Levant’s Endorsement of Hudak Doesn’t Mean That The HRCs Are Going Any Time Soon

There's, as always, a lot to write about the approach towards the HRCs that Levant is taking.

In my most recent blog about the HRCs, I commented on Levant's endorsement of the new Ontario Progressive Conservatives' leader, Tim Hudak, who is supporting the dismantling of the HRCs.

I wrote that Hudak isn’t actually out for dismantling the whole system, but wishes to keep the "educational" component instead.

Here's a blogger who noted the same ambiguities about Hudak that I did. He quotes from a May 12, 2009 announcement by Hudak:

"Complaints would go to specially trained judges, similar to the existing Domestic Violence and Family Law Courts."

And the blogger goes on to write:

Why do our judges have to be specially trained? Are human rights so complicated or subtle that experienced judges have to be specially trained to adjudicate infringements?...

Surely human rights should be obvious and basic, not in any way complicated or subtle. Our intent should be to protect fundamental freedoms, not to enrich lawyers and the human rights establishment with its cadre of activists...

The language in Mr. Hudak’s May 12 announcement sounds a bit too much like the gobbly goop we have been hearing from the currently entrenched human rights establishment

Exactly.

There is also the fact that the voters of most liberal candidate Liz Elliott, who came in third, gave their votes over to Hudak, securing him his victory. Now it is disturbing that they find Hudak "liberal" enough to turn over their votes to. A much truer conservative leader, Randy Hillier, came in fourth, possibly because of this voter consolidation. In a recent TVO interview, Hillier was much more hard core about dismantling the HRCs. Everything must go, is his stand.

Also, note how Levant heads his entry as on Hudak as: "Tim Hudak proves HRC reform is a political winner", whereas he's been advocating their total dismantlement previously. He is happy to compromise it seems. But, that is not surprising, since he doesn’t see the essential problem behind the philosophy of the HRCs, and is only concerned with their government financed fraudulence.   

And like I keep saying, the U.S., which doesn’t have HRC-type institutions, has been living through decades of "rights" oriented policies, laws and court cases, which have essentially catered to grievance mongers and changed the society. See this post for more detais.

Once again, the problem is not the HRCs. It is the attitude that "discrimination" has to go at all costs, and that all people have equal rights to everything under the sun, from jobs, to homes, and even to eating in the same restaurants.