NewyPatootie

Human Rights Commissions as a 5th Column to society and Law “Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head (of the family), but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.” Maria Portokalos (Lainie Kazan) in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. In the 1970s and 1980s, various Western nations piecemeal instituted Human Rights Commissions, each different nation having a slightly different variant or name of the institution. While obviously well intended from their inception, the structure by which they were incepted has become something of a poison pill to the rest of society in a gradual but now systemic capacity. In eventuality, Human Rights Commissions (who are technically Non Government Organisations and were initially supposed to be limited in their power), are now akin to the mother in the famous quote from the movie ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’. Essentially the repercussions of the funding model by which Human Rights Commissions were instituted has now created a culture which has bled out of the Commissions themselves causing a corrosion and a corruption of all other sectors of society, even to the point of this culture dominating the traditional Courts of Law who ostensibly, on paper, are supposed to be a greater authority than the Commissions. When Human Rights Commissions were originally created, they were instituted to tackle discrimination of racism and sexism and homophobia. Which at that time in society, the 1970s and 1980s was regarded as sub-crime. In other words, to have an uncharitable view towards people with a different skin colour was impolite and unfair, but not necessarily criminal. As such, the Commissions were not given the same legal clout as Courts of Law (ACTs were legislated making discrimination an offense, but without breaches of such acts intended to carry the same weight of seriousness as Criminal offences). These Human Rights Commissions were typically instituted as Quasi autonomous non-government organisations (NGOs or Qangos). At the time on inception, an argument was made that we did not wish these new Institutions to be entirely burdensome on the taxpayer (this was in the days when balancing government budgets was still an aspiration) and so they would typically set up with what is called a self-funded model. What this means is that if you have a complaint about discrimination in your workplace and you take your complaint to a Human Rights Commission, that Commission will send your employer an invoice for having to take the time and resources to investigate the discrimination complaint against them. It was supposed to be a ‘cost recovery’ exercise and it acted as a deterrent, to ensure companies ‘got the message’ that the onus was now on them not to ignore discrimination in their enterprise of operation. This differs from a Court of Law dealing with crime in that the taxpayer funds the judges and the courtrooms. In cases of victims of crimes, lawyers are paid for by the State. And only if a defendant elects to pay money out of their own pocket for a more specialised or skilful attorney is the cost borne by the general public. However, with Human Rights Commissions complaints regarding discrimination, that burden is reversed. This arrangement sets up two primary disincentives that have had a far greater impact on society than first imagined. The first impact is that the Commissions are incentivized to take on discrimination complaints that may to you and I seem spurious, ridiculous, vexatious, nonsensical or even clearly counterproductive to society. A glaring case in point to illustrate this would be the Jonathan Yaniv case where a man identifying as a woman took 15 small beautician salons to the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the allegation that they were discriminating against him by refusing to wax his ball sack. Though ultimately his complaints were not upheld, (and arguably only the international ridicule directed at the Commission stayed their hand) the invoices sent to the small business owners drove many of them out of business regardless. The process was the punishment. Note that the clearest and obvious defence of the beautician parlours in declining him service is that there is no packet information on hot wax products that will give advisory blessing to the application of scalding wax on a man's ball sack, thus putting the beauticians in clear health risk liability if they acceded to his demands to wax his ball sack. But to a self-funded Human Rights Commission, such clearly exculpatory evidence is irrelevant, and as an ideologically driven institution it is impervious to the discrimination complaint Scylla and injury risk Charybdis peril through which these poor waxing salon owners were compelled to sail through. In pursuit of anything that might constitute as discrimination, this self-funded model substantially underpins the gradual expansion of the definition of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia (a new market segment!) etcetera, to the point now where such accusations are utterly inescapable in modern discourse or in business practice. A culture war complaint is that ‘the train of wokeness has no brakes’ – and this is largely because of the self-funded model. With criminal complaints, district attorney offices with limited budgets must prioritise the use of their resources, electing to drop cases where the evidence is weak. Commissions do not have this limitation and thus have no inbuilt deterrent against mission creep. And so the missions crept. I don’t imagine those who initially staffed the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 1978 at its inception would ever conceive or approve of their organisation being eventually used in the capacity to which Jonathan Yaniv did. The second implication of this self-funded model and broadening scope of discrimination Is that it made businesses and organisations in society have to respond, typically through their Human Resource Departments, in the capacity that we call risk mitigation. Risk mitigation is essentially the notion that a Human Resource Management department must act against any party or stakeholder to their organisation who is perceived or accused of discrimination: Protecting the reputation of their organisation and warding off the prospect of a potential Human Rights Commission complaints - not only from an adverse finding of discrimination, but the financial penalty involved in the dispute resolution process, and the attendant media shitstorm eviscerating the organisation’s public standing - is an understandable priority. Neglecting to address, say, some incidences of workplace harassment, can literally result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and damages, and for a market place business result in yet greater losses of market share from reputational damage and consumer boycotts. The problem with risk mitigation in terms of fundamental principles of justice is that it entirely bypasses or upends substantive elements of usual jurisprudence. When somebody is accused of a crime, the serious and enduring consequences of a finding of guilt against the accused party entails a particular caution in the procedure by which we arrive at a conclusion of guilt or innocence. We exercise caution in language such as being careful to use the word ‘alleged’ or ‘allegedly’ before describing the crime of which someone is accused, we then have stringent rules regarding the admission and assessment of evidence, we have an entire judicial culture surrounding how we treat and weight such evidence. Then we exercise the greatest of caution in forming a conclusion of guilt or innocence by which we often empanel an entire group of people to collectively decide upon the guilt or innocence rather than leave that judgement to a singular presiding judge. Because even despite a Judges substantial legal expertise and education, the prospect of a single person's bias or error of judgement is deemed too grave to leave the decision to one person – even an expert professional - alone. In sentencing we have a concept that the punishment should be comparable to the severity of the crime. As for false allegations, perjury, witness or evidence tampering, these can come at risk of the legal jeopardy swinging around from accused to the accuser. Think about that caution and deference in criminal trials. Now compare it to the process and fate by which NASCAR driver Conor Daly who, in 2018, lost his contract to drive because a videotape emerged from the 1980s of his FATHER using the dreaded ‘n’ word. We have even dispensed with the foundational Biblical principle of justice ‘do not visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons’. That’s how far we’ve fallen in our standards of justice in our anti-discrimination obsession. All of these legal concepts get thrown out the window in discrimination complaints when we are acting under the notion of ‘risk mitigation’. A Human Resource Manager need pay no heed to any of the aforementioned principles when deciding how to deal with an employee who has been accused of some form of discrimination. Career consequences far outweighing the magnitude of some temporary discomfort or offence taken by an accusing party are commonplace. There is no obligation to deem someone as innocent until proven guilty of the sin of discrimination. The accusation itself carries such stigma as to be guilty with no due process by which to prove innocence. Such procedural unfairness invites abuse by the cynical and the vexatious. There is no refund to the organisation billed by a Human Rights Commission if and where that company can prove to the Commission that the complainant’s accusation was made in Bad Faith, and/or that their accused employee was entirely innocent or even the actual victim. Left wing people in contemporary Western society are largely oblivious to this total upending of standards of justice as compared between the criminal justice system and the avoidance of Human Rights Commission complaints. In their fear of themselves ever being accused of that gravest of faux pas, their core imperative is to uphold the seriousness of discrimination as an allegation, demonstrate their loyalty to the system trying to eradicate discrimination, and as such they are blind to how and where they participate in that erosion of legal principles and standards. Take a moment now to step back and look at the madness of our current era from that perspective of risk mitigation and how it has gone viral throughout the entirety of society. When we talk about the madness of male athletes who identify as women being allowed to compete against biological women, the primary driver of that is not necessarily just ideology, workplace culture or politics. It is the sporting organisation responding in the capacity of risk management out of fear that the transgender athletes will (and have) taken them to Human Rights Commissions. The same is true of hospitals and other medical institutions who have presided over the medicalisation of Gender Dysphoric patients. And this risk mitigation is not in any capacity just speculative, there are dozens and dozens of examples of real life victims to this risk mitigation, serious and dedicated medical and psychological health professionals who have been stripped of their licences to practise and had their clinics shut down for failing to go along unquestioningly with the ever ballooning definitions of what might constitute discrimination. As the decades rolled on after the inception of Human Rights Commissions, the arguably well intended “political correctness” gave way to the more toxic and hostile “wokeness”. Successive generations of academics were more imbued with the anarchistic and radicalising traits within postmodernist theory, and the Subjectivism of postmodernism has come to rule the house. This has developed even to the extent that academic papers and study guides refer to Objectivity as a trait of ‘white supremacy’. It should therefore be of absolutely no surprise that institutions like our police and judiciary have become entirely Subjective in the sentences and outcomes they give various defendants. The end result, culturally, of this risk mitigation and expanding definition of discrimination is now the equivalent of a reversion to medieval accusations of witchcraft, with moral panics resulting from anyone in high public standing being accused of discrimination. They are immediately deemed guilty, the accusation itself sufficing to result in stigmatisation, vilification, ostracization, punishment and excommunication from polite society. Even murderers are deemed innocent until proven guilty. The same grace is not afforded people accused of discrimination. The end result of this state of affairs is that an accusation of discrimination can and does bear greater negative consequences than are frequently experienced by those accused or even convicted of actual Crimes. The fact that police have been answerable to their own HR departments (and their attendant risk management priorities) is a substantive causation of the institutional paralysis in dealing with UK Grooming Gangs. In more recent years, as the judiciary itself has also become affected by policies of woke imperatives to always diminish the consequences of crime to people that the woke deem ‘the oppressed class’, we now see a substantive reversal of justice. In Germany, a woman who called her migrant rapists ‘pigs’ was given a longer gaol sentence than her rapists. The Henry Nowak case in Britain must be understood to have not been an error of judgement of the police. Those police were acting out To The Letter the rules of engagement and priorities that their management and training demand of them. In other words, the Henry Nowak death (A white English boy who bled to death while in handcuffs because his murderer told the police that the white boy had been racist to them) is not a mistake or an aberration, it is the logical outcome of systemic and institutionalised priorities. In Perth, Australia, a near identical case happened where a white Australian teenager bleeding heavily and with a clearly dislocated shoulder was refused an ambulance by the police who he was pleading for help with, and it took several weeks of harassment from his mother to the police before they would actually charge any of the Sudanese youth gang members who had attacked him with a machete, all caught on tape, perpetrator’s identities not in contention. Clearly, Western civilization cannot continue in this state. Serious analysts in Britain are warning of civil war and insurrection on the mid, not distant, timeline. Trust in institutions is beyond broken. Vigilantism is rising. White males are forming militias in response to unpoliced migrant gangs and the entire project of multiculturalism Is jeopardised by the blind obsessions of those who claim to be its champion adherents. The first thing that must happen is the abolishment of Human Rights Commissions. Entirely. Root and branch. There is an argument to say that we could and should have institutions that oversee complaints of discrimination, and perhaps we could later re-create afresh institutions designed for that purpose. But for now it must be completely redesigned from the ground up, and the toxic culture, inherent bias against Western civilization and risk management incentivization must be extinguished before any proposed reconstruction. Otherwise, any attempt to reform the current Commissions will be attacked, frustrated, delayed and institutionally sabotaged like the British people’s vote to leave the European Union was. Because the stronghold of woke ideology isn’t in the general civilian population, it’s in the bureaucracy. In a system operating under traditional and fair values of Western Justice, a Human Resource Manager would stand with a valuable employee they knew to be subject to a false, cynical or vexatious complaint of discrimination. In the structure under which we currently operate, the HR Manager is essentially a Stazi operant on behalf of the Marxist Human Rights Commission, and will generally dispatch the threat to the woke orthodoxy without the incident even needing to be bought to the attention of the Commission. Such a State of affairs incentivises the abuse of the system, such as occurred in the race hate hoax scandal of Jussie Smollett, who I argue only attempted that hoax under the perception that his contemporary environment was a favourable risk for the reward. My concluding summary argument is that our entire culture and our society’s institutions as a whole have been overtaken by the Human Rights Commissions acting as a fifth column, their power and influence growing way beyond their original intention and purpose, as a function of their funding model and the subjective scope of their jurisdictions.