http://www.canada.com/life/Signing+away+individual+freedoms/4181678/story.html
Never having had much interest in politics, administration, academic philosophy or law in my younger years, I was rather surprised at how this article made me mull over some of those big important terms I've always avoided such as: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution, civil law and common law.
Sure, I've always known they're important. But always thought of them as something only truly understood by lawyers, professors and smart people who use big words. It gave me a brief introduction to the history and current standing of the charter, while also spewing out a bit of juicy contriversy over Trudeau's policies around the origins of the human rights commission.
Can "the people" really have confidence in a commission who's goal is to protect human rights from infringement from things like companies, other people, and especially, the government; when this commission was created by the government? How far away is "arms length" really?
On another level, is the commission's current work truly helpful to society at this point? No doubt, they've done some important work. But does it make sense when a commission rules that a 400lb woman was discriminated against because another resident in her 60's with medical injuries refused to give up a parking spot close to the door? The commission ruled that: her neighbours and her condo board had discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her handicap. The commission ordered the neighbour to give the complainent her parking spot. It also ordered the 35 other owners in her complex to get together and pay Ms. Myrand $10,000 for being insufficiently sensitive to her disability.
The author of the article made an intersting point: Sure, the commission solved the dispute. But, is their someone else's responsibility to solve that problem? Or should it really be our own responsilibity first and foremost? It looks at ideas in "Civil law, whereby rights are granted by the state -- unlike in the common law tradition, whereby rights are seen as something natural that pre-existed the state. If you believe the state is the original granter of rights, I suppose it also makes some sense to believe you can put the state in charge of protecting rights."
Hmm..interesting! If the complainent hadn't been able to go to the commission so quickly to solve her problem, would she have been "forced" to find a different compromise? Perhaps something that would be less damaging to human relationships. I can only imagine what the rest of the condo owners feel about their neighbour after being slapped with a fine and then "labelled" as having "discriminated" against their neighbour. Ouch.
So, civil law or common law? Is the commission fundamentally biased and/or a necessity?
Just some food for thought that made me think!
Thanks Dax for taking the time to post this most intriguing article! Coincidentally, I am currently taking an Administrative Law course which covers on these exact concepts. I have also never really understood how the constitution was established and how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can impact/affect civil and or common laws, until now. Perhaps it is because I am now in my early 30's and the crossover to adulthood has really sunk in. I feel compelled to understand my rights as an individual and perhaps can somehow fester up the courage to stand up to my own rights if I ever needed to. I am only at the infancy of learning this course material but have gained a general understanding which may allow me to conjure up an explanation or at least try to hold a discussion with you on this matter.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting however if you do know how the system works that you can exploit it over others. In this case where the 400lbs woman prevailed in her rights to get what she wanted, albeit it has made her excruciatingly unpopular with her neighbors and strata; she is now able to live her life more comfortably (despite the scornful stares and backstabbing problems she may be dealing with).
The Human Rights Commission is an agency delegated with quasi-judicial powers that enables them to make judge like decisions based on the agencies' expertise. Unfortunately, if the commission is operating duly within its legislation, the commission is supported on its decisions by the powers that granted them the privilege (Parliament). In other words, they are assumed the experts without doubt. If there is doubt that the commission is unduly operating and making improper decisions, then this can be appealed with the Supreme Court of Canada.
It's sad that it had to come down to the woman going to the Human Rights Commission, and something that most normal people would not do or never know how to do. I think it was a bit over the top that there was a $10,000 fine to add to the fire. Damaged relationships is to say the least..How does one find resolve in this situation? Move?
Then again, I don't know how often these sorts of cases occur.
ReplyDelete