By Jim Coggins

THE CANADIAN Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has dismissed a complaint against the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) lodged by Edmonton gay activist Rob Wells.

According to a CHP news release, the CHRC decided that "the content and context of the material which forms the basis of the complaint is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation . . . Accordingly, the file on this matter is now closed."

Former CHP leader Ron Gray still expressed frustration about the issue, suggesting that the party has already been "punished" by the process itself. And new research by the CHRC itself has raised the question of whether that agency is as neutral in its approach to these issues as it claims to be.

The case goes back to December 2006, when Wells lodged a complaint with the CHRC about four articles written by Gray and a couple of news stories that the CHP website had taken from WorldNetDaily, an "independent" web-based news service in the US.

Gray's articles pointed to medical research which demonstrated that a homosexual lifestyle can "shorten life expectancy dramatically," and argued that if schools and the media promote that lifestyle, it could "sentence some young people to an early grave." None of the materials in question are available any longer on the CHP website.

The CHP called the CHRC's method of operation "both slipshod and unjust."

Gray said he was not informed about the complaint until February 2007, two months after it was filed. Gray wrote to the CHRC challenging the Commission's jurisdiction over the statements of political parties, but the CHRC never responded to that issue.

Since the first step in any CHRC complaint is mediation, Gray offered to meet with Wells on a planned trip to Alberta, but the CHRC didn't respond until the day he was leaving, when it was too late to adjust his schedule.

Gray suggested the meeting be rescheduled, but the next thing he heard was in June 2007 when the CHRC said the case had been referred to an investigator since both sides had refused mediation. Gray responded that he had not refused mediation, but again he got no response. Finally, Gray hired a lawyer, who prepared a 3,200-page brief.

Gray heard no more until late December 2008 when he received a letter, dated October 24, 2008, stating that the case had been closed.

The CHRC's failure to respond to him violates normal government department standards for responding to citizens, said Gray, who added that "justice delayed is justice denied." Gray also expressed disappointment that the case did not proceed so that he could appeal any decision to the regular court system, "where standards of evidence matter." Gray said he sees this as a missed opportunity "to establish free speech rights."

Carmen Gregoire-Devereaux, a media relations officer for the CHRC, told CC.com the Commission does not comment on individual cases.

In general terms, however, she said that the Commission works on a complaint basis and the Commission has a legal duty to investigate any complaints that come in.

After the CHRC has investigated a complaint, it can do one of three things: dismiss the case if there is insufficient evidence of discrimination; refer the case to mediation; or refer the case to the Human Rights Tribunal, a separate quasi-judicial body which will conduct its own investigation and which has the authority to render judgments. The Commission may present evidence and a position to the Tribunal "but always for the public good."

Continue article >>

If either party in a case chooses to engage legal representation, that party must pay its own legal costs.

In its news release, the CHP complained that, in human rights cases, "the process is the punishment -- whether the respondent is innocent or guilty." It noted that "the complainant bore no costs at all for filing a frivolous and groundless complaint" since the investigation and preparation of any case is done by CHRC staff.

CHP's legal costs in the case amounted to $50,000. A similar case brought by Wells against the Roman Catholic magazine Insight cost that organization $20,000 in legal costs, and it also was dismissed, although Wells is now appealing to the regular court system. Wells has also brought a case against journalist Ezra Levant for reprinting a letter by Alberta pastor Stephen Boisson, who was reprimanded by the Alberta Human Rights Commission in 2007 for writing against the "homosexual agenda."

Lobbyists such as Wells are "using the power of the state to silence critics," and this poses a threat to freedom of speech, said Gray.

He noted that individuals can be silenced more easily because "most people don't have the resources to fight such cases." He also noted that the mainstream media have not devoted "a drop of ink" to his case, which, he said, amounts to self-censorship.

"In a democracy, everything must be open to scrutiny," he said. However, when the statements of political parties are limited by frivolous human rights complaints and "the press won't cover stories that are politically incorrect, the system breaks down."

Canadian Human Rights Commission cases involving sexual orientation peaked in the 1990s, with 68 cases lodged in 1993 alone. Since 2000, they have fallen to 26 or fewer every year, with only five cases lodged in 2005, according to a new study commissioned by the CHRC entitled 'Human Rights Commissions and Public Policy: The Role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Advancing Sexual Orientation Equality Rights in Canada.'

John Redekop, a Christian political scientist, said it is unlikely the CHRC has changed its approach to the issue in recent years. Rather, he said, the Commission is just "more reluctant to take on weak cases. If they keep losing, it makes them look bad." He also suggested that homosexual activists no longer need to go to the CHRC "on issues where Parliament has already ruled."

The study describes the CHRC as "an autonomous non-partisan body." However, it also states that the Commission has "advocated for equality for homosexuals from its first days . . . despite a lack of political will or initial public support." The first Chief Commissioner, Gordon Fairweather, was one of only two Members of Parliament who had voted for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The report states: "It is significant that the Commission accepted complaints from homosexuals who alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation even before this was a proscribed ground in the legislation." The CHRC's goal was to prevent "discrimination in employment and in the provision of services . . . on the basis of sexual orientation." However, the study shows that the CHRC also pushed for same-sex marriage even though this "did not directly engage the Commission's mandate."

The study reveals that the CHRC saw its role as "moulding public opinion and stimulating policy change" and suggests that the CHRC was instrumental in changing public support for homosexual rights from one-third of the population in 1981 to three-quarters of the population two decades later. The study gives little attention to any possible conflicts between homosexual rights and other rights.

However, when CHRC representative Gregoire-Devereaux spoke to CC.com, she said the Commission "always tries to maintain neutrality and fairness and hear all sides of an issue."

She would not comment on whether the CHRC is perceived by groups such as CHP to favour sexual orientation rights over religious rights or free speech rights.

She also would not comment on whether certain groups might be trying to use the CHRC to silence their critics. Asked why the CHRC has investigated far more sexual orientation rights cases than religious rights cases, she said, "It is not the Commission's place to speculate on why certain groups lodge complaints more than others."

February 5/2009