A question for the local news, including the BurdReport
Last week I received emails pointing us to Wally Keeler's local online journal (read the details here), our cultural affairs correspondent, wherein he outlined a story about local businessman Jim Corcoran (he owns St Ann's Spa) and his pending lawsuit against the Catholic Diocese of Peterborough and 12 local Cobourg parishioners. The story is that Mr Corcoran, an admitted, but chaste for 19 years, homosexual began to serve the sacrament just before last Christmas. Twelve local parishioners objected, wrote a letter to the Bishop and Mr Corcoran was removed. Mr Corcoran responded by filing a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and is personally suing the twelve parishioners and the Bishop for $25,000 a piece.and the people named in the suit could be fined up to $25,000 (source "Catholic register").
Now the question - where was the local MSM in this, nary a comment even though the story was out there for the picking. It has only come to light now because the National Post has a piece about it this morning here. The sad part here, for MSM advocates, is that it was a rabid homophobic 'family values' site that broke the story early last week, beating the MSM to the punch.
This is where the MSM is - covering Dalton. The Lib spin machine is in full bloom taking advantage of the summer dearth of news and to announce an announcement, probably one of "old money" being re-announced. Put the above story with this one and you get a local MSM not willing to rock the advertisers and pump out political spin because it is safe. Really ,how many 'real people' will be there to see Dalton anyway?
Another piece of locally significant news was the announcement that the local hospital is setting up a "Citizens' Advisory Panel". This group of folks will be the sounding board for the bad news of cuts in the hospital budget. As part of the contingency plan, where the budget is balanced, a "community engagement plan" has to be filed with the LHIN before such a contingency plan can be approved. A Queen's Park requirement that is such total BS that it stinks even from there. The idea is that the public can be brought on side with the proper massaging and consultation. Rather like putting five people in a room and saying to each of them, "You all have to lose a limb, what will volunteer to cut off - an arm or a leg?"
Two problems with this idea - the idea itself; that unpalatable decisions are more acceptable if the dirty work is done by some people other than the Board who are elected to make the dirty decisions and the fact that cutbacks are mandated by a remote central body like the LHIN. When the idea was being floated I assumed that the CAP would be a vehicle of consultation led by local people who would talk to others in the community and form community opinion. But talking to the CAO he thinks that the discussion will remain in the room of the appointed people. Whoa Nelly, where is the legitimacy in that? Who gets to speak for me and when do I get to speak to them?
A bit redundant we have an open membership that elects a Board, based on regional demographics and geographic representation and that Board is expected to make decisions. But in this case, probably the most important decision they will make this year - the budget, they decide to delegate their representative responsibilities - sad.
Now the question - where was the local MSM in this, nary a comment even though the story was out there for the picking. It has only come to light now because the National Post has a piece about it this morning here. The sad part here, for MSM advocates, is that it was a rabid homophobic 'family values' site that broke the story early last week, beating the MSM to the punch.
This is where the MSM is - covering Dalton. The Lib spin machine is in full bloom taking advantage of the summer dearth of news and to announce an announcement, probably one of "old money" being re-announced. Put the above story with this one and you get a local MSM not willing to rock the advertisers and pump out political spin because it is safe. Really ,how many 'real people' will be there to see Dalton anyway?
Another piece of locally significant news was the announcement that the local hospital is setting up a "Citizens' Advisory Panel". This group of folks will be the sounding board for the bad news of cuts in the hospital budget. As part of the contingency plan, where the budget is balanced, a "community engagement plan" has to be filed with the LHIN before such a contingency plan can be approved. A Queen's Park requirement that is such total BS that it stinks even from there. The idea is that the public can be brought on side with the proper massaging and consultation. Rather like putting five people in a room and saying to each of them, "You all have to lose a limb, what will volunteer to cut off - an arm or a leg?"
Two problems with this idea - the idea itself; that unpalatable decisions are more acceptable if the dirty work is done by some people other than the Board who are elected to make the dirty decisions and the fact that cutbacks are mandated by a remote central body like the LHIN. When the idea was being floated I assumed that the CAP would be a vehicle of consultation led by local people who would talk to others in the community and form community opinion. But talking to the CAO he thinks that the discussion will remain in the room of the appointed people. Whoa Nelly, where is the legitimacy in that? Who gets to speak for me and when do I get to speak to them?
A bit redundant we have an open membership that elects a Board, based on regional demographics and geographic representation and that Board is expected to make decisions. But in this case, probably the most important decision they will make this year - the budget, they decide to delegate their representative responsibilities - sad.
22 comments:
Your statement, Ben, that Wally Keeler "outlined a story about local businessman Jim Corcoran ... and his pending lawsuit against the Catholic Diocese of Peterborough and 12 local Cobourg parishioners" is not quite to the point. In fact, Mr. Keeler used the story to trumpet both his ignorance of human rights issues, in general, and his contempt for the various Commissions and Tribunals, in particular, that have been established to protect those rights.
Once more, our poet without rhyme parades views without reason.
It is worth adding that the local MSM have been fully cognizant of the Human Rights issue between Mr Corcoran, the 12 parishioners and the bishop. They were informed of the issue last week. They have declined to publish any details for reasons known only to themselves. Ironic that they like to assert that they are the watchdogs for Cobourg community, but despise being scrutinized themselves.
Northumberland Today prefers to publish columns written by authors who weren't born & raised in Cobourg, who write about their own non-Cobourg experiences when they wax nostalgic. Cobourgers are not being served with stories about their own community because no one at Northumberland News knows any, not even the editor.
Ironic that assorted MSM outside the community is serving the community better than the MSM within the community.
It's worth noting that Cobourg Atheist is posting the news on the Corcoran issue here: http://www.cobourgatheist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=162:catholioc-bishop-in-peterborough-fights-ontario-human-rights-commission&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50.
Meanwhile today's Northumberland News reports that a "Cobourg resident (and St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church member) Laurie Carrol has termed her recent participation in a Presbyterian Church of Canada Mission and Awareness Trip in Eastern Europe an eye opener. in this article: http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1654663
Those commissions and tribunals often do NOT protect human rights. They violate human rights. I have contempt for violators of human rights. I can provide plenty of real-life examples in Canada.
Whether William likes it or not, I risked my freedom when I smuggled art, literature, music, human rights docs and hard currency in and out and between the totalitarian dictatorshits of eastern Europe during the cold war. I put my rights where my mouth was -- I didn't run away from my country bearing the cloak of self-righteousness.
Wally, that's a Northumberland Today, not Northumberland News story. Please clarify that in your comment.
Also, main stream media is working on the story, but we simply can't link to someone else's work and criticize, Ben.
As the guy from Northumberland News has noted, the mainstream media has a heavier obligation to check facts than people who operate blogs.
I am wondering where the information about Mr. Corcoran filing "individual lawsuits" came from. There is nothing in the National Post article about that.
On checking the website for the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, it took about 10 minutes to find the applicant's guide where it clearly states you may NOT file a complaint with them if you have started civil court action.
The Tribunal MAY order the respondent to compensate the applicant financially, but that is at the discretion of the Tribunal and not automatic. Their main concern is to rectify the discrimination that occurred rather than dole out money.
Personally, while I appreciate the immediacy and cheekiness of blogs, not to mention the enhanced ability to interact, I would also appreciate some fact checking too.
Have you all forgotten about "poetic license" - something that your cultural correspondent takes to heart as if it were his and his above all others to possess and practice with reckless abandon? I'm sure we'll all be dazzled by his sure to follow flourish of the 'mighty pen' as he parries and deflects all this unworthy criticism of his 'poetic prowess' - or should that be 'poetic proneness'?
Debbie, Manfred, and others; if you want the source of the facts on this issue, you can go to my blog (which Ben has graciously provided on his reference to this story) where the links to the primary sources are boldly highlighted to make things easier for you.. You will see that they do not link to blogs, but to reputable news sources.
Check it out before you go all blab-mouth with your smug righteousmess, or in your case, Manfred, your blandmess.
I didn't know slagging others willy-nilly could be so much fun! ...I didn't know.....!
Anyone wanting a succinct statement of the immense value of the work done by human rights tribunals could do worse than peruse the columns of Helen Henderson in The Toronto Star. Her most recent offering Threat to rights tribunal demands a response contains these remarks:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights states that 'every individual has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.'
"Yet the human rights tribunal is the only quasi-judicial body in this province that offers those not trained as lawyers access to knowledgeable help in assessing and arguing the merits of their cases.
"Trust me, you do not stand much chance of fighting injustice without qualified assistance. Which puts the price of justice way out of reach for anyone struggling to make ends meet."
I have read enough of both Helen Henderson and Wally Keeler to know this: on the very important matter of human rights, I do trust her and I don't trust him.
However I add that I trust Ezra Levant's insights concerning the injustices of Canada's various human rights commissions. Ezra is not only a journalist as is Helen Henderson, he is also a lawyer, which makes him better equipped than Helen Henderson to illuminate HRC injustices. Unlike Helen Henderson he was swallowed into the belly of the beast of HRCs and knows its machinations quite thoroughly.
Aside from HRC's and the issue of Free Speech, I don't share any of Levant's other politics. My involvement in this issue is deeper than the shallow waters treaded by William Hayes. Indeed, I didn't spend a lifetime sitting on my ass concerning these matters. Furthermore, I had more than a bellyfull of injustices from The State, which included wiretaps, loss of emplpyment, loss of housing, and the interception and withholding of my mail by the Security Service of the RCMP, which had provided me with a depth of experience at the hands of The State, aka Big Brother.
Back to you Billy Boy.
The The Toronto Star recently ran a series of articles that exposed the sordid details of discrimination in rental housing, which is a major focus of human rights tribunals in Canada.
Today's lead editorial in the print edition of the Star focused on the specific aspects of this problem faces by people with mental illness. Here is an excerpt:
"Ontarians suffering from a mental illness are routinely discriminated against in the private housing market.... A new study by the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, released last week, found that more than one-third of Torontonians with a mental illness were likely to face substantial discrimination when trying to rent an apartment. Alarmingly, the study found that landlords were quite comfortable making negative comments about those suffering from mental illness, which 'suggests a disturbing level of public acceptance of discrimination against these individuals.'"
Human rights agencies and organizations are needed to address these problems.
Glad to see Mr. Bill's comments about the need for tribunals and agencies that enforce our human rights.
While we who are privileged sometimes don't understand the need for them, those of us who are vulnerable to abuse because of mental illness and all the other issues know all too well why.
Discrimination in housing is blatant and systemic, and not just restricted to private market landlords either. Unfortunately, it's also difficult to prove, and usually the victim is too frantic trying to find housing to worry about pursuing a legal remedy that likely won't get them housed anyway!
Perhaps a call to Mr. Rinaldi is in order to ask why the hell the Province is cutting funds to Legal Aid Ontario so ruthlessly. Mind you, the Crowns are doing very well, it's the defender side, and legal clinics, getting whacked.
Doesn't fit in too well with their avowed commitment to poverty reduction does it?
This story in The Toronto Star today documents the fine work of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Immigration Reporter Leslie Taylor quotes law professor David Tanovich as follows:
"This case is important because it is the second clear Ontario human rights tribunal ruling of racial profiling against police.... Most cases are not about overt racism. They're about stereotyping.... The more positive findings we get, the greater focus on training and proper directives. Very few of these cases ever make their way to court."
In other words, the decisions of the Tribunal greatly assist the very important, much needed oversight process of our police.
Ontario Human Rights Commission and Federal Human Rights Commission. Two overlapping bureaucrazies. Well spent money -- makes them competitive for the whiner's dollar.
William Hayes, incapable of putting things in his own words, defers to news clippings, as if they are the answer. Sorry Bill, but the Cocoran affair is not about housing. Nor is it about loss of livelihood.
Here's a specific question dealing with the specific issue at hand: Do you approve of the Ontario Human Rights Commission adjudicating the Corcoran Affair? Why or why not? It's a tough question, but you're over 18 -- you can handle it.
Like Bill, I was gratified to read this recent decision of the new HR Tribunal in Ontario, and scanning the comments made by other readers was most illuminating too. Can't help but wonder why the Star took them all out moments after I saw them. Anyway it was a good decision that shows the adjudicator is well equiped to do the job.
Unfortunately it continues to be a huge concern that the liberals have done nothing to restore the public, non-police driven complaint process that we used to have in Ontario when we needed to make a complaint about police conduct.
Bring that back and I'd feel even better.
A perhaps subtle but very important distinction that must be defined and published is the difference between "human rights" and "civil rights" - they are not the same thing and must each have their own criteria to adjudicate them well and for common and universal benefit. Without a clear separation of the two, confusion of the two will make it next to improbable that most folks will ever come to grips with actually understanding either, including the various commissions themselves.
Manfred wonders about the difference between "human rights" and "civil rights".
Do you have a distinction in mind, Manfred? I don't have a source, myself, but suspect, as do you, that there are formal, perhaps even multiple conflicting, distinctions between the two notions.
As a stimulus to discussion, allow me to offer the following, very informal, distinction:
Civil Rights: rights that accrue to citizens of a particular state;
Human Rights: rights that accrue to all persons, regardless of citizenship.
In this regard, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, refers, I believe, to all persons.
My observation stems from my own belief that "civil rights" can be legislated whereas "Human rights" can not, for they accrue to every human upon becoming so. (Unfortunately that moment has not yet been universally agreed upon.)
It must be clearly stated, and understood to be absolute, what constitutes the complete and finite slate of "Human rights", and then all other 'rights' would fall under the broader spectrum of "civil rights". From there, the spectrum of 'civil rights' can and should be constantly revised to reflect the progress and setbacks experienced by all of earth's inhabitants.
Generally speaking, I believe that 'civil rights' should become the terms of reference where "Human rights" do not apply.
In my opinion, there can be no overlap of the two.
Early on in the "Corcoran affair" Deb O'Connor stated her hope that "mediation will work for this case and everyone can go away happy." The good news for us in Ontario: mediation is one of the routes down which the Human Rights Tribunal can and does attempt to direct disputes.
Deb's preference for mediation puts her in good company. No less a person than the President of USAmerica has personally thrown in his anchor for mediation.
Today's Star headlines Obama's intervention in a highly publicised dispute as Black scholar to meet arresting officer at White House and reports, "Obama extended the invitation Friday in phone calls to the two men as he sought to calm a national debate over racial profiling."
We can work work for justice in two ways:
1) by entering into disputes on one side or the other;
2) by supporting the search for ways out of disputes.
The intent of the second approach is simply that we "Give peace a chance."
Mediation is a wonderful thing, it's used now in family law disputes too as an alternative to duking it out in court.
Thing is, it only works if both parties truly want to resolve the issue. If one of them is spoiling for a fight, mediation isn't going to satisfy that urge.
I just hope we are finished discussing the difference between civil and human rights now. I've never had much patience for that kind of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin type discussions. Reminds me of meetings to set by-laws for a new organization: aghhh! Get me out of here NOW.
My last kick at the can before this post and its comments drift off into Older-Posts-Land: Canada should sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Post a Comment