…where the victim is “tried” before a secretive chamber, often in absentia, or without proper representation. Where the charges are vague; where he cannot face his accuser; where there is no presumption of innocence; where there are no rules of evidence, or of procedure; where there are no fixed penalties; where he will be shaken down financially and put under extreme stress whether or not he is nominally “cleared” at the end of the day; where there is no recourse against a frivolous suit.
GrantK1 wrote:
I bet most people wouldn’t believe the above description is of Canada!
Posted on 16-Jan-08 at 10:44 am | Permalink
justin socie wrote:
Perhaps because it isn’t accurate. I don’t think that Human Rights Codes should deal with free speech, but I don’t have to propagate untruths to make my arguments.
Human Rights Tribunals are public bodies, not secretive chambers. Those involved are always given notice of the complaint, and the case is only tied in absentia if they choose not to show. Defendents are welcome to proper representation. The charges are not vague; the Defendent does face his accuser, which formally is the HRC. There there is no presumption of innocence because it is a civil matter, not criminal. There there are rules of evidence and procedure, they are just the ones used in this and other administrative law bodies or of procedure. The list of untruths goes on and on.
I’m not sure why people who are against HRC’s involving themselves in free speech issues degrade their own arguments with all these untruths.
Posted on 16-Jan-08 at 1:51 pm | Permalink