One of the many things that bug me about Canada's system of human rights tribunals/commissions is the assumption, on the part of their defenders, that only they care about human rights and that anyone who disagrees with them must have other, more sinister motives.

In fact, the debate is about how we should protect human rights, including the very important right to freedom of expression. That's why I cringe to read a recent speech by Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in which she called on the "human rights community" to make sure the "manner in which (this debate) takes place is respectful of our human rights system."

Talk about beginning from a biased position. When the debate is about whether the human rights system should exist, or should be seriously reformed, it's a bit rich to ask all participants to be "respectful" of it.

There's a big difference between being a defender of human rights and being a defender of Canada's "human rights system."

In the same way, I see no reason why human-rights advocates should feel guilty about criticizing the (perhaps fatally) flawed UN Human Rights Council.

There's a Mark Twain quotation that has many versions, but goes something like this: Loyalty to the country always; loyalty to the government when it deserves it.

I feel the same way about human rights "systems": Loyalty to the principle always, loyalty to the system when it deserves it.

--Kate Heartfield

The World Next Door

Ottawacitizen.com/worldnextdoor