The reason these allegations… are relevant at all is that they relate to how the applicant perceived the word “faggot.” 

Whether or not he intended the word “faggot” to be a direct slight to the applicant, or was just an unfortunate choice of words spoken in anger, it had the effect of confirming the applicant’s fears about the respondent’s feelings about him as a gay man. 

Second: Is it just me, or are the heads of human rights commissions more prone to hasty stereotypes and generalizations than the general public? In comments about the complaint before the OHRT that would relegate all zoning authority to the OHRC, Barbara Hall believes that anyone who wants their municipality to retain control over their own zoning are selfish bigots who want to run the “undesirables” out of town:

“It’s very much a response to ‘We don’t want those people in our neighbourhood,’” she said.

…so her solution is to ram “those people” into the neighborhoods that supposedly don’t want them. All about reconciliation, aren’t we?

Third: It’s turning into a common theme in BC. Lesbian couple kisses in public. Lesbian couple launches human rights complaint for the very next event that adversely affects them. Next up: God is on the docket for turning the weather sour after two lesbians make out in Stanley Park…

Fourth: Brian Storseth sent out a letter to his constituents to drum up support for his PMB.

Fourth: Hmm, is the Individual Rights Party of BC the antidote to our inexorable slide towards dominance of group rights? Somehow I doubt it…

That the latest fashionable definition of “gender” might be forced upon the Canadian government (and, by extension, all private persons) by the CHRC. Someone could be a “female with male anatomical structure” and demand a change to their documents on that basis. (Really, officer, I’m actually 19 with 14-year-old anatomical structure!)

And, that the CHRC demands that all parties refrain from discussing complaints that are in-process with the public or the media. Can’t shine any light where the cockroaches crawl…

Second: Barbara Hall’s choice of wording is disturbing. In a letter castigating Toronto mayor Rob Ford’s decision to sell off some TCHC housing, she consistently refers to “individuals and groups protected under the Code”. Does that imply that the rest of us losers aren’t protected under the code? Some humans get human rights, and others don’t?

Third: The OHRC’s forum on how they can further curtail religious freedom got a visitor that I’m sure wasn’t exactly welcome. A Christian political advocacy group presented to Barbara Hall that the integrity of faith communities are under threat by the current interpretation of the Code. The OHRC’s response?

Some OHRC staff commented on how it is important for there to be diversity within a faith group (e.g. why it is good for a Christian congregation to have an atheist organist – it provides exposure to diversity.)

So it is the role of the Commission to force faith groups to accept atheists for “exposure to diversity”? Does that mean bare-headed swimsuit models in mosques too?

His lawyers brought forward constitutional arguments in an Ontario court to ask that laws requiring clothing in public be struck down. Recently, the court declined to strike down the laws, and sentenced him to two years of probation for patronizing two fast-food restaurants in the nude. Which now will hopefully permit the police a leg-up in the human rights hearing. That is, assuming that the OHRT considers it within the Code for police to keep tabs on lawbreakers…

Second: Several doctors in New Brunswick want to reopen the abortion debate – though it’s not in the direction that you might think. A human rights complaint was launched against the government in 2008 which argued that its funding formula for abortion procedures is discriminatory. New Brunswick will only pay for abortions that have been declared medically necessary by two doctors. Now see if you can understand this pretzel-inducing logic:

The complainant is a female doctor. She wants her patients to be given taxpayer-funded abortions on-demand. She believes that she, as a woman, is discriminated against on the basis of sex because she needs to put her patients through the pain and anguish of this procedure in order to get a free abortion. Discriminatory how? A male doctor wouldn’t quite feel that same pain and anguish, apparently.

Ridiculous logic aside, the New Brunswick Commission gleefully accepted the window of opportunity to impose their own social order on the province. The complainant herself has even intimated that the complaint has little to do with her own suffering, and everything to do with “reopening the abortion debate in New Brunswick”. The government has now gone to provincial court in an attempt to stop the hearing. Let’s hope they succeed.

Third: Heh. The BC Human Rights Tribunal was almost enlisted on behalf of the villains in a case over systemic verbal abuse at a Surrey condominium. The judge eventually ordered the offenders – a middle-aged woman and her 20-year-old son – to sell their condo and move out, after he was presented with hundreds of allegations of offensive and intimidating behavior. The woman, at one point, went the route of many other societal troublemakers, and filed a human rights complaint. Her allegation? Fellow residents should “accommodate” being labeled a filthy whore, among other less savory insults, due to her son’s autism. The complaint was withdrawn when no evidence was presented.

Fourth: Joseph Brean at the National Post put together a great article on the quandry that Richard Warman and Section 13 now find themselves in. I hope Brean dotted all his i’s and crossed his t’s, cuz a lawsuit is never far away when Warman’s conduct is being discussed…

Fifth: A good scrawl by Brian Lilley – you don’t like human rights commissions? What do you have against fuzzy, cuddly kittens?

First: Good grief. A sliding scale of acceptable heart rate based on age is discriminatory, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled. A 64-year-old failed a fitness test for a city job twice, but launched and won a human rights complaint (costing taxpayers $45,000 for the award, not including legal costs). The grounds of discrimination was that a younger person has a higher acceptable working heart rate than an older person, a known physiological axiom to anyone who has taken Phys Ed 11. Next up: cardiac-challenged octagenarians in the military…

Another, even more tragic scenario - imagine the city being charged with negligence after being forced to hire a 89-year-old to shovel snow at the local hockey arena, causing cardiac arrest and death…

Second: The latest qualification for heading up a human rights commission? Trek to the north pole. In a wheelchair.

Third: 1001 examples of victimhood, #439: Denied entry to a university program? Claim age discrimination! After all, everyone is a member of an age group.

Former Toronto mayoralty candidate JP Pampena, who is blind, was not included in a mayoralty debate hosted by Silver Springs Community Association. That prompted Pampena to launch a human rights complaint. Though the complaint has now been dismissed, this is what the respondent had to say. Sound familiar?

“But it shows how lopsided the process is, that anybody can launch a complaint and it is a freebie and the respondent has to go to great lengths to defend themselves and there is no compensation or funds to defend yourself,” he said.

Second: So far, Harper’s appointment of Shirish Chotalia to the CHRT chair has been a bust – but not so much because of her decisions. Two harassment investigations  against her have been substantiated, amidst more allegations of a “toxic” workplace. If I may play the devil’s advocate here, I kinda thought in human rights-land a woman of color like Chotalia is automatically the victim?

Third: Just what we need. More expansion of hate laws. Apparently some groups (Liberal women, in this case) believe people aren’t acknowledging their victim status  enough yet.

Fourth: Comic relief. A discussion on a Ladies Free Ski night in support of breast cancer research devolves into a discussion on whether it is sex discrimination. One poster provides the zinger:

1% of breast cancers occur in men. I guess breast cancer itself practices gender discrimination, for shame. Would you be happier if 1 in 100 men get to ski free as well?

First: Is a forced apology ever a true and sincere one? Or are forced “apologies” merely pursued because of the wads of money that can be legally extracted alongside? At any rate, is a human rights tribunal the proper forum by which to force a government to implement the recommendations of an ombudsman’s report, which includes an apology and monetary compensation?

I always thought adherence to ”recommendations” was voluntary. In human rights land, I guess not; in that case, I “recommend” that the BCHRT disbands itself…

Second: This is the mentality of a “human rights” litigant: a “civil rights activist” in Grey Country, Ontario believes that the entire council of the county are “criminals” for reciting the Lord’s prayer before each meeting.

They are criminals and I don’t think that word can be repeated often enough.” Ferguson said he relied for those statements on “case law.” “The Ontario Court of Appeal says they are criminals,” he said.

Third: Andrew Pinto’s review of the recent changes to Ontario’s human rights code has at least the appearance of considering the effect of the Code on employers. Some question’s he’s asking:

• How would you describe your overall experience with the Tribunal? What were positive and negative elements of that experience? What areas could be improved?
• Do you feel you were treated fairly by the Tribunal and its processes?
• Did you find the Tribunal dealt with your matter in a timely manner?
• The Tribunal currently does not award legal costs to the successful party. In future, if the Tribunal made an unsuccessful party pay (or partially pay) the successful party’s legal costs, would you consider that fair?

Good questions to ask, but I’ll hold judgment until I see what he does with the feedback…

Fourth: Don’t like the way the health system is run? Unhappy with a doctor’s decision to actually follow health regulations? Launch a completely ineffective but tax dollar-draining human rights complaint!

First: This is the real reason for Section 13: clubbing frail, elderly neo-Nazis when they say, “Zieg Hiel”:

On leaving the day-long hearing before Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada, counsel for one of the intervenors kindly held the heavy court room door open for an elderly gentleman, part of the group of senior individuals there to support Freedomsite webmaster Marc Lemire.  The lawyer was thanked with an outstretch arm and a call of “Zieg Hiel.”

Those who have read any of my posts know that I’m a staunch supporter of Israel and abhor anti-Semitism. Yet I fail to see why the German word for “victory” (which was used by the Nazis as a salute) uttered by an elderly man is injurious to anyone. Offensive, yes, injurious, no.

Second: I have nothing bad to say about Jeremy Dias and his foundation, Jer’s Vision, which includes a scholarship reserved for LGBT youth.  But I wonder if the human rights apparatchiks would have a problem with a similar foundation reserved for straight youth? Ya think?

Third: As I’ve discussed previously the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the Human Rights Tribunal should not be used as an appeal body for other tribunals. In addition, administrative tribunals have the power – and duty – to examine human rights violations within the cases they deal with.

This doesn’t appear to be happening in BC for the case of Bryan James. The Residential Tenancy Board found that the trailer park that refused Mr. James’s application discriminated on the basis of disability. Higher courts affirmed this ruling. So why, then, is the case now in front of the BC Human Rights Tribunal for damages to “dignity”?

Fourth: Heh. When grammatically-challenged, hyper-aggrieved transsexuals are protesting the OHRT, you know that they aren’t that bad…

Fifth: For a little comic relief: Coupon Discrimination!

I wen to mcdonalds informing them of the wendys deal, and offering the zellers coupon. I made fuss and threatened to chain myself to the fake fireplace at Mcd’s unless they accepted the coupon and the manager came out and told me they accepted the coupon. I bought one for my wife, my 6 kids, my grandparents, my parents and my inlays. The manager told me I could only use one coupon. I phoned the canadian human rights commission to complain but they were closed already. I’m planning on taking up this issue with them in the new year, and mcdonalds head office, and I called all the local newspapers. I can’t believe the manager would be so rude to not take 18 coupons at once! I told him my great grandparents spirits live on within my heart, but apparently this doesn’t count as a customer in his eyes! My newborn son was denied using the coupon too!

First: The BCCLA intervention in the judicial review of the Lemire case has rankled the censors.

Micheal Vonn, BCCLA policy director, noted that while there is no doubt that Lemire’s statements, which have been posted on websites, “are ignorant or offensive,” the prosecution has done more to disseminate the material than he has.

“A perverse thing happens when you try to censor those statements,” Vonn said. “We would like people to call out and say his ideas are wrong. You’re allowed to hold wrong ideas but everyone should have the right to tell you why you’re wrong.”

More on the judicial review from the Post.

Second: The Canadian Press reports (using very non-neutral language) that Richard Warman is upset over the efforts to halt his Section 13 gravy train. As usual, he invokes the typical ”Nazis are everywhere” fear-mongering.

Third: Meanwhile, Canada’s most liberal newspaper has come down squarely against Section 13 and in support of Brian Storseth’s bill that would repeal it. Will wonders never cease?

The Canadian Human Rights Act, for example, prohibits publishing via the Internet “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” That can draw fines of up to $10,000 plus heavy damages. That’s a damper on spirited public discourse. The act can be interpreted to cover stereotyping and defaming, as well as hate-mongering. There’s no need to prove intent. Evidence can be accepted that would not stand up in court. And guilt doesn’t have to be established beyond doubt. All this puts an unreasonable burden on anyone unlucky enough to be hauled on the carpet.

Fourth: I continue to say that the silver lining concerning Alberta’s Bill 44 is that the province’s teachers now know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of the inevitable chill that human rights statutes place on our freedoms. They’re all for draconian quasi-judicial star chambers when the net only catches people with beliefs they don’t like, but now that it could possibly be used against them, they’re up in arms. All of the teachers’ arguments against that particular section of the Code could be applied to every single section.

If this was a poison pill planted by Stelmach and Blackett for the eventual demise of Alberta’s human rights code, I would have to tip my hat to their genius and eat all of my previous criticisms. But somehow I doubt it…

Fifth: Again, more absurdity over “discrimination on the basis of family status”. One bylaw officer in Langley wanted to dictate her work hours so she could take care of her three children. This started a years-long brouhaha that culminated with the city laying off two of the officers, including the one who wanted restricted work hours. She, of course, launched a human rights complaint, which was only rejected on a technicality. I guess having kids gives you the right to inflict migraines on your employer.