The Human Rights Commission Jihad

Here's an easier link to use than the one Ezra Levant provided to counter-terrorism expert John Thompson of the Mackenzie Institute on The Human Rights Commission Jihad.

He writes about why human rights commissions are a new front for radical jihadists:

First, Human Rights Commissions don't just have a bias against the accused – they're stacked against them. As Mark Steyn observed in a January 2008 column in Maclean's: In the three decades of the Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal's existence, not a single "defendant" has been "acquitted." Would you bet on Maclean's bucking this spectacular 100 per cent conviction rate? "Sentence first, verdict afterwards," declares the queen in Alice in Wonderland. Canada's not quite there yet, but at the Human Rights Commission, it's "Verdict first, trial afterwards." So I'm guilty and Ken Whyte's guilty and Maclean's is guilty because that's the only verdict there is.�

Secondly, Human Rights Commissions are cheap – very often, the plaintiff needs no legal counsel (unlike the defendant), and might very well have his expenses refunded if he does have a lawyer in his corner. The defendant cannot expect any such beneficence, and will probably expect to ring up the same degree of expenses ($50,000 plus) that they might in a general civil action.

Thirdly, in a regular civil action in a real court, there is the process of discovery or disclosure; whereby the plaintiff and the defendant can demand to see each other's records. Normally, in the courtroom Jihad in the US (and to a lesser extent in Canada), this is where the plaintiffs back off.