Birth of a Monster: The Canadian Human Rights Act

We're all keenly awaiting to see what's inside the Crypt at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Ottawa on Tuesday. No doubt the tribunes will all be neatly scrubbed and washed, none of the odious muck they usually roll about in on display.

While we stamp our feet and mill about waiting to see what passes for an inquisition in our country, perhaps a thought should be had for the evil genius who birthed this body and its siblings: the Human Rights Commission (1977), the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), the Multiculturalism Act (Policy 1971, Act 1988) and the Official Languages Act (1969).

That would be Pierre (just watch me) Trudeau, our charismatic and very clever fifteenth Prime Minister (from April 20, 1967 to June 4, 1979 and from March 3, 1980 to June 30, 1984).

When I say very clever, I'm making a point; Trudeau was not just very clever, he was smarter than the very smartest and suspicious of his many critics. He was smart enough to successfully attack the one thing he most hated in life, English Law, from both ends; from the top with the Charter, and from the bottom with the Human Rights Act, without anyone noticing. The knife was in and out in a trice and not a drop of blood to be seen.

The charter, as we all know to our cost, attacks Canadian law by testing it anew, at the whim of the Justices and thousands of eager constitutional lawyers. What was good enough for England for a thousand years was, suddenly, not good enough for us for one.

But that was so expensive, so complex, so legal. What he proposed, supported, passed and then got applauded for was a kangaroo court system without any relationship to the hated Rules of Evidence, Due Process and certainly not English Common Law. With this thin but pliant whip he would attack Canadian Law from the bottom.

All he had to do was dangle the treat of thought crimes in front of the left, and they were off like a pack of greyhounds.

With any luck, English Common Law, that despised instrument of the invaders and conquerers could be sliced and diced until it was a ghost of its former self.

Let the chattering classes natter on about language, culture -- what phiffle -- while the real destruction job was commenced on the root of power.

Yes, Pierre, you were certainly a smart guy; but we're onto your game now.

Update
It is indisputable the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the Rule of Law. Do you think it likely that Pierre Trudeau, a distinguished lawyer, a Minister of Justice and, as some would say, the father of his country, would make a mistake on a point of law? Is this even remotely possible? No. So if the Commission is not a mistake, it is deliberate. And what could the reason be for that?

One hint came in Trudeau's speech to the Nation on the occasion of the signing, by the Queen, of the Canadian constitution on April 17, 1982. After a lot of high flown mumbo jumbo, we have this nugget in which the Prime Minister reveals his true feelings on democracy (the will of the majority) and the mindset of minorities (their feelings):

For if individuals and minorities do not feel protected against the possibility of the tyranny of the majority, if French-speaking Canadians or native peoples or new Canadians do not feel they will be treated with justice, it is useless to ask them to open their hearts and minds to their fellow Canadians.

So we have this odious definition of democracy as tyranny ("the tyranny of the majority") and we have with it several references to the feelings of minorities ("feel protected", "feel they will be treated"). How then are feelings to be protected; why with thought crime court; ta za, the Human Rights Commission!

But since Due Process and the Rule of Law, by definition, weed out thought crimes, they have to be removed. Let any complainant say anything they want; let them make charges in secret, exclude defence lawyers, eliminate the possibility of appeal. Yes, that will do nicely to screw things up. Maudit anglais!