A FEW THOUGHTSBY
REMULAK MOXARGON
Greeting's puny Earthlings.
Let me take a minute to talk about our recent "Douchebag of the Week" the so-called Human Rights Tribunals in Canada that are currently hunting columnist Mark Steyn and publisher Ezra Levant for the crime of hurting the feelings of radical Islamists.
As a non-human I think I can offer a unique perspective on these peculiar institutions and to be honest, what's wrong with them.
They were started in the late 1970s by the Trudeau administration and their original purpose was to combat discrimination in the workplace. Essentially going after sexual and racial harassment, or discriminatory hiring/firing practises by employers.
Now while their intent was supposedly noble, there were a few things wrong with them.
Basically, everything.
Let's list them:
1. There is no presumption of innocence. In fact, the mere act of filing a complaint against someone creates a presumption of guilt against the defendant.
Instead of the prosecution having to prove beyond a rea
sonable doubt that you're racist / sexist / homophobic, it is up to the defence to prove that you are not. Try proving a negative. Now I'm the dictator of a massive intergalactic empire, and even in my most brutal show trials, I still have the presumption of innocence. It's essentially a politically correct version of the Spanish Inquisition, and no one expected the Spanish Inquisition.
2. The Commission is biased against you financially. Not only do you have the impossibility of proving a negative, you have to pay for your own defence.
Now it's free to file a complaint against someone. The government will foot the bill, but you have to defend yourself out of your own pocket. This often cripples the defendant financially even before they get slapped with a fat judgement against them.
3. The Commission is always biased against Caucasians, Christians, Conservatives, and anyone else not deemed a 'victim.' The only way a person can lose a complaint filed with a Human Rights Commission is to be a Caucasian, Christian, or politically Conservative person complaining about a violation of their rights.
100% of complaints filed by such people have been rejected, often without investigation or a hearing. The merits of these complaints are rarely, if ever discussed.
However, file a complaint, no matter how frivolous, against those same people, and you are pretty much guaranteed a win.
4. Human Rights Commissions are a legal nightmare. There are no precedents or codes for the commissioners to follow, decisions are based solely on their own whims and biases. They have no limitations on what they can do, and what cases they can 'investigate.'
Plus, there is no statute of limitations. Legally you can be harassed and condemned into penury by a commission for something you've done twenty+ years ago in an argument during 2nd Grade recess.
So basically, in order to protect the rights of people whose feelings you've hurt, all of your rights must be taken away.
5. Human Rights Commissions are not only undemocratic, they are anti-democratic. These commissions are comprised of unelected political appointees whose personal agendas and biases are never questioned by the public who they lord over.
They are anti-democratic because they possess unquestioned legal powers to censor political speech that they do not like. No free speech, no democracy.
I'm sure there are way more problems with these commissions, but I'm not a legal scholar, I'm just an alien with common sense and an android horde.
Let me take a minute to talk about our recent "Douchebag of the Week" the so-called Human Rights Tribunals in Canada that are currently hunting columnist Mark Steyn and publisher Ezra Levant for the crime of hurting the feelings of radical Islamists.
As a non-human I think I can offer a unique perspective on these peculiar institutions and to be honest, what's wrong with them.
They were started in the late 1970s by the Trudeau administration and their original purpose was to combat discrimination in the workplace. Essentially going after sexual and racial harassment, or discriminatory hiring/firing practises by employers.
Now while their intent was supposedly noble, there were a few things wrong with them.
Basically, everything.
Let's list them:
1. There is no presumption of innocence. In fact, the mere act of filing a complaint against someone creates a presumption of guilt against the defendant.
Instead of the prosecution having to prove beyond a rea
sonable doubt that you're racist / sexist / homophobic, it is up to the defence to prove that you are not. Try proving a negative. Now I'm the dictator of a massive intergalactic empire, and even in my most brutal show trials, I still have the presumption of innocence. It's essentially a politically correct version of the Spanish Inquisition, and no one expected the Spanish Inquisition.2. The Commission is biased against you financially. Not only do you have the impossibility of proving a negative, you have to pay for your own defence.
Now it's free to file a complaint against someone. The government will foot the bill, but you have to defend yourself out of your own pocket. This often cripples the defendant financially even before they get slapped with a fat judgement against them.
3. The Commission is always biased against Caucasians, Christians, Conservatives, and anyone else not deemed a 'victim.' The only way a person can lose a complaint filed with a Human Rights Commission is to be a Caucasian, Christian, or politically Conservative person complaining about a violation of their rights.
100% of complaints filed by such people have been rejected, often without investigation or a hearing. The merits of these complaints are rarely, if ever discussed.
However, file a complaint, no matter how frivolous, against those same people, and you are pretty much guaranteed a win.
4. Human Rights Commissions are a legal nightmare. There are no precedents or codes for the commissioners to follow, decisions are based solely on their own whims and biases. They have no limitations on what they can do, and what cases they can 'investigate.'
Plus, there is no statute of limitations. Legally you can be harassed and condemned into penury by a commission for something you've done twenty+ years ago in an argument during 2nd Grade recess.
So basically, in order to protect the rights of people whose feelings you've hurt, all of your rights must be taken away.
5. Human Rights Commissions are not only undemocratic, they are anti-democratic. These commissions are comprised of unelected political appointees whose personal agendas and biases are never questioned by the public who they lord over.
They are anti-democratic because they possess unquestioned legal powers to censor political speech that they do not like. No free speech, no democracy.
I'm sure there are way more problems with these commissions, but I'm not a legal scholar, I'm just an alien with common sense and an android horde.
No comments:
Post a Comment