Whimsy
As the CHRC appeals Warman v. Lemire, it has some value to read Mark Steyn's recent Macleans column on the rather arbitary character of "human rights" cases. One point he implicitly makes is that such cases are great for large enterprises, as they can easily drive small enterprises out of business. As a result, expect to see a LOT more of them.The reality is there is no correct answer to any of the above: as I said a couple of weeks back, tyranny is always whimsical. Which is exactly how the social engineers of the “human rights” nomenklatura like it. Because it legitimizes the state as the only valid mediator of social relations. And so in the cause of invented rights of near parodic absurdity, a profoundly wicked “human rights” apparatus is happy to destroy utterly the lives and livelihoods of blameless individuals.
But they won't destroy the Marriott; just small B&B's and the like.
And Steyn predictably is funny and offensive on the who-whom question that lies at the heart of all these stupid commissions.
Yet the shifting hierarchies of multiculturalism are not too hard to discern: in Britain, an educational establishment gung-ho about forcing the kindergartners of evangelical Christians to be taught the joys of same-sex marriage crumbled in nothing flat when Muslim parents in Bristol objected. If it’s a choice between Heather Has Two Mommies or Heather Has Four Mommies And A Big Bearded Daddy Who Wants To Marry Her Off To A Cousin Back In Pakistan, bet on the latter. Any gay couple or blind man with a Seeing Eye dog who takes on a Muslim bed-and-breakfast proprietor will get short shrift from the “human rights” commission. The OHRC is currently champing at the bit to force gay altar servers on Ontario Catholics. At the local mosque, no imam need worry about such state encroachments on religion.
This has to be fixed and likely will be, but I suspect a lot of simple decent people will be rolled over before we wake up and put an end to the nonsense.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home