Barbara Hall and the Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that Christian Horizons, an Ontario based religious social justice agency for the developmentally challenged, could no longer require employees to sign a morality statement. On the issue of prevention against discrimination and harassment of sexual orientation, which has always been covered in the OHRC since its creation by the Robarts Progressive Conservative government in 1962 to administer the Ontario Human Rights Code, seems to fly high against that of prevention against discrimination and harassment of spiritual religion, now to a point where the code protects sexual orientation rights over those of spiritual religion. This is confirmed when reading the decision's statement by Hall, predecessor to third term Harris Progressive Conservative government OHRC appointee Keith Norton, "this decision is important because it sets out that when faith based and other organizations move beyond serving the interests of their particular community to serving the general public, the rights of others, including employees, must be respected".

This is not just Ontario, as Ottawa's Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal and their Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977 under the Trudeau Liberal government have led themselves down the same path, therefore also the same problems. In the areas of free and hate speech under Section 13.1 of the Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its Commissioner Jennifer Lynch had been having a headache over a free and hate speech fight, between Canadian Islamic Congress and Macleans Roger Communications, where an individual article promoted flagrant Islamophobia that subjected Muslims in Canada to hatred and contempt, but it was eventually dismissed. Yet, the Canadian dean of civil liberties Alan Borovoy is right when he states his opinion that democracies must allow them to speak freely, no matter how repugnant, or else they cease to be true working and functioning democracies, an open allowence with guarantee that is currently held in check by and subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law, as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in areas such as free speech, as my past Redeemer political science professor David T. Koyzis would always point out properly.

Both commissions are independent agencies of the provincial and federal government, accountable to the legislature and parliament through the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario and the Ministry of Justice of Canada, which means they at the end of the day remain accountable to the taxpayer. Or, so they would be justified as such in a free and democratic society full of free and democratic citizens, perhaps the day has indeed come to elect its judges, an idea that bring honesty, accountability and transparency right to its point. The Supreme Court of Canada, which has upheld criminal anti hate provisions through both code and statutes, will soon have to perhaps look at not only protecting the people from the freedom to discrimination against something or someone, but also the freedom to expression for something or someone, just as the Human Rights Commission of Canada have created a commission to account for its recent actions too.

These commissions and tribunals with their codes must realize one important principle in law, when you make a law or legislation, you must be able to enforce or defend it, not just legally, but morally too. People have the right to write, say or do anything stupid at worst or disagreeable at best, but they also have the responsibility not to write, say or do anything stupid at worst or disagreeable at best, to create more legislation or rulings on such matters takes away both from those who need to learn just common sense in our society today. By deciding upon matters one way over another, such biased reading of a universal code for all people involved, this will eventually deny the rights, liberties, responsibilities, freedoms and the fundamental independence of all people involved, which is exactly what the code and their commissions and tribunal were built to fight against.