|
| Back to Briefs |
SUBMISSION TO THE BRITISH COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3, 1997
by: REAL Women of BC
Box 39068
Point Grey RPO
Vancouver, BC
V6R 4P1
- Table of Contents:
- Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Comments on the HRC Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction:
It is with great pleasure that we present this submission to the Human
Rights Commission on behalf of our provincial women''s organization. This
is our second submission on the issue of human rights; the first was made
to the 1994 Human Rights Review and Mr. Bill Black. This year, our
provincial board members were unable to attend the hearings personally
and appreciate the ability to use E-mail to make this submission. We are
also thankful that the deadline was postponed one week, as this allowed
us the necessary time to finish our submission to you.
Please let me introduce our organization to you. We are a registered non-profit society, with thousands of members from all over this province
representing many nationalities and all socioeconomic-economic
backgrounds. We are an independent, pro-family, non partisan, grassroots
women''s political lobbying organization and family advocacy group. We
are the provincial affiliate of REAL Women of Canada. Our name is an
acronym which stands for Realistic, Equal, Active for Life. Our motto is
Women''s'' rights, but not at the expense of human rights. We have
position papers available on many of the major issues of our time
representing the thoughts of the mainstream majority of Canadians and of
British Columbians.
We agree heartily with Special Advisor, Professor Black when he said that
"the system must be fair to all". (Letter from the Special Advisor, Bill
Black, in BC Human Rights Review Discussion Paper, May 1994) However,
we feel strongly that while Human Rights Legislation had very laudable
intentions at its inception, the same can no longer be said for either the
Legislation as it stands (to which we spoke in 1994) and as it is proposed
now.
Equality is part of our name. With equality comes personal responsibility.
Comments on HRC Proposals
It is a major concern of REAL Women of BC that Human Rights
Commissions are comprised of appointed officials who are not
accountable to the public; commissioners do not have to have legal
training; nor are they required to apply standard legal procedures and
protections when making decisions. At tax-payers expense, these
Commissioners have created a star chamber and are perceived as being
chosen, not for their wisdom or commitment to the basic moral values of
society but rather, for their advocacy of social engineering extremism.
Such officials are attempting to force a social revolution on British
Columbians against their wishes.
We are especially alarmed at the "Housekeeping" proposal (#4) which
would allow the commissioner, as a social engineer, to recommend to
cabinet to enact changes in regulations and standards for determining
compliance with the Code. This places incredible power in the hands of
an unelected, unrepresentative official who may then advocate
regulations and compliance standards with potentially draconian effects
on British Columbians. We do not feel that this would enable an
effective, fair and efficient administrative process for dealing with human
rights issues.
Our organization feels that many of the Commissions substantive
recommendations could be better addressed in a healthy family setting.
We feel it is in British Columbians'' best interests to curtail the powers of
this legislation, and support families who want to be left alone to do their
job of raising healthy, well-adjusted and respectful citizens. We do not
believe that all British Columbians will benefit through more extensive
human rights interventions as are proposed by the Commission at this
time.
Substantive Change #1 to include the phrase "unless reasonable cause
exists for the refusal or discrimination" in sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and
14 of the Code is not necessary and could open the door to abuse of the
Commissions'' time and of taxpayers'' money on frivolous cases, especially
when used in concert with some of the other recommendations.
Substantive changes #2, 3, and 4 to include the ground of "age" and/or
family status in sections 8, 9 and 10 would have the effect of trying to
micro-manage the economy''s principle of supply and demand, and
diminish the importance of human rights for all British Columbians. They
may also have the effect of increasing the caseload of the commission with
trivial, personal agendas.
Substantive change #5 to add a new provision which would protect
persons from discrimination because they are related to or associate with
a person or group of persons covered by the Code is, again, micro-managing disagreements between individuals. We wonder how this
provision will be proven adequately enough to ensure it is not abused by
or abusive to British Columbians. This issue should be referred to a court
of law.
We feel Substantive changes # 6, 8 and 12 have the potential to
undermine the effectiveness of financial institutions to ensure to the best
of their ability that a loan applicant is in a life-situation which is indicative
of low-risk for defaulting on loans.
This seems to be another attempt of the Commission to unnecessarily
micro-manage society.
Substantive change #7 to amend the Code to clarify that discrimination on
the basis of gender identity is prohibited in sections 7 through 14 of the
Code may be another invitation to a small special interest group to
acquire special protection to the detriment of the rights of the majority of
British Columbians. The term gender is currently being defined as
"socially constructed roles" by the federal government. (Setting the
Stage for the Next Century: The Federal Plan for Gender Equality, Status of
Women, Canada, August, 1995) This change, when looked at in
conjunction with the HRC''s definition of equality and its intention to
redress ''historically disadvantaged" groups at the expense of mainstream
society and the traditional family is a recipe for totalitarianism.
Responsible parents left free to love their children would possibly almost
eliminate the incidence of non-pathological dysphoria within one
generation. Loving parents left alone to teach their children to respect
other people would solve this dilemma in one generation.
Substantive change #9 to amend section 12 and 13 of the Code to include
successor employers seems to be unnecessary as well as any action
initiated by the complainant and/or the Commission would surely name
the party(ies) involved. Immediately obligating a successive
owner/employer is surely not necessary when charges can be laid at a later
date for new violations of the Code. The spirit of the legislation should
not be so stifling to society that punishment/correction may be meted out
to an uninvolved party without evidence of wrongdoing.
Substantive change #10 to remove the 12-month limit on recovery of
wages should be deleted. The courts are constrained by legal doctrine
such as reasonable notice which effectively limit recovery of wages to two
years. An open ended potential liability here represents a draconian,
punitive weapon in the hands of social engineers.
Housekeeping recommendation #3 to amend section 43 of the Code to
extend coverage against retaliation because a person refuses, has refused,
or will refuse to contravene the Code is good if the complainant can prove
to legal standards that the allegations are true. Once again, this
recommendation holds potential peril for ordinary British Columbians if
the allegations are false.
By emphasizing individual rights or special interest group rights over
community responsibilities and obligations, an imbalance is created that
jeopardizes the rights and freedoms of society and is already having
serious repercussions as we see our families left vulnerable to a host of
unhealthy influences from political, social, educational and economic
forces. As we said earlier, although originally well-intended, Human
Rights Commissions have proven to be coercive and unjust; they are
creating legal precedents that should be left to either the legislatures or
the courts. For all the aforementioned reasons, they should be abolished.
However, in the event that these commissions are not abolished, it is
imperative that the legislation be tightened up to counteract the
injustices now being perpetrated in the name of Human Rights. The
propensity of the Act being used to dilute the concept of fundamental
moral values in favour of special privileges for politically-correct special
interest groups must be stopped immediately.
It is the firm belief of REAL Women of BC, as well as thousands of other
British Columbians, male and female, from all walks of life, that many of
the proposed amendments to the BC Human Rights Legislation will
devalue the human rights of the majority of British Columbians.
Recommendations
- Substantive recommendations #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12
should be deleted.
- Housekeeping recommendations #1, 3 and 4 should be deleted.
|
| Back to Briefs |
|
|
