A Defense Of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal

...and a critique of Brad Wall's Bill C-160. My favorite bit is the defense of the HRT's looser rules of evidence:

A tribunal is also a much more relaxed and less expensive setting than the formality and complexity of a courtroom. Rules of evidence are not as stringent. Claimants are not faced with the intimidation that comes with such trappings as lawyers and judges wearing robes. Given that human rights complainants very often come from marginalized, low-income communities, this informality goes far in boosting both comfort and confidence.

But it's all good.

Ezra Vs. The Indians

Chief Alphonse Lameman weighs in on Ezra's anti-First Nations comments at a public debate hosted by the Wilderness Committee in Vancouver, BC on November 18, 2010:

“Mr. Levant’s words are ugly and mean-spirited and add nothing to the tar sands conversation in Canada,” said Chief Lameman. “He takes the level of discussion on important issues like the destruction of the boreal forest by tar sands to a new low, denigrating the importance of our beliefs and the stand we have taken as stewards of our traditional lands. His negative and sweeping comments on First Nations people are, unfortunately, the sad expression of an attitude we deal with every day. Mr. Levant paints himself as a great defender of rights like freedom of speech, while telling us that we should not defend our own rights.”

Meanwhile, in related news, we're almost two weeks out from the decision against Ezra in Levant v. Vigna, and the defamatory posts all appear to be there still. An appeal in the works? We'll know in a day or two.

Meanwhile, in somewhat related news, amendments to the Saskatchewan human rights code have been introduced that would abolish the role of the provincial rights tribunal and send cases previously heard by the tribunal to the regular court system. As with the current system, complainants costs would be borne by the province.

Abandoning Human Rights Tribunals: Costly Or No?

The Aboriginal Affairs Coalition of Saskatchewan is worried that the provincial government's plan to dissolve the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal will render the process "too costly for many individuals who can't afford lawyers and court fees". However, Sask. Justice Minister Don Morgan disagrees, and his response is worth noting:

"The government's intent -- outlined in its recent throne speech -- is that the system will work almost exactly the same for individuals, including cost.

"The only difference will be is that they are going to be in front of a Court of Queen's Bench judge rather than a tribunal member. So everything else will be exactly the same as it was. So the people that are the applicants that are before the court ... will bear no cost, as they do under the existing system."

I think its a given that the cost of processing and resolving complaints will go up. What the provincial government is quite clearly saying is that it will bear these costs rather than slough them off on the complainants. Such "reforms" would hardly be a win for the Speechys, it would seem to me. And that's a good thing.

Exactly What You Need HRCs For

SAINT JOHN, N.B. — The New Brunswick Human Rights Commission is holding an inquiry into the province's abortion policy.

Randy Dickinson, chairman of the commission, confirmed Tuesday that the human rights organization received a complaint relating to New Brunswick's Medical Services Payment Act, which sets out the conditions under which the province will pay for abortions.

As for what's going on in Saskatchewan, where the Tribunal may be dissolved and cases that can't be settled via mediation sent to court, I'm not sure what to think of it yet. For one thing, the hate speech provisions in the provincial legislation would remain as per the status quo: in fact, in other Sask. human rights news, Bill Whatcott's case is being taken to the Supreme Court. And in situations where mediation fails, the province will still take up complainant's costs. I suppose the issue here would be costs--its difficult to see this new process being cheaper than going before a tribunal. And while Chief Commissioner David Arnot is clearly sincere in his attempts to reform the human rights situation in that province, can Premier Brad Wall and his gang be trusted to produce legislation in accord with Mr. Arnot's intentions?

If Saskatchewan Does Away With Its Human Rights Tribunal

...it'll force victims of discrimination to pay far more than most potential claims would be worth in order to get their complaints heard by anybody who can make a binding order.

And that isn't an unintended consequence, its the intended one.