Last week, Joseph Brean of the National Post wrote a very revealing article on the HR convention that took place in Niagara Falls. I was particularly unimpressed and amused at Ms. Eliadis’ reactions. Here’s a selection of them…
Pearl Eliadis, a prominent human rights lawyer, responded that what Mr. Borovoy thought 40 years ago should not determine the current state of human rights law, and that the arguments against human rights commissions dealing with complaints against media are premised on the notion that “new rights are bad rights.”
Well, uh, yeah. New “rights” are indeed almost always bad rights – at least those proposed by the Human Rights Commissions. Why? Because the erection of new “rights” by the HRCs invariably means taking away a right from someone else. For the HRCs, it’s a zero-sum game: for every right they bestow on some moaner and whiner, there is a corresponding injustice placed on the defendant.
She said the commissions are “strategically and uncomfortably poised” in “dynamic tension” among NGOs, government, voters, industry and other influences, and it is “almost proof of their relative success that nobody is happy.”
Oh please. Richard Warman is pretty happy. So is Warren Kinsella and the rest of the Left in this country. The relative success is far from “nobody being happy”; it is more the case that “conservatives are not happy”. Which, of course, shows these tribunals up for being nothing more than political courts dressed up in “human rights” drag.
“There’s a narrow band of intolerant bigots out there who are jumping on to this bandwagon and are using this debate to propagate particularly hateful views,” Ms. Eliadis said in an interview. “What the free speech absolutists are saying is that, once you take that core element of speech and transport it into mass media, suddenly it becomes immune. I don’t understand why speech should be immune from discrimination law. The media should not enjoy more rights or immunity than anyone else.”
This is pretty staggering stuff. Let’s repeat it again for the benefit of the Peter Mansbridges out there in the MSM: “I don’t understand why speech should be immune from discrimination law. The media should not enjoy more rights or immunity than anyone else.”
Both she and Ms. Eliadis had harsh words for the growing contingent of bloggers who lambaste the commissions, and have been invigorated by the prominence of the Maclean’s complaints. Ms. Eliadis singled out one in particular, blazingcatfur. blogspot.com, as “poisonous” for referring to her panel at the conference as a “Texas cage match.” She said it was evidence of the “appalling tone” that is “illustrative of how badly this debate has gone.” (Source)
Oh I get it. The leeches at the HRCs are permitted to bankrupt Canadians and pull their names through the mud, using immoral and illegal tactics, and haul them before Star Chamber-like “tribunals”. And for all this Canadians are supposed to take it with a smile on their faces and give due deference to a bunch of elitist poltroons?
Lady, if you think the bloggers have been rather harsh in the past, you have no idea of what awaits this country unless it disbands these Commissions. People will only tolerate so much encroachments on their freedoms.
I think it’s pretty significant that Ms. Eliadis singles out the bloggers for rebuke. We are, after all, both the real opposition in this country and the real media as well.