Site Search

Custom Search

Monday, June 29, 2009

Warren Kinsella plays fast and loose with the truth

The Liberal Party war roomer, Warren Kinsella, tells us on his blog on Sunday, how “The newly-minted Ontario Conservative leader wants to get rid of the Human Rights Tribunal.” Then he goes on to imply that the move is bad because:

“…if you are black, and someone has denied you a job because of that. It is if you are a Jew, and a will prevents you from buying a piece of land because of your faith. It is if you are gay, and someone has refused to provide you with a motel room for the night. It is if you are sexually harassed at work. It is if your union won't accommodate you because you are in a wheelchair. It is if a golf course won't let you play, because of your religion.”

Now here’s where he plays around with the truth.

Here’s a direct quotation from the Hudak campaign’s May 12 announcement on the subject:

“Tim proposes that the [Ontario Human Rights] Tribunal be scrapped in favour of a court-based system operating under the rules of evidence. Complaints would go to specially trained judges, similar to the existing Domestic Violence and Family Law Courts.” [Emphasis is mine.]

In Mr. Kinsella’s June 28, 2009 post, he neglects to point out that Mr. Hudak promises to replace the Human Rights Tribunal with “a court-based system operating under the rules of evidence.” To have mentioned this, of course, would have made his paragraph (quoted above) at best, nonsensical, or at worst, untrue.

Tim Hudak’s announcement made it plain that Ontario residents will not only not lose human rights protection, but will gain by having those rights protected by a court of law. As a lawyer, how can Mr. Kinsella see this as a bad thing?

Just more dirty tricks and half-truths from the “modern-day Machiavelli” as Mr. Kinsella is referred to on his blog.

I guess when you don’t have a pound of steak to sell, you package it with pork and pass it off as steak—and Liberals know a lot about pork.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

8 comments — This is a moderated blog and comments will appear when approved. Please don’t resubmit if your comment doesn’t appear immediately, and please do not post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable.

  1. Not to mention I'm not really sure who can justify the Human Rights Tribunal on the basis that a Jewish man somewhere is unable to violate the terms of somebody else's will. "He didn't want to let me have the land because..." is as far as he'd get in court before a judge asked to see who the will gives the property to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Right. No one's rights are affected. Not at all. The cost and expense and the delays of the court system, the costs of hiring a lawyer, are no barrier to justice. Not at all.

    Look. Argue for or against human rights tribunals. Or that the tribunal system is broken (it is). I get that. But don't start pretending that Hudak's proposal will be the same only better. The reason tribunals were set up is because the issues in dispute - denial of a lease for example - are small too small for someone to go through the incredibly expensive process of hiring a lawyer and going to court, but nontheless important.

    Heck, the court system is too expensive and takes too long for businesses, which increasingly prefer mediation and arbitration tribunals.

    What Hudak is saying is that human rights should be protected for the wealthy. Others? Please go away.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Ted Betts a court-based system doesn't mean that it would go through a regular court. It means that the HRT's would have to follow the same rules of court (i.e. things like KNOWING YOUR ACCUSER or the ACCUSATIONS MADE against you, which our current HRT's like to occasionally hide).

    Hudak's system would likely retain some of the elements of the current HRT, like having lawyers provided to the plaintiff. But it would eliminate the farce of a system we have now.

    I really enjoy your blog Mr. Campbell - thanks for the follow on Twitter and I hope you'll check out my blog too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Dean.

    BTW, I do read your blog, Always Right.

    Thanks for visiting mine and taking the time to comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ted, the CHRC's were set up to provide the left with a govt sponsored forum in which to bash their ideological opponents without fear of retribution or incurring cost.

    Ask Alan Borovoy...

    It was never about 'justice' or fairness or even the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1) Nobody knows what the new court based system will do because Hudak has provided 0 in the way of details.

    2) Its raw meat for the goobers in the Tory base so, lets face it, they don't CARE what his plan to replace the HRT with is. (Nor as I say) is it clear he has one.

    3)Alan Borovey has praised the Commissions Tribunals no end. He does NOT like their sections against hate speech. But of course the Ontario code doesn't have one. But go ahead embrace the crazy, Kursk, and remain in the minority forever.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The problem is this. Currently the HRC's are basically only answerable unto themselves. Hardly what I'd call responsible oversight.

    IF these "commissions" or "tribunals" are to have any kind of legal power/ability, they need to come under the authority of the Minister of Justice or the courts and thus are ultimately answerable to "the people".

    This "quasi-judicial" etc garbage must end. Quasi = Somewhat. So if you are only somewhat judicial, then anything you say or decide should be deferred to an ACTUAL judicial body for ACTUAL justice.

    And I'm sorry, but anything "quasi" should have no real authority over me as an individual. My actions are (and should be) accountable to PROPER authorities who operate under strict rules and are answerable to a publicly elected "official".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Liberals aren't interested in fact. They care only about obfuscation and pointing fingers.

    Kinsella is adept at this.

    ReplyDelete

ShareThis