Tory Turmoil: Your Saturday Morning Round-Up!

New stories on the PCPO civil war breaking out in Eastern Ontario. Two of them mention Hudak's promise to abolish the Ontario Human Rights Commission, a promise made to attract Hillier delegates to the Hudak cause during last year's PCPO leadership convention.

If you recall, in the run-up to that convention, provincial Tory leadership contenders fell over one another moving right so as to appeal to Hillier's gang of "rural libertarians". So, for example, Frank Klees promised to make "White's Only" signs legal again (or, more precisely, strike down that portion of the Ontario Human Rights Code that made them illegal). However, Hillier saw through that scheme...it wasn't radical enough for him...and eventually Hudak upped the ante, promising to chuck out the whole provincial human rights apparatus and replace it with...something...some day.

But, as Michael Warren notes in his Owen Sound Times editorial, Hudak hasn't talked about this plan much since winning the leadership race. And that's not surprising. Polling at the time showed that such a pledge would be a vote evaporator among the general populace. So Hudak put it in a little box and never spoke of it again.

Except that now he may have to so as to keep Randy Hillier inside the PCPO tent. Therefore, a sincere thanks (from myself and all Ontario Liberal supporters) to Randy Hillier for taking that item off the secret agenda and putting it squarely back on the, well, non-secret agenda.

Liberals Make It Federal

This is the kind of thing that makes me happy that Iggy's keeping Kinsella around:

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper must assure Canadians that he does not favour scrapping the Canadian Human Rights Commission in light of the fact that 20 of his MPs have endorsed plans to eliminate the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Liberal MP Bob Rae said today.

Just a reminder. There's two human rights radicals in the Tory race--Tim Hudak and Randy Hillier--and two purported moderates--Frank Klees and Red Tory no-hoper Christine Elliot. Its a testament to how far the PCPO has drifted right that the kind of OHRC "reform" suggested by one of these moderates, Klees, would involve lifting the prohibition signs advertising "Whites Only Served" and "No Irish Need Apply".

So far:

Eugene McDermott, Candidate of Record, Conservative party of Canada Don Valley East
Kevin Nguyen, 2008 Conservative candidate, York West
Lois Brown, MP Newmarket-Aurora

...are down with that lovely idea.

Whites Only Signs: Catholic Insight Is Cool With 'Em

From their website:

In what he describes as “an essential first step to refocusing the Ontario Human Rights Commission on its original mandate,” Klees introduced a private member’s bill into the Legislature on June 4 to repeal Section 13 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

However, this is a relatively innocuous provision of the code that prohibits the display of “any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation” that indicates an intention to violate or incite others to violate a ban on discrimination in the code. Unlike human rights legislation in Alberta and British Columbia, neither Section 13 nor any other provision of the Ontario code authorizes the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to censor newspaper and magazine articles.

Repealing Section 13 is a good idea, but it would do little to safeguard freedom of expression in Ontario and nothing at all to stop the OHRT from suppressing the freedoms of conscience, religion and association for the benefit of feminists, gay rights activists, racial minorities and other groups designated for preferred treatment in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

You know, the folks at Catholic Insight want you to think they're nothing but good Christians suffering under the government jackboot, but in reality--and as I think this kind of response demonstrates--they're a far right freak-show whose primary use for The Bible is as a mud-flap to deflect criticism when they go off a gay-bashing. No wonder they keep getting in trouble with the law.

Meanwhile, the light continues to dawn! Bashing HRCs is a vote evaporator! Too late, suckah's! Take it off the agenda, and next election McGuinty will just argue its on the hidden agenda!

(By the way, a quick explanation for the headline is here.)

Comes The Dawn

I wanted to take another crack at the results of an Ipsos poll that came out yesterday. It asked Ontario voters:

Would you consider voting for the Ontario PC Party in the next election if its newly elected leader supported scrapping Ontario's human rights tribunal?

...and they basically responded (75%) with a hearty "Hell no!". Some PCPO supporters are just coming to realize what's happening with their leadership race. From the BT forum:

Its a very stuipid political plan. While the plan may resonate with an element of the base, and make you party leader, its something the Liberals will beat you over the head iwth in a general election.

[...]

Promising to `scrap`them is a huge strategic mistake which gives our opposition a huge target in the next election. I would question the leadership ability of anybody who promises to scrap them.

From Christian Conservative:

It's still bothering me, I thought it had been all sorted out, but I heard Tim talking about the HRC issue again. To me, it's the third rail of this race... you touch it and you're dead.

And (just to sum up) what has happened is that two of the four leadership candidates (alleged front runner Tom Hudak and rural seperatist Randy Hillier), who have vowed to abolish the tribunal, have rendered themselves unelectable in Ontario. I would further argue that Frank Klees' more modest proposal, to allow "Whites Only" signs and "No Irish Need Apply" want ads back in the province, would prove similarly unpalatable to Ontario voters should he become PCPO leader.

That leaves us with Christine Elliot--moderate, female--the McGuinty government's worst nightmare (and Warren Kinsella's!). But, no! She may be among the front runner's at this point, but Christine is too damn Liberal and incorrectly gendered for the PCPO base. Watch an "anyone but Christine" movement to appear between now and the convention. Whispers of rebellion are already in the air!

So in the end we will wind up with the Ontario Conservative Party embracing a totally toxic policy, making Kinsella's job in the McGuinty war-room next time out trivially easy, and a Liberal government in Ontario from now until the cows come home.

I remember a case on our side of the fence, when the federal libs ran on a "tax on everything". We knuckled down and maintained a brave face and prayed that the whole damn thing wouldn't go nuclear. Fun stuff! Soon it will be the turn of my Ontario conservative brothers to learn what happens when you walk up to one of the third rails of Canadian politics and start licking it.

PS. A bit of a mini-kerfuffle blew up last when it was revealed that he Elliot campaign paid for the poll in question. Mind you, IPSOS has a rep to maintain and probably wouldn't juice its questions too severely, and in any case (see 1st link above), Elliot's people have released the poll. Other than the use of the term "scrap", which Hudak and Hillier have employed on several occasions, nothing seems too untoward about it.

Hillier Sees Through Klees

Looks like Mr. Hillier reads BCLSB:

As the four-way Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leadership race begins to tighten, Eastern Ontario MPP leadership hopeful Randy Hillier is calling for clarity regarding a new Private Member’s Bill introduced by leadership opponent Frank Klees’. In the bill, tabled last week, Klees urges limitations on the powers of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the repeal of Section 13 of the Ontario Human Rights Act. Hillier argues his leadership opponent is confusing Section 13 of the Ontario Human Rights Code with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. As Hillier notes: “In the first place, there is no Ontario Human Rights Act. There is an Ontario Human Rights Code, but Section 13 of that Code has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. Mr. Klees is clearly confusing Section 13 of the Ontario Human Rights Code with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which has been used extensively to limit freedom of expression in this country.” Getting to the crux of the issue, Hillier adds: “The Canadian Human Rights Act is a federal law and cannot be amended provincially.” Hillier is arguing Klees’ Private Member’s Bill is a misinformed attempt to score political points with key Tory supporters who oppose human rights commissions.


Well, firstly, Hillier is not entirely correct about section 13 of the Ontario code having nothing to do with speech. It basically prohibits you from publishing materials that announce "an intention to discriminate--signs reading "whites only served", and so forth. And in a coda to his private member's bill, Klees explicitly notes the purpose of the section. So, while misleading eager to be misled Tory supporters is almost certainly part of Klees goal, perhaps he really is OK with such signs.


(Although, to be fair, Hillier's proposal--abolishing the OHRT-- would also make it easier to post racist signs and emblems. Among other things.)

Frank Klees Will Lift Prohibition On Racist Signs?

At least I think that's what he's proposing:


(Queen’s Park) Newmarket-Aurora MPP and PC Leadership Candidate Frank Klees tabled a Private Member’s Bill that is an essential first step to refocusing the Ontario Human Rights Commission on its original mandate and it received First Reading in the Ontario Legislature today.

The Bill, entitled the “Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2009” will remove Section 13 from the Ontario Human Rights Act. This is the section that Klees and many observers of the Human Rights Commission and its companion, the Human Rights Tribunal, point to as the section of the Act that has given rise to what Klees refers to as the “over-reach” of the HRC Commission into matters dealing with freedom of expression and freedom of speech.


Actually, though, this is incorrect. As I have written previously, section 13.1 of the Ontario Code prohibits you from publishing materials that announce "an intention to discriminate". It reads:

A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 13 (1).

But 13.1 does not cover broader forms of free expression, as Barbara Hall noted in her critique of Mark Steyn's writing in Macleans:

Section 13 of the Code makes it illegal to display or publish certain kinds of offensive material. But its limits on freedom of expression are narrow. For the Code to apply, the offending item must be a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation that indicates an intent to infringe, or incite others to infringe, a right under the Code. Therefore, a sign would fall within this section, but a five-page article conveying the same message would not.

So, in Klees Ontario, would it become possible to have signs like "No blacks need apply" hanging from your shop window? Or, as I wondered here, has Mr. Klees simply confused the federal with the provincial human rights code?

Or, is he assuming that Ontario PC rank and filers, the folks whose votes he is trolling for in his quest to become party leader, are too stupid to distinguish the one from the other?