Justice has finally been served.
No, I’m not referring to the ongoing strife in Ferguson, Missouri. Neither am I referring to the plight of the Yazidis and Christians in Iraq. I’m talking about something of far more importance; something of such grand implications, the effect of which will wash over all of us and create a salutary feeling of pride in our Anglo-Saxon tradition of law.
For too long, the various Human Rights Tribunals in Canada have been the laughing stock of otherwise insightful minds like Kathy Shaidle. She, and her cohort of traditionalists, have unfairly criticized an essential part to liberal democracy: ensuring that anyone’s feelings of resentment, no matter how small, are worthy of government affirmation. Without this state appeasement for whiners big and small, none of us can truly live in peace. As President Kennedy said following the forced desegregation of the University of Alabama, “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”
So what huge victory for human rights am I talking about?
Eight years after being fired from the Black Educators Association (BEA) in Nova Scotia for “not being black enough,” Rachel Brothers received a hearty and just compensation package of $10,200. This was a hard-fought victory. After years of deliberations, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission determined that Brothers was indeed the target of racial discrimination. While working at the BEA, Brothers was told that her biracial complexion was a “barrier” to the progress of black Canadians. One co-worker reportedly told Brothers she would be better off working “for whitey.” Finally, in December of 2006, Brothers was let go from the organization.
According to the report filed by Donald Murray, chair of the Board of Inquiry formed by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, the main impetus for Brothers’ firing was that she was “undermined in her employment by one of her subordinates” who used “colourist” language to undercut her boss. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, these actions constituted discrimination. Thus, the Nova Scotia government came to the rescue, saving Ms. Brothers from the humiliation of being treated differently for having a lighter skin pigmentation. Fiat justitia ruat caelum!
Except, no. Back on reality’s terra firma, this whole episode was just a huge waste of taxpayer money to further justify the existence of human rights tribunals. Not only that, but it further proved the contradictory nature of the progressive, egalitarian worldview. There’s no justice in giving someone a lump sum payment almost a decade after being fired from a job due to their skin color. It’s government-backed extortion, plain and simple.
Cases like Ms. Brothers’ prove that Canada’s human rights tribunals are a living caricature of themselves. Far from defending real human rights, these busybodies do nothing but placate to the victimology mindset force-fed to the public by liberal pols. The chief operating core is infantilism: babying the populace into subservience. When absolutely every slight by friend or stranger is seen as a genocide against civilization, there is no longer a point to justice. Rights lose all their meaning. Upholding the law becomes a pity party to see who had their feelings hurt more.
For all the Left’s tough talk on establishing a post-racial kingdom on earth, the thought-crime tribunals they’ve built do everything to undermine the putative goal. By focusing constantly on race and personal relations, the leveling forces keep resuscitating the narrative of unfettered racial domination. They are the boy who cried wolf, constantly chasing away their dream of a society where race no longer matters.
The question is: is Ms. Brothers’ case another a “forgive them for they know not what they do” situation? Are progressives really this dense as to work against their cause?
I have my doubts. I suspect human rights tribunals, and their caseloads of trivial lawsuits, are another operational arm of liberalism’s disorienting agenda. To teach people that justice is emotive – not rational – renders them soft and unthinking. It also makes them susceptible to whatever fad leftie politicians and media personalities feel like pushing on any given day.
The main purpose of human rights tribunals hasn’t been to defend human rights. They exist largely to suppress politically-incorrect speech in the name of tolerance. Rulings are centered on punishing those who voice disagreement with the progressive view on marriage, race, climate, economics or any other aspect of society progressives feel like ruining.
Ms. Brothers’ didn’t score a victory against discrimination with her favorable ruling. She only further enshrined the idea that self-styled warriors for social justice should maintain a stranglehold on the private affairs of Canadians. The payout will only incentivize businesses and associations to be more strict in their hiring practices, so as to avoid any unnecessary lawsuits. If there’s a chance that an employee’s unguarded mouth may cause trouble down the road, it will be an excuse to fire them instead of handling complaints in-house.
It’s all part of a larger ploy by leftists to politicize everything. There used to be a time when people would hash out their differences without the heavy hand of the state lurking in the background. Disagreements weren’t a cause for legal action. They were accepted as the price of living in a society composed of diverse opinions. Now, the tiniest of snubs is seen as a large injustice needing immediate correction. And rampant, feel-good liberalism is to blame.
In a more sane society, banal debates over skin complexion wouldn’t warrant a pink slip; let alone an inquiry by obtrusive bureaucrats. Perhaps it’s a sign of the intellectually narrowing times. Or maybe it shows how effete we have become in recognizing actual crimes. Cicero said “true law is right reason in agreement with nature.” Unfortunately, progressives have succeeded in draining reason or appeals to nature from everyday discourse. That’s why we’re stuck with scandalized lawsuits over someone’s personal prejudice, and intellectual debate remains trapped in a hamster wheel of ignorance.