First: Lots to talk about in this case.
A woman applied for sick leave from her job at UBC and promptly used the time off to go to Disneyland and take a few college courses. When she was fired, she launched a human rights complaint on the basis that she was depressed, and the Disneyland trip was part of her therapy. It cost UBC six-figures in legal costs to fight the complaint.
On the plus side, the Tribunal rejected the complaint. They also did something it rarely does – awarded $5000 in costs to the respondent for a vexatious or frivolous complaint.
But on the down side, this complaint was ridiculous to any casual observer at the outset. Why did it need to be dragged out long enough to incur UBC’s costs? More importantly, the Tribunal reduced the cost award so as not to “chill” other potential human rights complaints. Understandably, the Tribunal doesn’t want any reduction in frivolous complaints by which it earns a living, and doesn’t see a problem in having taxpayer-funded UBC take the hit for it.
And maybe, just maybe, the esteemed members at the BCHRT are starting to understand the “chill” effect and how it relates to our freedom of speech. Nah, I didn’t think so either.
Second: David Gollob of the CHRC reports on how the feds are doing this year – 1435 complaints received, 853 accepted, 191 forwarded to Tribunal. But what is gaining the most headlines is that there were no Section 13 complaints accepted. Mr. Warman must be on holidays.
Mr. Gollob’s defence of Section 13: We don’t persecute people that often, so it’s all good, right?
Third: BCF on the cozy relationship between Big Labour and the Kangaroo Courts. You scratch my back…
walker morrow
theodensdaughter
Binky
Don Sharpe
missmarprelate
Can we get a post on the cozy relationship between those seeking to legalize hate speech and those who are [redacted by administrator] and anti-Muslim activists like BCF?
You can libel me in my house. You can try to libel BCF in his house. You can libel anyone you want in your own house. But I won’t tolerate third-party libel here.
You can easily get your point across without stooping quite so low. Not only that, but the air is a little clearer when your head isn’t firmly buried in your rear.
Heh, I like how not even someone sympathetic to BCF could deny that “anti-Muslim” activst is anything other than a perfectly fitting description.
I stand by my entire description 100%.
The “anti-Muslim activist” might be a pejorative label but is certainly within the realm of fair comment. Kinda like me calling you a statist and a censor.
The other label is way off base. Kinda like me calling you a closet Khmer Rouge.
Very few people know this, but in Cambodia the Khmer Rouge were not in fact known for their depopulation of the cities, forced labour farms, torture chambers at S-21 prison or restarting of the calendar at Year Zero, but rather, for their determined advocacy for providing access ramps to the disabled.
Well, not really…. but we are all indistinguishable “statists” to you. And those who spend every waking hour of their lives advocating for the political repression of Muslims are just regular ol’ freedom lovers.
You co-blogger and fellow freedom warrior Don has a nice freedom-y post today about how we should throw women who voluntarily wear veils in jail:
http://sharpe-stick.blogspot.com/2011/07/cultural-insensitivity-is-ok.html
Yay freedom! I would bet my earnings for today that in no way does this qualify Don as being a “statist” in your books, and the fact that he advocates for jailing people for a type of expression he doesn’t like also doesn’t disqualify him as being a stalwart advocate on behalf of freedom of expression.
…considering we’ve already hashed this one to death, it’s not really worth a response…
Yes…. it is well established that you are perfectly ok having a vile bigot as a co-blogger.