WildRose Would Allow "No Blacks Allowed" Signs, which was then disseminated to Liblogs, ProgressiveBloggers, The Wellington St Post, and other mirror sites.
It referenced an article penned by U. of Calgary associate law professor Jennifer Koshan, entitled:
Wildrose’s human rights platform should get vigorous debate
In that article Professor Koshan opined:
Certainly there are a number of points there to debate in a classroom environment, but Ms. Koshan seems blithely unaware, or worse, uncaring, of the actual impact that heavy-handed 'human rights' activism has had on 'Respondents' such as Stephen Boisson.First, the Wildrose states that it would repeal s. 3 of the AHRA.
... ...
Human rights legislation has historically been seen as remedial rather than punitive.
... ...
Wildrose’s second key reform would “Replace the Human Rights Commission with a new Human Rights Division of the Provincial Court of Alberta, which will adjudicate all human rights complaints.” This is presumably in response to the Wildrose’s “kangaroo court” and “political correctness” allegations.
... ...
The Wildrose proposal would seem to do away with both the commission and tribunals, with nothing in their place to deal with human rights research and education.
... ...
Would the Wildrose institute judicial education in human rights as part of its overhaul of the system?
... ...
Could Wildrose really maintain the same level of resources for adjudicating human rights complaints in a cost-neutral way, given that Provincial Court judges are likely higher paid than tribunal members, and it would be adding the cost of advocates as well?
... ...
The platform also provides that costs could be ordered against unsuccessful respondents or complainants, including costs to/against the government if a complainant is represented by an advocate.
This approach departs from that taken in Boissoin, where the respondent Stephen Boissoin (who was successful in arguing that his conduct did not amount to a violation of s. 3(1)(b)) was not granted costs, given the public interest aspect of Darren Lund’s claim.
... ...
there would no longer be judicial review of human rights tribunal decisions according to the principles of administrative law, but an appeal process dictated by, one assumes, the normal standards of review for Provincial Court decisions. This may mean less deference to human rights decision-makers and more appeals.
Professor Koshan can be seen and heard on this Youtube clip entitled When is state interference justified to advance gender equality - 3 of 5 which gives additional insight into her mindset and values.
