.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

_ New Socred human

rights bill called
a ‘fraud, deception’

__ It will be open season for discrimination

in British Columbia.

at’s the conclusion drawn and the
charge levied by a variety of organizations,
linked to the Solidarity Coalition, concern-
ing the Social Credit government’s Bill 11,
the proposed new Human Rights Act.

_ Those groups, many of them represent-
ing B.C.’s racial, religious and sexual minor-
ities, blasted the bill at a press conference
Apr. 12, and promised to fight until the
Proposed act is withdrawn.

Bill 11 is a massive fraud on the people
of British Columbia. It is a fraud because it
claims to protect human rights when it in
fact legalizes discrimination,” charged Har-
bans Dhillon at the Solidarity Coalition’s
office in Vancouver.

And in a release B.C. Federation of
Labor President Art Kube called the bill “a
regressive and unsatisfactory act.”

Reading from a joint statement prepared
by the 20 groups represented at the press
conference, Dhillon noted the new bill
Tepresents “no substantial improvements”
over Bill 27, the proposed human rights act
of last July that drew outrage and was
instrumental in the formation of the Solid-
arity fightback against the Socreds’ budge-
tary legislation.

With only cosmetic improvements over
the provisions of Bill 27, the new bill blithely
ignores the presentations of dozens of
organizations which participated in the
“consultation” process during the winter
months, state its critics. And, with even
those improvements rendered virtually
meaningless by other provisions of Bill 11,
the proposed legislation flies in the face of
the province’s Human Rights Code and
makes B.C. the worst province for protec-
tion against discrimination, they charge.

Bill 1] was introduced just prior to the
conclusion of the day’s session in the legisla-
ture Monday, Apr. 9, allowing for little
PTess Coverage that day, and no time for the
official Opposition to respond.

, vhile there are many negative aspects to
Bill 11, five key features of the proposed act
have raised the most concern.

_ Perhaps most significant is the elimina-
tion, already enacted by order-in-council
last year when Bill 27 was introduced, of the
Human Rights Commission, and the
a Rights Branch of the Ministry of

ie

Together those bodies presided over

hundreds of cases involving discrimination
on the grounds of race, sex or sexual prefer-
ence, physical or mental impairment and
often awarded victims redress against land-
lords, employers and other power groups.

The Socred government has replaced
those agencies with a Human Rights Coun-
cil which “will not be an independent body,
but will be subject to the whim of the Minis-
ter,” the human rights groups charged.

The members of the council are
appointed by cabinet, and can be dismissed
by that body at any time, an analysis of Bill
11 by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association
points out. Additionally, the bill contains
no provisions to ensure the independence of
the council, the association notes, and the
new body will have greater discretionary
power than the former commission and
branch.

Unlike the former commission, the new
council will have no staff to investigate
complaints or enforce the act’s provisions.
The commission employed a staff of some
40 workers, dismissed within hours of the
announcement of the July 7, 1983 budget.

“Without an effective enforcement mech-
anism, no legislation, no matter how good it
is on paper, can live up to its responsibilities
in practice,” the groups’ joint statement
noted.

The new bill also strikes down former
provisions that allowed cases to proceed
with relative ease.

“By removing the reasonable cause pro-

vision of the Human Rights Code, the

government has declared open season on
the vast majority of our society. Those who
would discriminate on the basis of age, sex-
ual orientation, household composition or
source of income, may now do so with
impunity,” the joint statement declared.

The “reasonable cause” provision has
figured largely in several judgments involv-
ing employers who used height and weight
standards, sex, and language as reasons for
prohibiting or terminating employment.

Previous Human Rights Commission
boards of inquiry awarded settlements to
many victims of discrimination when such
grounds were found to be lacking in sub-
stance. Such was pointed out by the B.C.
Coalition of the Disabled, which cited sev-
eral recent cases in its submission to the
government last month — a submission
which, among the dozens of others, was
ignored.

Former chairman of the B.C. Human Rights Commission Dr. Charles Paris (r) called for a
renewed fightback in the wake of Bill 11, the rehashed version of Bill 27, the proposed Human
Rights Act shelved last fall after a summer of Solidarity activity. Twenty organizations,
ranging from the Sikh Solidarity Coalition to the B.C. Federation of Labor, called for the
withdrawal of Bill 11 at a press conference Apr. 12.

Similarly, the new bill abolishes the pro-
vision that allowed for redress even when no
intent to discriminate was found. The onus
is now on the victim to prove intent “and
I’ve never heard of anyone admit their
intention to discriminate against people,”
said disabled coalition chair Jill Weiss.

“For example,” the Civil Liberties Asso-
ciation points out, “height and weight res-
trictions would no longer be considered sex
discrimination unless it could be proved the
purpose was to exclude women or people of
Asian ancestry, and a person exluded
because of lack of wheelchair access to a
building would have to prove that the stairs
were built for the purpose of excluding the
disabled.”

Bill 11 also eradicates provisions for edu-
cation, a key task of the former human
rights agencies and one which “‘is the long
term solution to prejudice,” stated the
groups.

“Racial stereotyping will persist, and ste-
reotyping is the worst form of racial preju-
dice,” said Naieu Dioh of the Black
Solidarity Association.

In addition to those negative features, the
new bill also gives the council sweeping
powers allowing for dismissal of complaints
on a variety of grounds, the Civil Liberties
Association points out.

Any complaint, which now can only be
filed by the victim or someone on the vic-
tim’s behalf, can be dismissed by the council
if it is deemed “frivolous, vexatious or in
bad faith,” and can be discontinued at any
time, all contrary to the existing Human
Rights code.

There will no longer be the right to appeal
decisions.

As with Bill 27, the right to lay criminal
charges for an offence has been removed.

“The Solidarity Coalition refuses to call
Bill 11 a human rights bill. We’ve named it
the ‘licence to discriminate’ bill,” said Solid-
arity co-chair Father Jim Roberts.

Charging that the Socred government
did not listen to the groups making submis-
sions during the consultation process,
Roberts said the one group the government
did listen to was the Fraser Institute.

“The Fraser Institute and its supporters
want all decisions on whether to discrimi-
nate left up to the private sector — to land-
lords and employers. That is precisely what
Bill 11 accomplishes,” he charged.

Collectively, the organizations called for
the scrapping of Bill 11, the reinstatement of
the Human Rights’ Commission and
Branch, and the resignation or firing of
Labor Minister Bob McClelland.

They also urged the opposition “to do
everything in their power to prevent (Bill
11’s) passage,” and called on “all concerned
British Columbians to join with us in
expressing their outrage over this
legislation.”

Future protest actions are in the planning
Stages, said the groups’ spokesmen.

“There is as much reason to oppose this
bill as there was the last one,” said former
Human Rights Commission chair, Dr.
Charles Paris.

The B.C. Human Rights Coalition has
called a meeting on Bill 11, for Tuesday,
Apz. 24, in the Robson Square Media Centre
in Vancouver at 7:30 p.m.

__We’ve asked our readers to “hold the
line” in this year’s financial drive.

By that, we mean that this year’s target
remains the same as the 1983 goal. We’re
Striving for $85,000 to keep the Tribune
fighting in 1984.

But we also ask everyone to help “hold
the line” against Socred cutbacks in edu-
Cation and social services; “holding the
line” is a rallying cry to stem government
and business attacks against trade union
and democratic rights — attacks that
have multiplied in intesity and number in
the “recession” years.

To hold the line means building the
Working class press and ensuring that
those atacks don’t pass unnoticed or
unopposed.

We know in these times of cutbacks and

Times demand a tough response

wage restraints that B.C.’s working people
have to hold the line on expenditures.
That’s why we’ve set our sights a little
lower this year.

But with the usual inflationary increases
affecting everything, including the publish-
ing world, we can’t hold the line too much
when it comes to supporting the Tribune.
More than ever, there’s a need to have the
paper alive for the coming struggle.

That’s why we’re asking our friends and
supporters to up the ante a bit in the ’84
drive. It’s just a few days more than two
weeks old, and so far only some $3,000 has
come in the door.

It doesn’t take too much figuring to
realize we have to gather a lot more in a
two-week period if we want something to
celebrate at the Victory Banquet this June.

So we’re asking our readers to take
inspiration from those who have gone all-
out to help us hold the line this year.

For example, there’s long-time Tribune
supporter and volunteer mailer Ed
Dotzler, who came up with $1,000 to help
put us over the top in ’84.

And from a donor who wishes to
remain anonymous, $500 in the memory
of Nigel Morgan has been sent to boost the
financial drive.

Not all donations to the Tribune are
give, give, give. A check of the weekly
classified ad column shows there are any
number of social affairs that give enter-
tainment and involvement for the dollar.

Times are tough, but they demand a
tough response. Together we can not only
hold the line, but extend it and make real
gains in 1984.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 18, 1984 e 3