There is an anonymous comment on my posting of yesterday aimed at clarifying the resolution of the Canadian Human Rights complaint against Mr. Chandler. I thought a response to parts of the comment was worthy of a separate posting.
The Anonymous commenter says (in part) "There was no human rights decision, there was an agreement. Craig was not forced to do anything. He could have fought it but chose not to as he is a consensus builder."
Thank you Anon at 8:47 for the clarification on the Canadian Human Rights complaint against Mr. Chandler. I have chaired a human rights inquiry for the Alberta Human Rights Commission and presume the Canadian Human Rights Commission follows a similar approach and procedure.
The preferred remedy in these kind of human rights matters is to have a mediated and negotiated mutually agreeable resolution before calling a formal inquiry. That approach seeks a more enduring and effective solution that satisfies both parties without having to impose a decision by the Commission.
From the Anonymous comment that mutually agreeable resolution is what apparently happened in the complaint against Mr. Chandler. That being the case, I complement Mr. Chandler for apologizing and agreeing to such a respectful resolution of the issue.
Finding "guilt" in matters of human rights is not usually a very effective resolution because it does not likely change anything about the underlying problems and attitudes of the people involved.
A genuine and authentic public apology is a much better solution for the parties. Such a resolution of a complaint will hopefully also add to the social cohesion and mutual respect within a diverse community. Instead of finding a person guilty of a human rights offence and being fined or facing some other penalty versus that same person admitting a mistake and taking steps to rectify the damage they caused is a significant difference.
However, if the apology is not genuine or authentic and does not truly indicate a change in attitude and beliefs it is not effective. If it is used merely a tactical means to avoid a hearing on the issues and the problem, beliefs and attitudes persists, then there is no effective negotiated resolution.
Anonymous indicates Mr. Chandler has hired legal counsel to review newspaper and blogs presumably looking for opportunities to pursue litigation. I noted in an earlier blog posting that that looking for potentials to use litigation by people who are being judged and commented on in public would not be a surprise.
The preferred remedy in these kind of human rights matters is to have a mediated and negotiated mutually agreeable resolution before calling a formal inquiry. That approach seeks a more enduring and effective solution that satisfies both parties without having to impose a decision by the Commission.
From the Anonymous comment that mutually agreeable resolution is what apparently happened in the complaint against Mr. Chandler. That being the case, I complement Mr. Chandler for apologizing and agreeing to such a respectful resolution of the issue.
Finding "guilt" in matters of human rights is not usually a very effective resolution because it does not likely change anything about the underlying problems and attitudes of the people involved.
A genuine and authentic public apology is a much better solution for the parties. Such a resolution of a complaint will hopefully also add to the social cohesion and mutual respect within a diverse community. Instead of finding a person guilty of a human rights offence and being fined or facing some other penalty versus that same person admitting a mistake and taking steps to rectify the damage they caused is a significant difference.
However, if the apology is not genuine or authentic and does not truly indicate a change in attitude and beliefs it is not effective. If it is used merely a tactical means to avoid a hearing on the issues and the problem, beliefs and attitudes persists, then there is no effective negotiated resolution.
Anonymous indicates Mr. Chandler has hired legal counsel to review newspaper and blogs presumably looking for opportunities to pursue litigation. I noted in an earlier blog posting that that looking for potentials to use litigation by people who are being judged and commented on in public would not be a surprise.
However, Mr. Chandler is a public figure, especially since he has put himself and his beliefs into the public sphere, politically and otherwise. He has done this in many ways and for many years. He is reported to have offered himself up before as a candidate for political office including as a leadership candidate for a federal political party.
Mr. Chandler is a strong advocate for free speech and he has a right to correct errors of fact to preserve his reputation. That said, under the circumstances of offering himself up again for elected public office, the public has a right to know about Mr. Chandler. He is a public political figure and clearly subject to fair comment and to expressions of opinions about his suitability for political candidacy and to hold elected public office.
After all, that is what elections are all about. The public goes through the election process to form opinions and to make choices about the suitability of candidates who offer themselves to govern us. We give politicians a great deal of power and discretion over our lives when we elect them. We citizens need to be informed and able to make careful and considered decisions about who we will vote for and to whom we will grant our consent to govern.
Mr. Chandler is a strong advocate for free speech and he has a right to correct errors of fact to preserve his reputation. That said, under the circumstances of offering himself up again for elected public office, the public has a right to know about Mr. Chandler. He is a public political figure and clearly subject to fair comment and to expressions of opinions about his suitability for political candidacy and to hold elected public office.
After all, that is what elections are all about. The public goes through the election process to form opinions and to make choices about the suitability of candidates who offer themselves to govern us. We give politicians a great deal of power and discretion over our lives when we elect them. We citizens need to be informed and able to make careful and considered decisions about who we will vote for and to whom we will grant our consent to govern.
Earning the privilege of public office is based on the collective judgements of citizens about the abilities, capacities, character, values, opinions, beliefs, and yes even the past activities of the candidates. Consequently political parties and their leaders must have an over-riding discretion to accept or reject nominees for candidacy.
In the case of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, this over-arching discretion is applied to all nominees from every constituency so Mr. Chandler is not and should not be seen as a special case. Prime Minister Harper, for example, has recently reject three nominees for candidacy in the Conservative Party of Canada. It happens.
For full disclosure I am a member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta and I have been clear in this Blog that I do not think Mr. Chandler is a suitable candidate for the PC Party of Alberta. While members and other individuals are entitled to express opinions freely and openly about the suitability (or not) of any candidate or potential candidate, it is not our decision.
In my political party that over-arching discretion is vested in the Executive Committee and the Leader through the PC Party of Alberta Constitution. It is up to them to accept or reject a nominee based on what they decide is in "the best interests of the Party." These matters are being dealt with tomorrow at a meeting of the PC Party Executive Committee and the Leader. That is a good thing and I look forward to their decision.
Ken - by way of clarification:
ReplyDeleteThe Prime Minister did not reject the candidacies of these individuals.
The National Candidate Selection Committee, a sub-Committee of the Conservative Party of Canada's National Council, made the decision, as it falls within their jurisdiction.
Thx Will for the clarification but if Mr. Harper did not disagree with those candidate rejection decisions one can presume he concurred. Isn't this just a process issue that is really a distinction without a difference?
ReplyDeleteHarper may not have made the decision per se to reject those nominees but it is hard to believe he didn't know about it and accept or concur with the commmittee decision.
I understand the CPC has a very rigourous candidate acceptance and selection process at the party level. This process, I expect, is due in no small part from hard learn lessons of the past because sometimes less than appropriate candidates showed up to represent them.
Too bad it didn't catch the Elections Canada campaign spending issues surrounding Mr. Walid Khan when he crossed the floor to join the CPCs.
Will Mr. Harper ever release Mr. Khan's report to him on the Middle East situation? Given the recent efforts by President Bush to bring peace to that area, it may be helpful to see just how good Mr. Khan's intelligence really was.
Perhpas it could serve to show how different Canadian foreign policy is from the Americans, a distinction you have indicated exists in earlier Blog-based conversations between us.
I cannot comment on the Wajid Khan situation - I don't know anything about it except what has been reported. I understand that Elections Canada is investigating the situation, as is their function. I think it wisest to withold judgement until the facts are known.
ReplyDeleteAs for major policy differences between Canada and the United States from a policy perspective - we could do diplomacy, international affairs, or trade; there are differences in all three.
Canada supports the NATO and UN-led mission in Afghanistan - as do many countries around the world. May I ask what the Liberal position on Afghanistan is this week? Canada has also made bold statements condemning genocide and supporting the rule of law - sometimes supported by the United States, sometimes not.
From a trade perspective, Canada's commitment to free-trade is well-known, and is in stark contrast to certain restrictive trade practices put forward by President Bush and the Republicans. Conservatives believe that increasing trade helps developing nations - what is the Liberal position on International and Free Trade?
Lastly, we have seen major announcements of funding for humanitarian support and social development in target zones in the world - most recently a large fundign annoucement targetted to improve the lives of children living in Africa. Canada's policy on foreign aid has been changed to concentrate dollars around top priorities, rather than contributing token amounts to a hundred different priorities. What are Stephane Dion's international aid priorities?
In fact - when are the Liberals planning on releasing a platform or policy statement of any sort? So far we have seen but a very few announcements:
1. Supporting Kyoto - following after 13 years of ignoring Kyoto.
2. Ending Child Poverty - a bold goal that includes absolutely no action plan for how it is to be achieved.
3. Reversing the cuts to the GST - well, I'll give the Liberals credit for managing three separate GST policies in the past decade, and if the Liberals really want to run a campaign on raising taxes, I would encourage them to do so.
You clearly disagree with where the Conservative Party stands on issues, but you what we stand for - when can we expect something from the Liberals, or is the plan to simply continuing to oppose every single thing the Conservative government does regardless of merit, policy, or circumstance?