Human Rights Tribunal On The Way Out?

Do politically correct star chambers make you choke on your breakfast every morning? Perhaps you've heard the news that one of these vile institutions may be on the way out. This is very good news.

According to the Georgia Straight, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) chair Heather MacNaughton - the chief roo in this kangaroo court, you might say - and tribunal member Judy Parrack will not be getting reappointed to the BCHRT after their terms end on July 31. Meanwhile, a job posting for a part-time tribunal chair has been made on the website of the Board Resourcing and Development Office.

It also sounds like a narrower focus might be in the works from on high. Perhaps it will place a greater emphasis on labor disputes at the expense of other, arguably more important issues like the plight of lesbian women in comedy bars across the province.

Could it be? Could the BCHRT's reign of soft terror on freedom of speech in this province finally be coming to a close? Could the BC government have finally realized what an out-of-control body they've had running loose in their backyard for years? Could they finally be reining this body in?

Losing Heather MacNaughton, the woman who was there for both the Maclean's and Guy Earle trials, is a good start. Replacing her post with a part-time position is even better. A narrower focus would have me dancing in the streets, should it ever come about.

You'll recall that the BCHRT is the body that put Maclean's magazine, that bastion of centrism, through a one-week show trial for having the audacity to publish a book excerpt.

The book was 'America Alone' by Mark Steyn, a popular conservative writer and columnist, and the excerpt happened to offend a small group of Muslims who subsequently complained to Maclean's magazine, even going so far as to demand equal editorial space to rebut the offending article.

Needless to say, Maclean's didn't like having their editorial pages hijacked by offended parties, and said no. Next thing they knew, they were the subject of complaints before the Ontario and Canadian Human Rights Commissions, and the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The BCHRT was the only jurisdiction to accept the case.

There were so many things wrong with the whole affair that it's rather hard to know where to begin. For instance, there's the fact that launching three complaints in three different jurisdictions is a rather large violation of one of the basis tenets of the justice system: You can't be put on trial more than once for the same crime. But then, Human Rights Tribunals are quasi-judicial, so what do they care about legal precedent? The right to a speedy trial is pretty much out the window too.

There's also the fact that defendants in Human Rights cases have to pay their own way, while plaintiffs don't. So if you launch three complaints in three different jurisdictions and only one complaint is accepted? No big deal: it didn't cost you a dime anyway. In fact, a good portion of the process is stacked in favor of the plaintiff, which would undoubtedly be an admirable attempt to allow little people to go after big people that have wronged them, if only it wasn't such a hallmark of a kangaroo court. A defendant's life can be destroyed, thanks to the bills, thanks to the stigmatization of a process than can last years, even if they're completely innocent.

Oh, and here's the kicker: If you are innocent, and you have been dragged through this process for no reason, there's no way of recourse. Successful defendants can't sue for costs like they can in civil court.

But all that aside, the main objection to the show trial, the only objection that was really needed, is that the case was a violation of freedom of speech. This was the only argument that needed to be raised, simply because it's true: there was no, and is no reason or justification for putting a magazine on trial for its words. That is and always will be the case.

Needless to say, public outrage was provoked. A small army of bloggers, podcasters, columnists, and writers united in a determined effort to belittle, deride, and otherwise put down the entire farcical HRT process. They were largely successful, as the BCHRT quietly put out a ruling that Maclean's was innocent - although, one might argue, they were innocent of a crime - hate speech - that shouldn't be a crime in the first place.

This isn't the only time that the BCHRT has taken controversial cases. Earlier this year there was the case of Guy Earle, a stand-up comedian who went through a show trial of his own because he heckled a pair of lesbians who were heckling him at an edgy comedy club, and who was, shockingly enough, rather rude in said confrontation.

That's certainly a crime worth punishing, isn't it? Let's just take it as read that the BC Human Rights Tribunal isn't such a fan of freedom of speech. Their ruling on the Guy Earle 'case' has yet to be released, but either way the man's life has been effectively destroyed by the process. Comedy clubs won't hire him, and even though comedy wasn't his main profession that particular joy has been taken away from him while he drowns in legal bills.

MacNaughton's comeuppance is not the burning with fire that this Frankenstein's monster of worthless bureaucracy deserves. But it's a damn good start.

*a big fat tip of the hat to Jesse Ferreras for the story.

Walker Morrow is a contributing writer for The Propagandist. He can be contacted at dresdenmorrow@gmail.com or Twitter @wmorrow1