Well, it’s that time of day again, when I talk about all those people who have been talking about Jennifer Lynch and her wondrous multi-coloured commission, along with gratuitous mentions of the various other commissions and commissioners mucking about in the Dominion.
First off, Ezra Levant keeps up his campaign against Miss Lynch, with a spirited letter-to-the-editor mambo ( as also noted by Just Right and Blazing Cat Fur )in the National Post over his latest salvo, which the Montreal Gazette has seen fit to re-publish, by the way. Meanwhile, Ezra comments on the ever-growing international farce, and another great editorial. And while I’m at it, you can read a brief review of Ezra’s latest book, Shakedown, at the Jane Doe Chronicles ( scroll down ).
Second, the complaint by Jim Corcoran against several members of the Catholic Church before the Ontario Human Rights Commission recieves some more commentary, this time in unsigned editorial from the Calgary Herald: Rights commission should stay off altar:
I f human rights commissions should not be adjudicating on free speech issues, neither should they involve themselves with freedom of religion issues. That a gay man in Ontario has filed a complaint against a local Catholic bishop with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is cause for alarm. The tribunal should recuse itself because religious practices must never fall under its auspices.
Jim Corcoran, a gay man who says he lives a celibate life with his same-sex partner, was told he could no longer volunteer as an altar server at St. Michael’s Church in Cobourg after parishioners complained about it. Corcoran is asking the tribunal to award him $25,000 from Bishop Nicola De Angelis of the diocese of Peterborough, and $20,000 per parishioner. Corcoran became an adult altar server late last year because there were no young boys available to serve, but in April, his parish priest told him the bishop had ordered his removal.
There is plenty of blame to be spread around among all the groups involved in this case –and also plenty of room for them to work out the problem without involving tribunals.
The parishioners demonstrated an uncharitable attitude toward Corcoran. The Catholic Church’s catechism advocates accepting gay parishioners with “compassion and sensitivity,” recommending that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” It also asks gay parishioners to remain chaste, which Corcoran says he has done. The parishioners’ attitude toward Corcoran is hardly one of compassion. De Angelis should have taken the opportunity to point this out to them.
Corcoran should never have invited the tribunal into this quarrel, let alone ask for financial compensation–which cheapens his fight–even if he does plan to donate it to charity. The position of altar server is a volunteer one, so it is not like he must reclaim lost wages.
Third, The Georgia Straight reports on a rather bizarre ruling by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal: Hotel worker in 100 Mile House wins $5,547.60 human-rights award:
In a July 16 decision, B.C. Human Rights Tribunal member Enid Marion ruled that the inn and its owner could have booked shifts for Tina-Marie Mahowich.
During the low season, Mahowich worked seven days over a two-week period; during the high season, she worked four days a week, earning $443.46. She also managed a small horse ranch on the side.
She twisted her ankle severely at the end of her shift on August 6, 2007, according to the decision. Carhoun considered her to be a casual worker, but Marion ruled that she was a regularly scheduled, full-time employee when she went on an approved medical leave.
Mahowich suffered a second injury in October 2007 during her rehabilitation. Another employee quit in December, and the company wanted Mahowich to work. She refused, citing her injury.
She later wrote to her employer saying she was fit to return to work on a graduated basis on February 20, 2008.
Marion also stated in her decision that accepted the testimony of one witness, who claimed that Mahowich told her that she intended to “take it to the max”–in terms of seeking damages–rather than going to work.
“In my view, Ms. Mahowich exaggerated the impact of the discriminatory conduct on her,” Marion wrote.
In her decision, Marion awarded $3,547.60 in lost wages for the period from February to June, and another $2,000 for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect
As I said in my personal blog:
So, let me get this straight. You acknowledge that the complainant is probably using the system to get some easy cash at the expense of her employer, and yet, despite this, you decide to go along with her jury-rigging of the system?
Well, that’s the natural response. You see, most delusional people would have just thrown out the case, but the truly dedicated and reasonable individual stays the course despite any mere and petty facts that may be involved in the proceedings.
That’s all for tonight, folks. Tune in tomorrow to see if there’s more.