Air Canada Pilots Association Jumps In

September 30, 2009

J Ly Making Enemies Left, Right and Center, Well Maybe Not Left

[ ED NOTE: Mbrandon8026 from Freedom Through Truth was kind enough to let me cross-post this article from his blog. You can read the original here.

This is just yet one more example of the glaring question that human rights commissions in this country have raised. Namely, what kind of authority do they actually have? It seems that, more and more, rather than simply asking questions about it, people are trying to find answers - hence this current spat. ]

So, the CHRC tribunal gave the over 60 Air Canuck pilots the right to not retire, another right for the left, as it were. I mentioned it here.

But, surprise of surprises. Not everybody was pleased. In fact, only J Ly, her liberal friends, and the Fly Past 60 folks jumped for joy at the news. The people most affected by their arrogance were not so quick to celebrate. In fact they are challenging the ruling as reported several placed in the last few days but here, as well.

The Air Canada Pilots Association has taken up their clarion call to the Federal Court of Canada. Their President said:

“The association has a duty to represent the wishes of the majority of the pilots and we will exercise the legal avenues available to us to ensure that their interests are protected. We are reviewing the details of the decision with our legal representatives to determine the long-term impact on our members and their collective agreement and our options for responding.”

It seems that the question is whether a collective bargaining agreement where the members of the union (I mean association) voted in favour of 60 as a retirement age holds water, or whether disgruntlement equals entitlement to change things because J Ly and her band of miscreants say so, and want to create yet another human right, the right not to be retired, even if you agreed that you were going to be.

Go Figure!


Well, there you have it

September 30, 2009

From Free Dominion:

Abrams and BBC v. Topham and Radical Press – Position of the Commission

Dear Tribunal and Parties,

We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.

It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.

In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).

Yours truly,

Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Canadian Human Rights Commission

Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for pointing this out to me. You can read all about it over at his site.

More on this from Jay Currie, who comments:

Whether that is what Hadjis actually meant is a whole other question. His analysis of Taylor turns on the remedial and conciliatory assumption made by Dickson in Taylor. As I wrote earlier, the Warmanization of the Commission, its transformation into a prosecutorial entity when it came to “hate speech” cases, lies at the root of Hadjis decision.

But what is equally interesting here is that the Commission seems to be signaling that it will not appeal Lemire but rather try to brazen it out in Topham.

Which will be interesting as Topham and the intervenors are like to raise the constitutional issue at every turn.

Arthur Topham, godspeed to you in that regard.


Today’s Lynch List

September 30, 2009

Yep, it’s that time again.

First off, check out Brass Balls Radio episode number 65 – in which they go into Richard Warman’s fall from grace a little later in the show.

Second, is that Ezra Levant I see there? From the Earth Times:

NASHVILLE, Tenn., Sept. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Betsy McCaughey, Rep. Tom Price, M.D., and Ezra Levant  are some of the featured speakers at the 66th annual meeting of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) to be held in Nashville, TN from Sept 30 through Oct. 3, 2009.

Read the rest here. Geez, that guy is everywhere.

Third, happy international free press day! Mark Steyn’s all over it on the fourth anniversary of the Danish cartoons, dredging up some relevant articles from the past: Stout-Hearted Men? and Unfit to Print.

Fourth, Glen Kauth writes for the Law Times: Signs of trouble in the human rights system:

Henry Freitag knows his issues well. Having fought the Town of Penetanguishene a decade ago in his battle to get his municipal council to stop reciting the Lord’s Prayer, he’s in a good position to lead his current bid to get politicians there to abolish such religious observances altogether.

So, in launching his case to rid of all prayers, including the non-denominational one the town council has observed since his victory at the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1999, Freitag is so far representing himself at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Penetanguishene senior may succeed, but it’s clear that many other people alleging discrimination before the tribunal would struggle to make their case without a lawyer.

It’s worrisome, then, that roughly 70 per cent of the people making complaints to the tribunal since last year’s overhaul of the province’s human rights system don’t have counsel.

The high number is somewhat logical given that many cases are still at early stages and given that the changes aimed in part at allowing people direct access to the tribunal without first applying to have the Ontario Human Rights Commission investigate their case and provide legal representation.

But while the old system came under heavy criticism for long delays, human rights advocates were deeply concerned the revamped one would leave complainants, many of whom are vulnerable, without the ability to make their cases.

In efforts to allay those concerns, the province promised the new Human Rights Legal Support Centre would fill the gap by providing lawyers to take up people’s causes.

That would still leave complainants without a body like the commission to investigate their files but at least held some prospect of speeding up the system while ensuring access to justice.

Read the rest here. H/t to Free Dominion.

Fifth, a development in the CHRC’s investigation into Arthur Topham of The Radical Press, and in the not-dead-yet case of Warman v. Lemire. From Connie Fournier at Free Dominion:

The CHRC has indicted that they will be telling Arthur Topham “their position” in regard to the Lemire decision today.

Considering that the government has only two days left to file an appeal of the Lemire decision, we will likely know today if you are going to appeal it or not.

Marc Lemire has been dragged through this process for six years. After all that time, and all that investigation, they weren’t able to find ONE THING that was written by Lemire himself that violated Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

This process has cost Marc Lemire thousands and thousands of dollars, and there is no way for him to recoup any of his costs.

If your government decides to appeal this decision, Marc will be forced to start throwing money at this thing all over again.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

If Rob Nicholson, the man who stood up at the last CPC Convention and voted to abolish Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, now uses his authority to challenge the ruling that has rendered it unconstitutional, he WILL pay a political price.

If the CHRC appeals it, we will know that it is with the support of Rob Nicholson and the Harper government because the CHRC is reportable to the Rob Nicholson.

I, for one, will not sit quietly and watch the government use our tax dollars to continue this persecution of Marc Lemire, and this campaign of censorship and intimidation against the Canadian people. If they do this, I will work actively and tirelessly AGAINST the Conservative Party during the next election.

I await your decision with interest.

Read it here.

Fifth, more on illiberalism in Manitoba. From the Winnipeg Sun:

By Paul Turenne, SUN MEDIA

NDP leadership candidate Steve Ashton wants to introduce a law that would make racist or other derogatory comments or behaviour an offence.

Ashton said “one of his first acts” if elected leader, and thus premier, would be to introduce what he calls the Dignity Act.

“I want to see Manitoba become a model for human rights,” Ashton said. “We want a zero tolerance approach to racism and other forms of discrimination.”

Ashton said the bill would be based on the British Race Relations Act, which has been law in the United Kingdom in one form or another since 1965.

Ashton said he is still working on the details of the law, but stated in a release that it would “make employers, governments, unions, organizations and individuals in positions of authority responsible for promoting equality and improving race relations by eliminating unlawful discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and promoting positive relations between people of different racial groups. The bill will also ensure similar provisions for gender and sexual orientation.”

Ashton said the law would go “one step further” than existing laws like the Manitoba Human Rights Code and the hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code.

“It’s common sense. It’s when you’re inciting racial hatred, that will be the legal test,” Ashton said. “The key to the future is getting along, working together, and putting aside some of the things we’ve seen in the past.”

Read it here. H/t to Free Dominion. Also check out colleague Mbrandon8026’s parsing of Steve Ashton’s wondrous new law.

Finally, some old friends of Barbara Hall; BCHRT says; and the anti-racists among us


I Have a Few Questions…

September 30, 2009

Here’s a decision of the BCHRT I actually agree with, but it raises a few follow-up questions.

A complaint by a Christian teacher, Po Chiang, has been thrown out by the BCHRT. Chiang alleged that she was subject to discrimination based on her religious beliefs. Her complaints were as follows:

1) Chiang was asked by a fellow teacher (Ferguson) to put rainbow stickers on her doorway to show support for the GLBT cause.
2) Ferguson e-mailed to all teachers a video clip of an American radical Christian organization demonstrating against homosexuality, with the caption, “Here is a reminder of how some young people are still being taught to hate”.
3) Chiang’s was labeled by her principal as “extreme” even though she says that she has not shared her personal views.
4) An extra-curricular Christian group that Chiang sponsored was denied the privileges that other extra-curricular groups enjoyed. Other teachers told Chiang that they had been warned about her group.
5) Chiang was accused of stalling the approval of some gay literature for the school library. Chiang insisted she was following policy.

The reason that I’m happy with the BCHRT ruling to dismiss the complaint is that I don’t think they should be hearing ANY complaints. None of the actions that Chiang alleges are criminal. She should develop a thicker skin and look for other ways to fight her battles, rather than running to government agencies.

But the following questions must be asked:
1) Would the BCHRT have sanctioned Chiang if she distributed crucifixes to her fellow teachers, telling them to put them up on their doors to show support for their Christian students?
2) Would the BCHRT have sanctioned Chiang if she sent around a clip of a gay pride parade with the caption, “Here is a reminder of how some young people are still being taught to be sexually immoral”?
3) Would a Christian principal be sanctioned by the BCHRT if he/she described a teacher as “extreme” for rejecting religion as a myth?
4) Would a Christian principal be sanctioned by the BCHRT for enforcing rules on a GLBT extra-curricular group but not on any other?
5) Would a Christian principal be sanctioned by the BCHRT for demanding that certain Christian books be railroaded through the process of getting into the public school library?

Just askin’.

Cross-posted at SF


Manitoba – New Potential Looney Bin of Canada

September 29, 2009

Leadership Candidate Pledges To Go Down Weary UK Road

[ ED NOTE: Mbrandon8026 from the Freedom Through Truth blog was kind enough to let me cross-post this article from his blog. You can read the original here.

All I can say is, well – there’s not a whole lot I can say. The NDP attracts all kinds…

Manitoba NDP Leadership candidate Steve Ashton has pledged to bring in the Dignity Act if he becomes party leader and therefor Premier of the province.

The Winnipeg Sun reported it here.

He wants racist or other derogatory comments or behaviour to be an offence.

He said:

“I want to see Manitoba become a model for human rights,” Ashton said. “We want a zero tolerance approach to racism and other forms of discrimination.”

 

Ashton, who is totally out of touch with reality said he wants the bill to be based on the British Race Relations Act, which is a cause of great turmoil in the UK.

Although he is still working on the details, he said in a press release that it would:

“make employers, governments, unions, organizations and individuals in positions of authority responsible for promoting equality and improving race relations by eliminating unlawful discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and promoting positive relations between people of different racial groups. The bill will also ensure similar provisions for gender and sexual orientation.”

 

Mr. Ashton wants to go “one step further” than existing laws like the Manitoba Human Rights Code and the hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code, since Manitoba does not currently have a “likely to expose to hatred or contempt” clause like the one that is currently being struck down at the Canada HRC, and will fall in Alberta after the Boissoin decision.

As Mr. Ashton says:

“It’s common sense. It’s when you’re inciting racial hatred, that will be the legal test,” Ashton said. “The key to the future is getting along, working together, and putting aside some of the things we’ve seen in the past.”

“I want to make sure we nip it in the bud.”

 

I hope someone nips him in the bid. But, Mr. Ashton can be forgiven for his political posturing. He has been away for the last while camping out in the woods, I assume, away from contact with other human beings.

I am waiting for someone to put a test together for “likely to expose to hatred or contempt”. If they can do that, then his “inciting racial hatred” should be a piece of cake. Apparently the black flies in Manitoba, where Mr. Ashton must have been camping carry some dread disease that addles the brain.

We have nuts on the left coast, and nuts in Ontario, some pretty wacky behaviour in La Belle Province, and now, looniness coming from Manitoba.


Today’s Lynch List

September 29, 2009

Alright, here we go.

First off, an event to attend:

Race, Religion, Equality and Freedom:
Current Canadian Legal Controversies
 
Canadian Constitution Foundation
Third Annual Law Conference
 
October 2-4, 2009
Best Western Primrose Hotel, Downtown Toronto
 
Preliminary Schedule (as of August 2009)
 
Friday October 2
 
 6:00 p.m.
Registration opens
 
 6:30 p.m.
Reception
 
 7:00 p.m.
John Carpay, CCF Executive Director, welcoming remarks
 
 7:15 p.m.
Panel I – Is there a human right to be free from offence?
Debating the restrictions on free speech in human rights legislation
Grant Huscroft, University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Law
Richard Moon, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law
Philippe Dufresne, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa
Mark Freiman, President, Canadian Jewish Congress
 

Read it here. H/t to Blazing Cat Fur.

Second, Rebekah at the Miss Marprelate Tracts writes: Learning: Lessons for Social Conservatives from the Free Speech Movement in Canada:

It was a motley party from the beginning. A confusing mess of Jews and Neo-Nazis, die-hard social conservatives and liberals (not to mention libertarians), gay rights activists and priests and pastors who have dedicated their lives to opposing gay rights activists. The weapons of choice were blogs and publicity stunts, but mostly blogs. You know, those online diaries where people pontificate around like their opinions are the most important things in the world and usually have a readership of -well- not a lot. This collection of rag-tag fire-breathing radicals was attacking a decades old law and a nicely established government department. A government department moreover that monopolized most of the feel-good words. Human rights, anti-hate, reconciliation, arbitration, anti-discrimination, and had a whole host of feel-bad words to toss at their opponents, hate-mongerers, bigots, racists, Nazis, regressive, anti-human rights, right-wing extremists, unfeeling, marginal, obnoxious.

Read the rest here. H/t to Freedom Through Truth.

Third, Jesse Ferreras is the sporting chap that he is:

Us free speechies hoped a FOI request about Jennifer Lynch’s file would include voodoo dolls of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn with the eyes and hearts poked out. Unfortunately it’s just a list of press mentions about the CHRC, few of them favourable.

I made it with an editorial I wrote in Pique, so did Levant and Rob Breakenridge. Very few blogs. Guess Jennifer Lynch isn’t under the full-scale assault she thought she was.

Read it here.

Fourth, a bit of human rights law history from Northern Exposure: More Amendments to Human Rights Legislation in Canada:

by Katie Clayton and Farrah Sunderani

 Over the past couple of years, human rights legislation across Canada has undergone a period of transition. This comes as a response to growing dissatisfaction with outdated statutes and the lengthy processes in place to resolve complaints.

Amendments to the British Columbia Human Rights Code were proposed in 2002 and set the stage for other provinces to follow suit. Modifications to Ontario’s Human Rights Code followed in 2008, and those changes closely mirrored those put in place in British Columbia. Now it seems that Alberta is next in line.

As the province to most recently update its legislation, one might presume that the Alberta amendments would be the most progressive, incorporating the successes and avoiding the downfalls of prior amendments to human rights statutes across the rest of the country. Unfortunately, the amendments to Alberta’s human rights regime have resulted in mixed support and even outrage from some Albertans.

Like the recent changes in British Columbia and Ontario, Alberta’s amendments to its Human Rights and Multiculturalism Act create a streamlined procedure for filing complaints. The legislation also attempts to eliminate duplicating resources. In Ontario, for example, complaints can now be filed directly with the Human Rights Tribunal, eliminating the need to proceed through the Human Rights Commission. Similarly, in British Columbia, the Human Rights Commission was eliminated in favor of a single human rights forum – the Human Rights Tribunal. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal was also given the added statutory power to dismiss groundless complaints.

Read the rest here. Also noted by the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism.

Finally, in the social storm; a link on Richard Warman ( scroll down ); and old friends of Barbara Hall.


Tweets from History

September 28, 2009

Chris Bentley is Much Smarter Than This

[ ED NOTE: Mbrandon8026 from Freedom Through Truth was kind enough to let me cross-post this article from his blog. You can read the original here.

I think he makes a very good point here. Times have changed, and our viewpoints need to change with them - which I think people are, slowly, doing.  Furthermore, there's a very great difference between 'vigilence' in the civil-rights-activism sense, and 'vigilence' in the HRC/Barbara Hall/Jennifer Lynch sense. In the case of the latter, vigilence must be kept...to keep such people and bodies in their rightful place. ]

Here is a tweet from Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley a few months back that just showed up in the Google Alerts this morning:

 

Human Rights speech. 1948 Hugh Burnett started 7 year struggle to be served in cafe. Led to Code. He was black. Must remain vigilant today.

 

Hugh Burnett was a black carpenter in Dresden Ontario. He was part of the National Unity Association formed in 1948, an anti-discrimination group to counter the refusal to serve blacks in restaurants and other stores.

The NUA was actively engaged in getting Premier Leslie Frost to to support passage of two pieces of legislation against discrimination the Fair Employment Practices Act, and the Fair Accommodation Practices Act.

However, discrimination in Dresden did not come to an end, so Burnett staged an illegal sit in at two restaurants in town. The NUA won, ending overt discrimination, but Burnett ended up leaving Dresden as people boycotted his business.

That’s the history behind the Tweet of our Ontario AG. It was not the key factor in us getting a Human Rights Code in Ontario, though it was a contributing one. The case of Drummond Wren that I reported on some months back was also significant, because it affected another minority group, Jews.

His conclusion “Must be vigilant today” though is liberal as well as Liberal clap trap. That was then. This is now, and Barbara Hall vigilance is not my idea of a good thing.

Minister Bentley is my MPP, and a good man. He serves his electorate well. However, his Liberal ideology, as it relates to human rights in this province, puts blinders on him to the reality of where vigilance is required.


Today’s Lynch List

September 28, 2009

Alright, let’s do this.

First off, a little bit more on the Fairness Fairy whistleblower scenario. BigCityLib is his usual supportive self, while Anti-Racist Canada continues on its crusade to poke a hole in everybody’s good time:

 Well, the Fairness Fairy promised more revelations to prove that he was, in fact, a CHRC mole (damn, we mean whistleblower) that would be published on Saturday:


Nothing was forthcoming on Saturday (surprise, surprise) and today, when one goes to what was once the “Fairness Fairy” blog which had been active since 2006:


You get the feeling that the people who were all giddy about the thought that the “Fairness Fairy” being legit might be a bit deflated now? You get their hopes up, then no promised money shot.

Second, Denyse O’Leary writes, over at Post-Darwinist: Intellectual freedom in Canada: “Human rights” commissions smartening up?

Third, Shiraz Socialist comments:

So the internet has opened up debate to a far-flung audience and made disseminating information easier.   But its anonymous nature presents difficulties, eg gauging how much of what is expressed on blogs is fantasy, wind up merchants, mischief makers, trolls, or infiltrators. In Canada the Human Rights Commission used to send out pseudo-Nazi provocateurs to see what they could elicit on Nazi hate sites by being more Nazi in their comments than the Nazis. Counter far right activity could include infiltrating their sites and spreading a few scurrilous rumours around, with some misdirection thrown in.  If nothing else, it would piss them off.

Read it here. More on this at Free Dominion.

Fourth, John Pacheco over at SoCon Or Bust adds a little commentary of his own on the CHRC’s investigation of Richard Warman, with some special audio delight included: CHRC Investigating Warman:

I can’t see any reason why Dick would want to stay under the CHRC’s bus.

If the CHRC wants to peel him off of the Human Rights Banana, Free Speechers should be supporting Dick.

Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.