If you're sniffing the money, do it quietly

So here we go again, where business freedom, religious values and equality laws clash. At "The Way the Ball Bounces" Richard recounts two cases, one in the UK and one in PEI, of devoutly Christian accommodation owners running into the wrath of Stonewall - a gay advocacy group - and the HRC. 

We cherish business freedom as a foundation of the free market, and our own freedom to do as we please as the bedrock of democracy. When these appear to conflict with the law of the land, we are quick to cry foul and demand legislative change. Is this rage always justified?

"Money doesn't stink" - Adam Smith would say if he were explaining the market to an ignoramus as me. Picky owners of businesses that provide a service to the public (a.k.a. all businesses) sniff the money before taking it. Should they have the right to? Definitely, but it's not smart.

Denying an advertised service based on nothing but personal belief flaunts the law, and advocate of personal freedom as I may be, I recognize the supremacy of the statute book. Business owners have a duty to know the letter of the law of the jurisdiction they operate in. Would you argue in favour of a Christian who is being done in Iran for selling alcohol? Or a Muslim shopkeeper who refuses entry to women not wearing a headscarf? I wouldn't.

There isn't a law that can't be circumvented. The B&B owners who want to discriminate should simply make their services by invitation only. Have prospective bookers fill out a form online asking several questions and waive their right to appeal if the invitation is denied. Denying services to people who misrepresented themselves is perfectly legal, or at least gives you more of a case. After all, you're still pushing the envelope without a cost justification.

If you can't prove a cost, comply.

Establishments have no-pets policies because of the added clean-up, no-children policies because of potential insurance issues and over-occupancy policies because of perceived fire hazards, to say. 

Washing sheets that have been bonked on will cost the same, whoever soiled them.

His rights are as good as mine

What may seem like a perversion of justice at first will instead be remembered, I hope, as a landmark case re-enshrining rights too often violated on the impulse of fear. Radical scum cleric Abu Qatada will be compensated for unlawful detention.

His deportation case has already cleared the court system and he will be booted out of the UK, the country that gave him refuge and which he spat on. But his original detention without charge on terrorism suspicion was a stain on Britain's rule of law and right. The current ECHR ruling sets the record straight: charge or be charged!

However great the threats we face, we must not sink to the lowness of the dictatorships where suspicion is a valid arrest motive and silence is an acceptable charge. Often the test of our love of liberty and rights is how prepared we are to extend them to our enemy. If it wants to maintain a credible anti-terrorism record, Britain should beef up its intelligence service, re-route police resources and stop fearing being politically incorrect. After all, sending undercover agents into a mosque or a culture centre to record a hateful sermon would be a much more efficient way to obtain enough proof to prosecute and expel the Qatada-like hatemongers.

Oft invoked as a scarecrow by complainants of dubious repute, the ECHR nevertheless has so far played a key role in bringing to the public's attention the rights violations carried out in EU member states, and other countries accepting its jurisdiction. Unlike our own HRC's, the ECHR does not create rights of its own. It merely looks after the EU Human Rights Charter, a sound document tarnished by local interpretations such as the UK one.

Sask HRT raps Christian commissioner

A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner is being rapped by the Human Rights tribunal for refusing to be there for a same-sex marriage ceremony on the grounds of religious belief. Despite being one of the many commissioners in Regina, I don't think I can side with his cause.

Were his actions related to a wholly private practice the couple in question wouldn't stand a chance: business is business. However when applying to be a marriage commissioner one signs up to performing marriages in accordance with existing law. It becomes a public service, and religious belief can't come into play here.

Delivering a public service doesn't just mean you get paid by the government. My definition of it includes any situation where someone accepts to perform a duty on behalf of the government, paid or not. Therefore refusing to put a stamp on a lawful union is something he could not do. There are many professions and duties one can perform keeping his or her faith in mind. Government-sanctioned positions do not belong in that list.

Trubunalize this!

Chasing the whims of frustrated losers through hearing basis-less cases and covering Canada with ridicule distracts the do-it-yourself courts we know as HRCs from their real job: ridding the country of unfairness. A striking example of this is the recent difficulties faced by a blind house-hunter in BC, the very same BC hosting the sham trial against Mark Steyn and Macleans.

Although renting is completely at the discretion of the landlord (there's no human right to be a tenant), the case of Kim Hood is possibly an indictment of the current running of the Human Rights tribunals. Surely she is being discriminated against, and I for one would love to see her rights upheld. However, an HRC would find itself in a bind. Either, as these commissions do, they pluck a human right out of their backsides and all but abolish private property (by destroying your right to choose whom to let to) or they rule in favour of the landlord and wipe off any remaining credibility they have as custodians of our rights and freedoms (were they ever?).

There is a third solution: rent by attorney, i.e. using someone else who's legally registered to house-hunt for you. This would eliminate the guide dog as ground for rejection because there's no dog in the first place, and it wouldn't qualify as a pet. If there isn't a law for this the Commission would recommend it to the provincial legislature. As of now, this isn't a possibility as far as I know.

The HRCs should not draw rights and interpretations out of a hat or consider themselves courts. I would suggest their scope be changed to arbitration: less clamor, less legal fees, no precedent, more common sense. A possible solution would include capping maximum sanctions if both parties agree not to appeal the arbiter's decision in the normal courts of law.

Actually, why bother with legal ways at all? Instead of claiming a human right to attend a school grad ball, a Muslim student and observant family will attend because independently of her a group of students began a petition to ban alcohol at the event, and received almost every attendee signature. Persuasion, dialogue and common sense sometimes are the best way to achieve a peaceful society. Crying "Wolf", guilt trips and using backdoors do not do the cause of moderate Islam any good whatsoever.

Score one for amateur interrogators

Mukasey got the go-ahead to become the US Attorney-General. I understand that sometimes realpolitik has to take over from idealism, but with the US's image tarnished by the many scandals and allegations, giving someone who didn't speak out prominently against torture techniques amounts to nothing else than the mercification of principles for the sake of political stability (avoiding more tension with the White House) and a vague notion of national security that curbs the freedoms of the individuals in ways never seen before.

Don't get me wrong. I'm fine with my library record and whatnot being available to the FBI or the RCMP for the purpose of weeding out potential terrorist recruits being extremized. I am also fine with aggressive interrogation techniques, when these involve well known tried-and-tested methods. Waterboarding and the like are nothing to be proud of, and the information one extorts in this way is in no way legitimate or reliable. Good God, I'd confess anything should I be subjected to something like that.

This man who will soon take one of the top seats in the Bush administration is no better than anyone who preceded him. Quizzed on a question of principle he gave a half answer that wasn't even an answer. This man will not ban any torture technique currently being employed by the US if he comes across it, and I bet a grand to your loonie he will gladly lobby for all laws regarding these practices to be stalled or vetoed, so he won't have to handle the hot potato.

It's about time we all showed some integrity and said no to torture, whatever the cost. My own gut reaction would be to take information out of a terrorist at all costs. Fortunately, my brain is located not in my gut but a tad higher. The rule of law and human rights were made for everyone, and as the bastion of integrity and freedom the West claims to be it must be first in line in their enforcement and maintenance.

Tough questioning and truthful confessions by hardened criminals are the work of professionals. Waterboarding and the like are for amateurs. Mukasey should value professionalism over cheapness, and he hasn't done that. OK-ing Mukasey is a slap in the face of anyone who values human life and dignity. It is also a missed opportunity to really address the lack of real interrogation skills. Come on, interrogation is an art, this was the chance to show that the US values artfully done jobs over cheap made-in-china-style stuff.

Once again, the cheap has it. Don't blame me if it goes awry.