Talk:Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ezra Levant case

We should add information about Ezra Levant and the Muhammad cartoons.The human right commission was criticized for its handling in his case.Here are links: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN0325508520080106 http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1024759.html http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10499144 http://www.youtube.com/EzraILevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. Ezra Levant's case is being handled by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission not the Canadian Human Rights Commission. 154.20.165.219 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not according to Mark Steyn it isn't. Where is your source on this? Frankly some more should be put in about how the trial is more an arbitrary tribunal that completely bypasses the basic tenets of British Parliamentary Law, as well as violating free speech in most cases as well. 75.157.91.54 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission is a regional office of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Both are part of the same organization which is charged with enforcing the Canadian Human Rights Act. This act gives the Canadian government the authority to determine what statements Canadians have the right to express via telephone and internet. This authority amounts to electronic book burning in Canada. Alberta and Ontario have gone a step further and extended their authority to censor publishing as well.69.234.217.244 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I emailed the AHRC and asked what their relationship to the CHRC was, and this was their response:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission are two separate entities. The mandates of the two Commissions are different.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction over federally regulated businesses (such as inter-provincial bussing eg. Greyhound, telecommunication, to mention a few) and federal government departments whereas the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission has jurisdiction over provincially regulated businesses, which comprises most companies conducting business in Alberta, and provincial and municipal governments.

So I am going to remove the Ezra Levant info for now. 154.20.160.202 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys are too much :rollseyes: Obviously there should be a single article on all of the human rights commissions in Canada. What was quoted above from the email of the AHRC is quite clearly showing that the primary differences are jurisdictional. Both are ultimately about the same thing. The Levant case is relevant here because it's about section 13(1) and this directly impacts all HRC in Canada. Levant's and Steyn's cases also made it more politically expedient for the recent introduction of a motion in parliament to erase that law, a motion that will almost certainly pass, and that will severely castrate all HRCs in Canada. The seeming inability of 154.20.160.202 to make this obvious connection is either ignorance or purposeful omission because s/he has an agenda. 24.86.200.122 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Part of the problem, with talking about the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is simply trying to identify all these commissions with their national and regional overlapping jurisdictions. But they all have a mandate to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Act and its controversial section 13, which makes just offending someone a crime punishable by imprisonment, fines, and lifetime speech bans. This article should be written in such a way that it addresses all the extra-legal agencies which are empowered to regulate Canadians' fundamental right of freedom of expression. Freedom Fan (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The provincial hrcs are NOT enforcening or prosecuting cases under the Canadian Human Rights Act. They're enforcening and prosecuting cases under their province's own Human Rights Codes which are byproducts of their own provincial legislatures.

Criticism

As an attempt at compromise with Frank Pais who repeatedly gutted this section, I have restored only the critique by the Bishop of Alberta, sourced by the Western Catholic Reporter, the largest religious weekly publication in Canada. It would be difficult to argue that including this criticism somehow violates the Wikipedia "NPOV" policy.

On the contrary, including only criticism by white supremists would result in a distorted representation of the enormous international controversy swirling around the CHRC and it's enforcement of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Criticism by itself can never be "neutral", only it's presentation should be. Also, Wikipedia does not necessarily require "equal balancing" of an article, but strives for objective presentation of all facts relevant to the circumstances.

Also the analogy, to the movie "Minority Report" in which future crimes are prosecuted in the present, is also valid and should be restored with proper sourcing. The CHRC mandate to punish speech "likely" to cause some result, necessarily involves guesswork about future events, which was the point of the movie.

It would be helpful to the allow the reader to understand this important social controversy, by including abstracts of recent cases being prosecuted with their eventual resolution.

Ideally, this article should reflect all Canadian Human Rights Commission activity, both national and provincial. When a complaint is filed it is often brought before several jurisdictions at once, which is another part of the controversy and confusion.

I am confident that all editors here are acting in good faith and we can arrive at a solution which does not require arbitration. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously unbalanced article

In most of its sections, this article focuses heavily on Section 13 of the Human Rights Act relating to forms of expression likely to expose racial and similar groups to hatred and contempt. This issue is of interest to a narrow constituency opposed to the banning of what in the US is called "hate speech". The coverage of that issue is extremely unbalanced, tilted against Section 13. It includes much material which is simply opposed to the existence of the law, but is unrelated to the Commission itself. It relies on partisan sources, including a polemic opinion column in the National Post. Joeldl (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding CHRA Section 13 and its enforcement by the various Canadian Human Rights Commissions is the subject of several legal actions, a current Parlimentary member motion, and hundreds of opinion columns throughout Canada, the U.S. and the rest of the western world.

The emotion surrounding this parallel system of justice exists because of the perceived threat to the most fundamental human right, freedom of expression. For example, much of Wikipedia would be outlawed by the CHRC's application of the CHRA. This act makes no exception for truth as a defense, but merely makes it illegal to use words which are "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt".

This broad language of the CHRA Section 13, allows Canadian Human Rights Commission wide latitude in it's enforcement. Also this has led to allegations of corruption and capricious selection of plaintiffs on the part of the CHRC.

This article contains a small amount of representative information regarding this controversy. If the article is unbalanced, then please provide additional information to balance it, but the information regarding Section 13 enforcement is hardly a subject which is of interest only to some obscure special interest.Freedom Fan (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While enforcement of Section 13 has received some attention, it is far from the most salient information regarding the CHRC. Also, general criticism of Section 13, unrelated to actions of the CHRC, does not belong here. The article is non-neutral because the emphasis it gives to this issue, and its choice of facts to present about the controversy generally give the impression of being advocacy against Section 13 and CHRC's investigations of violations.

I dispute that "much of Wikipedia" would be banned under the provision. The interpretation of the act is subject to the Charter, which means that freedom of expression can only be limited to the extent demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. If attempts to ban things which should not be banned were made, the Charter would override them. In any case, there is broad consensus that in run-of-the-mill white supremacist cases, society's interest in preventing discrimination overrides freedom of expression concerns.

I am not enough of an expert to provide much balancing information, but I know enough to recognize that the article is unbalanced. If it were appropriate to be discussing the merits of the HRA at all, it could, for example, be mentioned that Section 13 has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past. The arguments presented on the other side could be included. Examples of use of Section 13 that most people agree with could be included. Joeldl (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1990 the case Canada Human Rights Commission v. Taylor was upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court with a vote of 4-3. So essentially one person decided that the precious right to Freedom of Speech, guaranteed in the Canadian Charter for all Canadians, could be infringed by the state in cases brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.

The phrase "likely to expose" requires the state to guess at whether a future crime will occur. The phrase "hatred or contempt" requires the state to make a vague, subjective judgement about the intent of the words expressed.

The result is to chill free expression with the threat of fines, imprisonment, lifetime speech bans, and several years' of legal fees, whenever there is any doubt about how discussion of any topic will be subjectively interpreted by government officials with police powers. There is no relief for the truth of the expression, nor is there a provision for fair comment.

No "hate crime" case under section 13 has ever been decided on behalf of the defendant before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals. Furthermore, almost all "hate crimes" are charged against those with Conservative world views; others are summarily dismissed.

Writing for the three-person minority the court said:

But the minority takes issue with the means used by s. 13(1) to pursue this objective. Section 13(1) is broad and vague, the minority finds. It prohibits a great deal of defensible speech without accommodating the important right to freedom of expression.

To establish whether there is a rational connection between a law and its purpose the minority considers not just the intention of the legislators but whether the law is likely to achieve its ends, and whether it may have an effect contrary to its objective. Rational connection may also be absent when the law goes beyond what can be justified by its objects. The minority concludes that s. 13(1) fails the rational connection test because it is not closely tailored to its objectives and because it infringes freedom of speech in unjustified and essentially irrational ways.

The terms "hatred" and "contempt" are vague and subjective; they will catch much expression which presents little threat of fostering discrimination against protected groups. Also, the breadth of the section is widened by the absence of any requirement of intent. While the absence of a requirement to show intent is consistent with human rights laws, it has the effect of extending the section's application. In addition, no proof of harmful effect is required. This means, the minority finds, that the section is capable of catching expression which clearly goes beyond the scope of its objects. It is no answer to the absence of rational connection to say that, in practice, Commissions and members of Tribunals may choose not to enforce the overbroad aspects of s. 13(1).

In addition to finding a lack of rational connection between the measure and its objects, the minority also concludes that s. 13(1) does not impair the right to freedom of expression as little as possible. It interferes with strictly private communication of ideas. Also no defence of truth is provided and therefore true statements can be prohibited by s. 13(1).

In conclusion, the minority of the Court finds that s. 13(1) intrudes on the fundamental freedom of expression in ways that cannot be justified by the objectives it seeks to promote. It catches speech which is neither intended nor calculated to foster discrimination, which may be accurate and truthful, and which merely communicates information by telephone to a single person. In short, s. 13(1) seriously overshoots the mark.
Canada Human Rights Commission v. Taylor

The Supreme Court did not anticipate that enforcement of the CHRA would be extended to suppress speech in the public interest, although it now appears to have done exactly that in several high profile cases. It may be time to revisit the legality of this act in light of the irregularities in its current enforcement.

It should be apparent to any reasonable reader, that many legitimate facts expressed throughout Wikipedia on controversial topics, could be deemed to be offensive to some readers, and therefore could be ruled illegal by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, using the broadly subjective wording of Section 13 of the CHRA.

The outcome of the controversy over the nature and enforcement of section 13 of the CHRA is of keen interest to anyone in the Western world, who is concerned with the fundamental right of free espression.

Certainly other relevant facts about the more mundane activities of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, are also welcome in order to balance the article.
Freedom Fan (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is not Unbalanced - it is accurate

How is freedom of speech an issue to only a "narrow constituency?" It is an issue to everyone. The CHRC currently seems to think that it, and it alone, has the right to determine what constitutes "hate speech." The CHRC is not a court, so there is no right to legal representation, no rules of evidience, no rules for impartiality, and unlike in civil court, truth is not a defense. This is an issue to everyone - it has galvanized Canadian Liberals and Conservatives and has led to the questioning of just how much power Canada's human rights commissions have and should have. Should a quasi-judicial body, with no requirements of imparitality and training, be allowed to essentially dictate what and what isn't hate speech?

Leftists are supporting the CHRC because CHRC activities are almost entirely directed at the political right. The supporters of the CHRC's recent activities seem to believe in censoring anything that it considered "offensive" and that anybody who doesn't support censoring "offensive" material must be a racist.

Do misunderstand me. The CHRC has done an excellent job of dealing with discrimination in the workplace and against specific people. This is a very important issue and it deserves coverage in this article.

However, the issue I refer to deals with the CHRC prosecuting forms of expression - that is, material that is only "likely" to cause harm to a group. This essentially means that any written or printed material that might cause harm to someone (and it doesn't have to be a specific person) between now and the end of time is hateful and therefore should be censored. The above powers possessed by the CHRC are not considered acceptable to many in a free and democratic society.

Keep in mind that there are proper avenues for dealing with "hate speech." This includes filing civil lawsuits and contacting the police and asking that hate crime charges be filed under the criminal justice system. However, unlike the human rights commissions, the civil and criminal courts have proper protections and procedures that must be followed to guard against abuse.

For those who claim to support the CHRC is banning "hate speech," I ask this question: Where do we draw the line? Should we rely on the CHRC and its politically driven, untrained staff, to decide this? I don't think so (but that's just my opinion.

Freedom of speech - in particular, speech that is controversial - is a right and a requirement for everybody. Thus, this article is accruate. It is true that more could be added about the CHRC's successes against discrimination against specific people, but the issue of censoring anything that is "hateful" is one that deserves considerable space in Wikipedia - and indeed, everywhere.

While "freedom of expression" is an issue of importance to everyone, a particular instance of it being limited (which is permissible in certain circumstances) is not necessarily, as most people do not engage in hate propaganda.

I don't believe Canadians of any political stripe have been "galvanized" by this issue. This is not so much an issue of "leftists" supporting the CHRC as it is one of the CHRC doing, well or badly, what the law asks of it. The law itself has stayed on the books for 30 years through both Conservative and Liberal governments. You are overstating the importance of the controversy.

I cannot address all the charges you level at the Commission, nor could I because I am not an expert on this subject. However, the very partisan nature of the material in the article is evident to anyone. It is drawn in large part from partisan sources, and cherrypicks those facts that make a case against the Commission and Section 13 of the HRA. (For example, it omits mention of the fact that Section 13 was upheld by the Supreme Court or any of the rationale for that.) It mixes opposition to the law itself and criticism of the Commission. Joeldl (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Right - the law has been on the books for over 30 years. However, it is only recently that it has been applied to printed material in mainstream media outlets - that is what the controversy is about (and it is a big controversy).

Second, the fact that one of the CHRC's chief investigator's believes that "freedom of speech" has no value is certainly notable since this man has the power to investigate anyone he thinks is "offensive."

Third, you accuse me of cherrypicking facts. By all means, cite evidence that contradicts what is in this article. If you want to put positive information on the CHRC into this articel - then do so. I won't stop you - in fact, I encourage you to do so.

Fourth, contrary to what you might think, this issue has galvanized a large number of Canadians who have expressed concern that the CHRC is going to far by, in their opinion, entertaining nonesense that would never be considered by a real court. Keep in mind that if Maclean's was really as racist and evil as the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) claims, then the CIC would have filed a civil lawsuit or filed a request with the police to charge Maclean's with a hate crime (incitement of hate is illegal under Canadian Law). The fact that the CIC is using the CHRC to harass Maclean's has led to concern by many Canadians that the Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Law is too board in scope.

You claim that most people do not engage in "hate speech" - but this issue deals exactly with that - What is "hate speech" and when and how the CHRC have the authority to try and censor material that is not considered "hate speech" under civil or criminal law. That is the question - and that it way this article is accurate.

Again - feel free to add material that protrays the CHRC in a positive light. I doubt anyone will complain. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

The Controversy Section should stay in

The section on controversies that involve the CHRC, specifically a statement by CHRC investigator Dean Stacey that Freedom of Speech has no value and a allegations that CHRC investigators illegaly tapped into someone else's wireless network (which is a crime under Canadian Law) are very relevant and are sourced from a major national newspaper (The National Post).

Frank Pais has decided that this is not significant or relevant to this article and wants to remove it for that reason alone. I would suggest that this information remains in the article and people reading it can decide for themselves whether it is relevant. The information is accurately sourced - and if it isn't feel free to provide evidence to the contrary. Frank Pais may feel this is not significant, but that does not automatically give him the right to remove it (contrary to what he may think). If someone wants to submit this to an Wiki administrator for a decision, feel free to. But simply deleting material based on personal opinions alone is not acceptable. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Frank Pais seems determined to remove the controversies section simply because he feels the sources are not NPOV (and claims that newspapers are inherently NPOV). Newspapers are cited as sources throughout wikipedia - is Mr. Pais proposing all of these citation be deleted? Second of all - and I hate to sound like a broken record - the controversies section contains information that is valid, relevant and properly sourced - and nobody has provided any evidence to suggest otherwise. Mr Pais doesn't seem to want this section in the article yet there are a number of citations in this article that are biased in favour of the CHRC - should all of these be deleted to? On an issue like this, it is almost impossible to be NPOV - However Mr. Pais only seems to apply this prinicple to positions he doesn't agree with (which is not acceptable in Wikipedia).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

This article is far too focussed on recent events and Section 13.1 issues. Both the criticism/controversy sections and the support/response from CHRC sections are disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article. The CHRC has been around for 30 years and most of its work does NOT involve Section 13.1 complaints. I'm not sure how to best address that, but current events should not overwhelm the longer-term encyclopedic nature of the article. (007blur007 (talk) 3 July 2008)

An investigator for the CHRC says he doesn't give Freedom of speech any value. You don't think that is significant? Also, Section 13 is a topic of major debate within Canada for the last year. It is an important topic and it deserves its place in this article. Finally, the fact that the CHRC may have broken the law by tapping into someone's wireless network is significant, not from a human rights view but from a legal view of whether or not methods used by the CHRC are illegal. This is also an important topic, which deserves recognition in this article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Hyperionsteel - I never suggested that Steacy's comments weren't significant (perhaps your question was aimed at another contributer?). I completely agree that the current controversy regarding Section 13 warrants inclusion in this article, but the problem is that it has TAKEN OVER the article. I am not suggesting this from a POV on the controversial manner - I find the sections for both sides of the issue to be too large in relation to the rest of the article. The "Response from the CHRC" section is huge! Actual information about the CHRC is included in the first three paragraphs of the article, while the next FIVE sections all deal in one way or another with the S13 controversies. In my opinion, this is not an accurate representation of the organization's mandate or execution thereof. The vast majority of work done by the CHRC does not involve S13 cases, but rather issues such as ensuring compliance to employment equity legislation in federally mandated workplaces. Given that some edits of this article have also confused/combined cases from provincial HRC's in this article, perhaps the solution would be to have a new "Human Rights Commissions in Canada" entry with broad inclusion of criticisms/controversy's, and then sub-sections detailing the actual commissions? What do you think? 007blur007 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

007blur007 - I appreciate your comments, but I think you are misunderstanding why I want this section in the article. The controversy section is not about Section 13.1 (although the events did occur during 13.1 investigations). Rather it deals with controversial (and possibly illegal) behaviour by CHRC officials. Whether or not this behaviour occured during a 13.1 investigation, it is notable. If these controversies occurred during different investigations, I would still have them posted. That's why I believe it should be placed in this article.

Unfortunately, on an issue like this, there are few (if any) NPOVs. But please note that there is positive information about the CHRC's posted on this website, and I have not deleted it. Also, the sources for my material are mainstream newspapers which are used as sources throughout wikipedia. Why Frank Pais has decided that mainstream newspapers are not appropriate sources in this case is unclear (he just repeats this mantra over and over). I believe that he is simply using this as an excuse to remove material he doesn't agree with.

Mr. Pais, I give you the same challenge, if the information I have posted is inaccrurate or has been misrepresented, explain why (or better yet, add information that contradicts the material I've added). You may believe that, in this case, newspapers are not noteworthy - but you don't get to make this decision for everyone. If you believe that the information is insignificant, cite a source that supports your view. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Mr. Pais - you seem to be the violating wiki rules since you are deleting something without any discussion on the article's talk page to justify your actions. I have stated my justification for this material's inclusion on the talk page. Will you do the same? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Again Mr. Pais, you keep saying my opinion is wrong. Why is you opinion right? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

What about forking off most of the controversy and criticism related sections into a separate article? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's not a bad idea. I'd be fine with that. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

I support that idea as well. 007blur007 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. CRakovsky (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy edit war

Should this article should include the Criticism and Controversy or merely a link to Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversies in the See also section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The format I have used for this link is utilized in many Wikipedia articles. I see no reason why it cannot be used here. The language used qualifies for NPOV. If someone wants to make the language even more NPOV, feel free too. However, this citation to the Criticism and Controversy article should stay in as it is an important issue which is currently being discussed in Canada.

Once again Mr. Pais, please post the reasoning for your position on the talk page instead of just deleting material. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

"Mr. Hyperionsteel", your choice of format is not a legitimate ground to successfully insist on one version over the other. Both my preference and yours are featured throughout Wikipedia (mine far more often than yours). Using NPOV language is not persuasive in arguing for your format.

Furthermore, your personal opinions on the importance of the "controversy" (which has received very minimal press if a comparison is done with general reporting on the CHRC / CHRT) do not qualify as good reasoning in favour of your format preference. This issue is being trumpeted by a very small politically-motivated faction in Canada. Does it deserve its own entry? Yes. Does it deserve to have overt paragraphs in articles which should only be about the CHRC / CHRT? Absolutely not. Frank Pais (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again Mr. Pais, you are mistaken. This format is used throughout wikipedia and I see no reason why it can't be used here.

This is a very important controversy that is currently being played out in Canada as it has attracted interest from journalists, politicians and ethnic communities. Please explain how I am trumpeting this issue - it has been discussed in numerous venues across Canada - not just in a "small politically-motivated faction" as you claim. These venues include major newspapers (The Globe and Mail and the National Post) as well as in Parliament. Muslim, Jewish and Christian organizations have also weighed in on this controversy.

And one more thing, you constantly accuse me of making edits based on my "personal opinions" but aren't you doing the same thing? Why are your "personal opinions" any more accurate or important than mine? a(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

The criticism and controversy article directly relates to the CHRC's conduct, mandate and potential powers and therefore, it deserves to have visible link in the CHRC article in its current format.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

It seems as though you have an unhealthy obsession with this, and a vested personal interest. My position on this matter is almost exclusively based on formatting requirements, and ensuring that articles have as little unnecessary content as possible. The link clearly provided in my proposed format is both standard and fair. Frank Pais (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So have I an "unhealthy obsession" and a "vested personel interest." You seem to come up with a new excuse to delete my additions every day.

For the record, I have no vested interest in the CHRC - I am not, nor have ever been, involved in any way in a CHRC case. I suggest you be more careful when making accusations against me. My interest is also relating to formatting, in particular, that the format used provides readers with a link to an important aspect of the CHRC's mandate that is currently being played out in Canada.

The format I've used is correct. Feel free to submit this issue to an administrator for a ruling if you can't accept this.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Could one of you cite the relevant style guide page? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the following link for Neutral Point of View - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Actually, would you like to answer Gordon Ecker's question? You seem convinced that you know everything else about this website, so I'm sure you can provide guidance on this - no? Frank Pais (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Proper format

For specific wikipedia standards on this issue, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#.22See_also.22_for_one_section

You can find examples of the "Main article" style at the following wiki pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Islamic_Congress#Controversies_involving_the_CIC_President.2C_Dr._Mohamed_Elmasry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea#Korean_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers

I see no reason why this format can't be used for this article - it does not violate the NPOV rules (see link above). The language used for the single sentence in the Criticism and Controversy link simply states there is controversy and does not take a position as to which side is correct. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

My addition

That's fine that you "don't see" a reason why your format can't be used - but that does not negate the validity of my format preference (which I should point out, was agreed upon already when the controversy section was isolated into its own article). Your nitpicking is just stirring up unneeded drama. The link is clearly shown on the main page - nothing further is needed. Frank Pais (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect Mr. Pais. This is a very important issue that relates to the main CHRC article. It deserves a notable citation as allowed by wiki format. If you bothered to check the wiki link I posted above and the examples on other pages I cited, you will see this is the correct wiki format. I am not "nitpicking" nor am I "stirring up unneeded drama." My additions are correct, accurate, concise and in accordance with wiki standards. My format is valid - and although you are entitled to your opinion, it does not mean you get to decide on your own how this page will be structured.

As for accusing me of having an "unhealthy obsession" and "a vested personal interest," I will remind you that making false allegations against me is not only a violation of wiki policy, but it reflects badly on yourself - and it is not helping your position. I will repeat that I have never been involved in a CHRC case nor am I gaining any financial, social or other benefits from my additions to this article.

My format is correct - even if you don't approve. I've cited the wiki policy that supports my position: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#.22See_also.22_for_one_section

If you think I am incorrect, feel free to cite a wiki policy that supports your position instead of making facetious remarks about me. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

I see your still reverting edits without justification. I give you the same challenge - point out the wiki policy that shows my format is incorrect.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Frank Pais' formatting preference was not agreed upon in the discussion which lead to the creation of Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversies. I suggested that most of the controversy section be forked off, Hyperionsteel, 007blur007 and CRakovsky agreed and Frank Pais did not object. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

As Gordon noted (and detailed further up the page), I felt that the controversy section was disproportionately large for the article and overwhelmed details about the CHRC's primary mission and work. I feel that Gordon's compromise was the right one - the issue has merit but should not dominate the article the way it did. To suggest that these issues, which have been the subject of editorials in every major newspaper (including the Toronto Star) are insignificant though, is just plain silly. If anyone is acting with a vested interest, it would seem to be Frank Pais, who seems to feel that his opinions are "neutral", while those who disagree with him are biased (just look at his Richard Warman edits). The article should revert to version with the minor summary of the controversy. 007blur007 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank Pais still won't cite the wiki policy that supports his position

Frank Pais has still not cited the wiki policy that supports his position. I've already cite one that supports mine. I would suggest that Mr. Pais does the same as opposed to simply reverted other peoples edits. This is correct wiki policy. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

I think we should bring up a request for mediation. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Idea. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Apparently I'm now a stalker for disagreeing with his edits to this article, despite the fact that I had edited it before his recent contributions. How do we get mediation on this? Frank's edits run counter to the above-mentioned agreement to get the controversy stuff out of this article in the first place. 007blur007 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By not discussing this properly on the talk page, Mr. Pais is continuing to show disregard for wiki policies. We should submit this for mediation - I'm getting tired of Mr. Pais' behaviour. While I'd love for this dispute to continue for the next 10 years, I have better things to do with my time. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

You show something to support your position, "Mr. Hyperionsteel". There is no onus on me to justify my style preference. Both of our formats are perfectly legit - I simply believe mine to be more legit than yours, based upon the wealth of Wiki articles I've seen which are edited in a similar fashion. Frank Pais (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read my previous entries - so I'll repeat them. I've clearly cited the wiki policy that supports my position: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#.22See_also.22_for_one_section

Secondly, Mr. Pais, you have not cited any wiki policy. Your only justification is your own opinion. It seems, based on the above entry, that you believe that there is no onus on you to justify your opinions (althought apparently you believe this standard only applies to you). Unfortunately, if everyone adopted this attitude, wikipedia would become unworkable. I'm reverted this article back to the proper format. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Mediation

A mediation request has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Canadian Human Rights Commission. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

At last. Maybe we can resolve this before I retire.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Hello folks; I see you've filed a request for mediation regarding this issue. May I suggest that this filing for formal mediation from the MedCom is a little premature, and that requesting a third opinion or seeking informal mediation would be a more appropriate course of action?

The Mediation Committee usually handles disputes that are somewhat advanced, and therefore it generally requires that any disputes it is requested to handle have been through a variety of other forums for dispute resolution, such as requests for comment, informal mediation (with the MedCab; as opposed to formal mediation, with the MedCom), and third opinion.

Anthøny ^(talk) 14:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Just Great. So what do we do now?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

I already provided a third opinion. I suggested that both Frank Pais and Hyperionsteel cite the relevant sections of the style guide in order to back up their claims. Hyperionsteel complied with that request, Frank Pais did not. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've filed an informal mediation request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-10 Canadian Human Rights Commission. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Does NPOV mean the article can't be informative?

I understand that we sort of run the risk of a POV even discussing the way the courts actually operate, the bit about government grants paying for complaintant but not defendant, the conviction rate, etc. Here's the problem: the article, as it stands now, may as well simply read "Click the Criticism and Controversy section if you want to actually learn anything about the CHRC". Yes, I know that it's difficult to keep POV problems out of discussions of things like this, but surely by sticking to the facts one could include things like the rules of the court, conviction statistics, etc. At the very least we need links to "Notable Cases", if only to link to the Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn or Marc Lemire cases or whatever--it's surely not POV to note that these were big cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.195.165 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Website

While working on the article for Shiv Chopra, this reference was found:

• NCARR v. Health and Welfare Canada et al. : CHRT. March 19, 1997. Available online at chrt-tcdp.gc.ca [1], accessed online on September 24, 2006

An error is returned. Usually an update on a website can be found by a search there. In this case a search turned up 5 links, but all came back as error when clicked. The website is non-functional! — Rgdboer (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's archived at archive.today [2] and the Wayback Machine [3]. - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)