BlazingCatFur continues an analysis of the possibility that “social condition-phobia” may join the ranks of imaginary “phobia” enshrined in Canadian “human rights” law.
I agree about what’s been missing in the “human rights/free speech” debates over the last three months:
the concept of property rights.
Property rights are not enshrined in the Canadian constitution; NDP leader Ed Broadbent made sure of that.
What is the Scott Brockie case really about? What is the Maclean’s case really about? Or Ezra’s, with his magazine? Or HRC cases involving Knights of Columbus who don’t want to rent their halls for lesbian wedding receptions?
Freedom of speech, yes. But also property rights.
Now the vague possibility exists that property owners will be charged with social condition-phobia for refusing to rent to the Trailer Park Boys, or banks with turning down their loan applications.
If our elites decide to enshrine the foreign concept of “class” in Canadian law, they might want to consider the Law of Unintended Consequences (but then again, why should this time be any different?)
The implication is that “class” is unchangeable, so even though I don’t agree with that and am a living refutation of the concept, let’s play along with the HRC’s embrace of “cultural” rights:
Where I came from, it is part of the “culture” to complain about “Paki” cab drivers, “faggots” and “drunken Indians”. The corporal punishment of children is not unheard of. Italians treat their daughters very differently than they do their sons.
None of that can be discrimination, though, if you make it a “protected culture.”
