Quixote's Horse: Workfare - Who Watches the Watchers? (part 1)

Who Watches the Watchers? (part 1)

The abuse you may expect if you choose to stand up and actually demand that your human rights be respected will not be confined to that from the state and its agencies. It was more than a little shocking to soon find the struggle expanded to include both the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the local Kingston Community Legal Clinic. It seems that precious few of us are actually watching the watchers. This episode we document what happened when a parallel human rights Complaint was submitted to the OHRC. Next time we look at the breathtaking betrayal of the local legal clinic.

The central tenets of modern human rights law can be summarized as follows:

* Every human being has certain rights that are inherent. Such rights can be enumerated or deduced; they are not earned or acquired but inhere in all people by virtue of their humanity alone.
* Every human being's basic rights are indefeasible or inalienable--that is, such rights can never be annulled or denied by outside parties or even by the affected individuals themselves.
* Conflicts between different rights must be resolved in accordance with just and impartial laws and procedures.
- P. Sieghart, The International Law of Human Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. 8.

Seems simple and clear enough to me. What about you? Do you see any ambiguity there?

Don't know who that guy is? Paul Sieghart, an English barrister, is an international arbitrator and consultant and a specialist in human rights law.

Perhaps you are more familiar with the federal Liberal Michael Ignatieff. This "darling of the Canadian left", and former director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, is apparently not understood at all by the ever so politically correct Burkinstock crowd. Even a cursory glance at his writing reveals just another hopelessly watered down Kant wannabe who argues for a "pragmatic minimalist approach to human rights".

"Minimalist"? Well - he variously argues that humans are "agents" and individual autonomy must therefore be the fundamental human rights value and that "agency" is a core value that gives rise to a plurality of culturally localised conceptions of human dignity in accordance with its own commitment to humans as agents whose destiny is to work out their own autonomous salvation. Uh huh... as long as those rights don't get in the way of "going global by going local" or the now notorious "American exceptionalism" with respect to international human rights law, including the international criminal court.

But even this historical pragmatic apologist for the state's "might is right" authority occasionally lapses into simple English. At such times, Ignatieff even seems to be thinking clearly. Here is what he recently told a standing-room only audience at London Ontario's Wesern U. Faculty of Law:

"We have an obligation to intervene on issues of human rights... to also be unafraid to stand up and speak out when human rights are not dealt with thoughtfully... priorities crucial to human rights leadership in Canada include getting our own house in order... The world is watching what Canada does about these issues." - April 2007, the inaugural lecture of The Claude and Elaine Pensa Lecture on Human Rights

Hmmm... Be "unafraid to stand up when human rights are not dealt with thoughtfully", he says. Fair enough. Been there. Done that. The world was watching. You are not going to believe what happened.

Ontario's legal community has written in its well read newsletter that SBT decisions are often contradictory and "legally incoherent". The Tribunal was (and may still be) composed of Ontario Tory sympathizers, most of whom had no legal training and only the vaguest idea of what is actually in the OW legislation, rules and regulations. The early statistics showed that unrepresented clients had only a 25% success rate before the SBT. John Done of the local legal clinic had already deliberately fumbled the ball (the entire outrage appears in the next installment). The OW legislation specifically and illegally forbade the SBT from considering arguments based upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Ontario Human Rights Code.

It seemed prudent, and even promising at the time, to open a second front in the struggle that would effectively outflank the array of weapons that the Ontario government had deployed against any individual fool enough to stand up and demand justice from the Harris government. In retrospect, it could have been worse. The state later shot and killed native protester Dudley George. The Ontario Human Rights Commission would surely force the government to obey the law... or rather, that was the thinking at the time. It was still summer in Kingston. Homelessness on freezing winter streets seemed a ludicrous possibility... at the time.

After submitting a well designed formal Complaint to the OHRC, including extensive case law cites on August 20, 1999, I was shocked to receive a request to sign a precis of that complaint which would have earned a grade six student a failing mark when I attended public school. I had no choice but to reject it. A text version of the Complaint without the referenced exhibits can be downloaded here: OHRC Complaint

It was a chilly November before I received a second effort, better than the first, but still not adequately representing the substance of my complaint. My requests that the OHRC simply accept the August submission as written were ignored. Over the Christmas holidays my research revealed written court decisions, regretfully and even angrily dismissing human rights complaints because of time delays created by the OHRC itself.

I needed the stick and I was determined to find a way to force the OHRC to give it to me. John Done at the Community Legal Clinic smirked and said it could not be done. OK - I may have been a little slow out of the gate but the truth was finally starting to dawn on this old horse. The Ontario Human Rights Commission did not want to deal with my Complaint.

In all fairness, here I was, 50-something years old and still naively believing that the law applies equally to everyone, that our civil servants actually worked on our behalf and that it had all just been one big misunderstanding. My generation grew up in the post-WWII economic boom. We gave the world hippies and the 60's anti-war movement. We actually believed a lot of that quaint stuff about peace and equality for all and free love and bare feet in the park. Of course, the romantics at the time tended to overlook the doggie-do and the broken glass... but hey! We stopped that damn war! Or so we chose to believe. Nothing was impossible.

On January 7, 2000, after months of being ignored, I gave the OHRC 30 days to do the following:

1. Accept my original complaint dated August 20, 1999 as an official submission
2. Provide me with proof that the matter had proceeded to the investigative stage

I promised to launch an international campaign to force them to comply if the deadline was not met. By this time, the rose coloured glasses were long gone. It came as no surprise that this ultimatum was ignored.

At the stroke of midnight 30 days later I did exactly as promised.

I contacted international groups around the world who are engaged in attempting to put a stop to so-called workfare. I contacted dedicated e-mail lists. I contacted the Mayor of Kingston, the Kingston Chief of Police, each Council member individually, the local media, every member of the Canadian Senate, the United Nations, prominent Ontario media, local and provincial advocacy groups... I could go on for some time, but you get the idea. I asked everyone to support my campaign/crusade to take back our human rights by sending an e-mail or making a supportive phone call to the OHRC. I indicated that the purpose was to flood their communications systems and make it impossible for them to conduct "business as usual". I made it crystal clear that I would not allow the SBT to sentence me to homelessness and death in the streets and that I required an official human rights complaint on record in support of my case. I informed the authorities, including police, that I would fight with every available weapon, if necessary, to remove the state from between me and God.

The campaign was barely 24 hours old when I received the first communication from the OHRC. It was a reiteration to sign their precis. It was rejected.

I then upped the ante and began linking my web site to some high traffic sites. The campaign gained an enormous boost when Ottawa's Pierre Bourque Report provided a supportive link to my campaign site. A second communication was received from the OHRC. It represented progress.

Their position had changed from requiring that I sign their precis to requiring that 6 copies of an official Complaint Form be signed and returned to them. This form did not exist previously. I indicated that I would sign a generic form, referencing my original complaint, if they sent the copies to me with SASE. I also repeated my demand for proof that my complaint had reached the investigative phase. Meanwhile, I advised that the campaign would continue as I was about to seek the help of perhaps the largest constituency of potential support- the religious community.

In an entirely fortuitous "act of God" (a miracle if you prefer), the Hackers then hit the front pages with their denial of service (DoS) attacks on the big players. Who can say what role that may have played in encouraging the OHRC to make a serious attempt to settle the matter before all hell broke loose?

St. Valentine's Day is as (in)famous for its bloody violence as it is famous for its celebration of love. It was a mere 8 days after the start of the Campaign that could not be won (according to John Done) that I received a most welcomed valentine from the OHRC. They agreed to send me an official complaint form with SASE referencing my original Complaint submission... every dotted "i" and crossed "t". The OHRC assured me that the Complaint would be processed immediately.

I had my stick. Of course, I was not out of the woods yet. There is no guarantee that the OHRC will find in my favour should it go that far. However, I knew that my case was rock solid and I still had every confidence in the OHRC to conduct a fair investigation and hearing now that it was formally in front of them.

There's going to be much gnashing of teeth." - Kingston City Manager Lance Thurston announcing even more workfare placements

As I suggested earlier, this old nag had lost a step or two over the years and, at the time, I was still far too trusting in "the system" and of those working within it. Had not Pierre Trudeau himself promised us a "just society"? Many of us actually believed him and were still suffering from that naive hangover. Or perhaps I was just so busy at the time that I was not really paying attention. With my nose pressed up against the provincial glass, I barely noted the February 12 edition of the local newspaper until days later.

In speaking with members of the activist groups in this city, I later learned that others shared my outrage. It was the most humiliating piece of "yellow journalism" that I have seen in quite some time:

City manager Lance Thurston announced that Kingston workfare placements would be increased from the 570 taking part in placements last year to 860. In return the provincial government will contribute several hundred thousand dollars to the city coffers. Thurston was quoted as saying, "Now you're going to start seeing them. They're going to be in your face and that's going to be difficult. There's going to be much gnashing of teeth." In a direct taunting of LINC and other activists, the city indicated it was "resigned to weathering the inevitable storm" of advocate groups in order to "erase the stigma of work-for-welfare".

While I may be just a simple Christian seeking to remove the state from between me and God, it seems that my strategic warnings the previous June to the activist community were prophetic. Many, who had rejected my contention that we are engaged in an undeclared war and that our own sense of civic responsibility and decency was being used as a weapon against us, were now giving the thesis more weight. The rhetoric of City Manager Lance Thurston underscored the complete failure of ongoing attempts to effect change through reasoned petition and education. Government money and the threat to withhold it has always been the state's stick. It was almost amusing to watch our City's anti-workfare resolve melt in a puddle of abandoned scruples.

But there was nothing amusing about watching an average of four homeless people per week literally dying on Ontario streets. It was not long before I too received the iron fisted backhand hiding within the velvet OHRC glove.

It started with a phone call out of the blue:

OHRC: "Who told you not to sign the Participation Agreement?"
Me: "I beg your pardon."
OHRC: "What church told you not to sign?"
Me: "God."

She then hung up on me. Apparently that was the entire extent of the OHRC investigation.

I later received the Mediator's written decision. It stated that my Complaint would not be considered at this time. It was not rejected. The explanation for simply ignoring it was so poorly reasoned that it would have been unworthy of an high school essay. I dissected it clinically but as far as I know, it is still sitting in a file somewhere, neither affirmed nor rejected... simply "not considered". The subsequent Appeal was rejected without grounds. The supporting documents will all be posted eventually.

In a particularly twisted irony, the Supreme Court of Canada in Tranchemontagne v Ontario has agreed with the legal arguments that I made in that submission. It seems that the Sudbury Community Legal Clinic was more than happy to do its job on behalf of a couple of their ODSP recipients. Here in Kingston, John Done, head of our Community Legal Clinic, is still in serious denial or perhaps guarding a different agenda.

Part 5: The role of John Done and the Legal Clinic...

Top of the page

Table of Contents

Who Watches the Watchers? (part 1)

Part 5: The role of John Done and the Legal Clinic...