| Posted: 27 Jul 2007 16:08 Post subject: |  |
| A few comments from someone who has spent his whole working life dealing with government agencies in one capacity or another. I still deal with the CHRC on general public policy issues (eg, drug and alcohol testing, employment equity) but have not handled an HR complaint in a decade. Over that time there have been substantial changes to their procedures. First of all this is the big leagues. It's not some fun debate over transubstantiation in the Religion Forum. The Commission will be hoping for cooperation from the respondent but will expect intransigence. If there is a complete lack of cooperation the investigation will still continue based on the posts identified in the complaint and the case will almost certainly go to a tribunal. I have found that if you approach the invesigators in a business like way they generally respond the same way. If you try to dick them around, they push back and you get a confrontation. In spite of all the talk about mediation and ADR it's still an adversarial process and give them the minimum you can get away with and tell them only that which they are entitled to know. Give them what they are legally entitled to get. They will get it anyway. Through subpoena. I know instances of the RCMP showing up in offices and carting filing cabinets away. (Note to Connie and Mark: if there anything you don't want them to see, store it south of the St Lawrence. Now) In the very, very, few instances I was in the wrong I fessed up and settled.  I would answer their questions. But only with advice of counsel. The first three questions are tricky. When you have been in as many government investigations as I have you get an early sense of what's a winner and what's a stinker. This is a winner. First of all, I don't see a violation of the CHRA because I can't see any "hate messages" within the intent of the Act. Secondly, the nature of the website needs some flexibility in permitting posting or its ability to be a free exchange ideas breaks down. Often a dubious website is linked, not to demonstrate "hatred and contempt" but to illustrate a legitimate point the poster was making. Often Bill does this, as do others. Final note: I know that I have been critical on occasion of the way the site has been run but not, I hope, to the point of obnoxiousness. I've tried to restrain myself since it's not my site, not my ass on the line when things go wrong. The owner of the site has to have the final say in running it. Now we have a problem. The site is run well, all legitimate opinions are allowed even those contrary to the principles on which the site was founded - something that definitely can't said about all discussion sites. There is no charge to be a member - and all contributions are voluntary. I would like to add my voice to the many others to point out that Mark and Connie need our help. And let's give them our help any way we can - and give hell to the bastards that are trying to ruin this website that we all enjoy so much. ( leewgrant ) |