National Post endorses HRCs

There is a lot more common ground between conservatives and socialists than they like to admit. The National Post editorial board tends to be conservative, and so often shots the feet off the more libertarian writers elsewhere and for that matter their own views and sides with the socialists. Today's editorial was a classic case, they totally reject the notion of private property and in doing so make the HRCs look good.

..............

I was truly appalled by the highly socialist tone of your editorial today "The latest 'human rights' embarrassment". You judge all individuals of a group (students) based on the potential actions of a few as if each is somehow responsible for the actions of the group. You then use this to defend authoritarian laws that remove the owners ability to use their private property. You defend removing a group's right to even live in a place just in case those people do things that are already illegal under other (valid) laws. You then evoke an image of "family character" of neighbourhoods: oh how sterile is your centrally planned and conservative world where the undesirables are forcibly restricted into ghettos.

Do you understand that by rejecting the owners fair use of thier private property 'just in case' your invalidating almost the entire moral basis for the fight against the Human Rights Commissions. By endorsing 'positive rights', where anything your neighbour wants of you can be seized by the state, your actually promoting HRCs like institutions. In rejecting the fair use of private property, sadly a common ground between socialism and conservatism, you have become the enemy you claim to oppose.