Well, it’s that time again, when I talk about all the people who have been talking about Jennifer Lynch and her wondrous multi-colour commission, with gratuitous mention of the various other commissions and commissioners currently mucking about in the Dominion.
First off, an complaint by Jim Corcoran against several members of the Catholic church before the Ontario Human Rights Commission: the show has gone on. Via Blazing Cat Fur:
A response to the Gay Adult Altar Boy Wannabe’s complaint has been filed. Lawyers have been retained by the respondents, the slow grinding punishment of the process itself has begun.
It is my understanding that the complaint could have been tossed on receipt by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. That it wasn’t does not bode well for the respondents or the citizens of this province. Extremist left wing hate groups such as the HRTO are always on the hunt for new prey.
Meanwhile, via Northumberland Today: Removal of gay altar servers is a church matter, parishioner contends:
The 12 Cobourg Catholic parishioners and diocese bishop named in an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal complaint over an accusation of discrimination due to sexual orientation filed a response to the complaint by today’s deadline.
Essentially, the response filed with the Commission was that the issue is “not a human rights problem but a church matter,” Reg Ward of Cobourg, one of the 12 parishioners at St. Michael’s Roman Catholic Church, told Northumberland Today in an interview yesterday.
It has certainly been an interesting summer for the church in Canada. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops defended the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peaceagainst Catholic bloggers, a relapsed Catholic sued his bishop for the surprising new “human right” to serve at the altar and Prime Minister Stephen Harper made his First Communion.
“Look,” I said. “I don’t believe in lady priests either. But there is no priest coming to the hospital today, and so all you have is me.”
I elaborated on the priest shortage, but he didn’t believe in that either. He wanted a priest, he would not accept the Host from my hands, and that was that. So I returned the Host to the tabernacle, left a note to the head chaplain saying the patient still wanted to see a priest and prayed fervently that the patient wouldn’t die before he saw one.
Needless to say, I was devastated. It was deeply humiliating to offer ministry to someone and have that ministry rejected because I wasn’t a priest. I was inclined to feel deeply sorry for myself.
But, you know, ministry isn’t a right. It’s a privilege. Ministry is not for the minister and his or her sense of “vocation.” It’s for the people being served.
Before too long, the patient saw a priest. He got better and went home. I learned a lesson in humility. And nobody got sued.
Second, what sounds like a really bad idea. Via Ferreras J.:
In a post titled “Adoption and the Workplace,” the writer states that adoptive parents should be treated equally when it comes to “topping up” maternity payments. The anonymous writer says that one adoptive parent receives 85 per cent of her salary for 52 weeks off work from a corporation that makes “$400 million.”
The other prospective parent is off work for 35 weeks and is entitled to 55 per cent of their salary while they’re not working. Again, from the same evil, stingy corporation that makes $400 million.
The writer goes on to say that new parents get Employment Insurance benefits for 50 weeks, while adoptive parents get 35. Workplaces, by extension, should offer the same top-up payments for adoptive parents that they do for biological ones.
The adoptive parents, the writer says, should be treated the same as biological parents.
What’s the solution? You guessed it! Go to your friendly neighbourhood Human Rights Tribunal!
Third, the Calgary Herald has published an unsigned editorial on Stephen Boissoin’s appeal of the AHRCC’s ruling against him, before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench: Court can undo harm to free speech:
W hen Rev. Stephen Boissoin takes his case before the Court of Queen’s Bench on Sept. 16, the court has a golden opportunity not only to right the wrong done to Boissoin, but also to strike down the law that gives the Alberta Human Rights Commission jurisdiction over matters of free speech. Boissoin published a letter in the Red Deer Advocate in 2002 in which he criticized the representation to impressionable schoolchildren of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice. Boissoin used strong language and said this would lead to desensitizing kids and recruiting them into the gay lifestyle. One can agree or disagree with Boissoin’s opinions, but what he said is irrelevant to the larger issue, which is his inalienable right to say it.
Fourth, some more updates on Khurram Awan’s threatened lawsuit against Ezra Levant. Here’s Mark Steyn, who’s holding an online fundraiser to help defray some of Ezra’s legal costs tomorrow:
On Wednesday we’ll be having a special fundraiser at SteynOnline. Here’s why:
Longtime readers may still dimly recall the name of Khurrum Awan, the Osgoode Hall law student who, at last year’s Steyn/Maclean’s “flagrant Islamophobia” show trial in Vancouver, simultaneously played the roles of plaintiff, co-counsel, expert witness, and official representative of the Muslims of British Columbia, despite being a resident of Ontario. If this sounds like some low-budget production at a theatrical fringe festival in which Khurrum plays all seven brides in Seven Brides For Seven Brothers (oh, okay, and the brothers, too), you’re missing the point: in assuming the plaintiff/counsel/expert/entire-Muslim-population role, Mr Awan was demonstrating the economies of scale that Canada’s “human rights” regime brings to fusty concepts like “justice”.
Of course, Khurrum wasn’t the “plaintiff” in any tiresome legal sense. He was merely the lead sock puppet for Mohammed Elmasry, head honcho of the Canadian Islamic Congress but a man whose public support for Jew-killing makes him a problematic frontman for the cause of a “hate-free” Canada. So Khurrum was sent out into the world as leader singer of the Sock Puppet Five, subsequently the Four Socks, then the Socktown Trio, later Socky and Cher, and finally, as Elmo’s sole surviving sock, the celebrity entertainment for the launch of The Canadian Charger.
In the latest development of his solo career, Socky has now decided to sue Ezra Levant. The complaint introduces several novel legal concepts, including psychic defamation– Ezra should have known that the words that appeared in The Toronto Star under Khurrum Awan’s name were apparently not by Awan but by some no-name Star sub-editor who’d whimsically decided to introduce them to Khurrum’s copy. We also have the bizarre charge that, by explicitly noting that Awan told the truth under oath, Ezra therefore accused him of perjury.
Khurrum Awan may be too stupid even for employment as an identity-group grievance-monger in latterday Trudeaupia. Although the libel noticepurports to be the work of Brian Shiller, the semi-literate rambling and pronoun confusion betrays its true author:
During Mr. Awan’s media appearances related to the Maclean’s case, he was very courteous and respectful with all the media that interviewed me.
Gee, you’d think when you hire a bigshot mouthpiece like Brian Shiller he’d have the gal in the typing pool read through the thing before they mail it out. Whatever the signature at the bottom, the provenance is clear: Mr Shiller is serving as the sock puppet’s sock puppet.
Which raises many interesting questions. Mr Shiller is also the lawyer for prominent Internet Nazi Richard Warman and dinner-theatre ethnic comic Warren Kinsella in their own libel suits against Ezra. Evidently, Messrs Shiller are the one-stop shop for all your Levant SLAPP needs. Is Mr Shiller offering a group rate for suits against Ezra? Is he working up to a class-action? Whatever the reason, this is a strange coalition: two men who’ve respectively been employed and honoured by the Canadian Jewish Congress yoked with the youth president of a Canadian Islamic Congress whose then leader announced on TV his support for terrorism against Jews. In this freakshow alliance, you begin to see the scale of the Canadian Jewish Congress’ foolish embrace of the opportunist poseur Warman.
Nonetheless, fighting off nuisance suits that are well-funded costs money. Ezra Levant has been the indispensable man in the battle to restore Canada’s lost liberties, and I have been proud to stand with him this last year-and-a-half. So, as we did on Warman Wednesday last year, this week we’ll be holding a Khurrum Awadnesday over at the Steyn Store to raise a little dough for Ezra’s legal bills. Hope you’ll swing by. As I told an audience of cabinet ministers and Tory, Liberal and Bloquiste MPs and Senators a few weeks back, in a sane world a real hero like Ezra would be the one getting fitted for the Order of Canada. Instead, it’s all too easy, as Scaramouche posits, to picture a thuggish buffoon like Mr Awan being received at Rideau Hall.
Without Ezra’s efforts, Canada’s mainstream newspapers would not have picked up on this issue, and declared against the state censorship licensed by Section 13. Without Ezra, the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal would not have felt obliged to open up its secret trial of Marc Lemire to the public. Without Ezra, a “human rights” judge would not have rebuked Richard Warman for his Nazi activities, and the Commission would not have begun cutting him loose. Canadians who value freedom owe this man a lot. Ezra has shown real courage at a huge cost to a young family these last couple of years. Let’s stand with him. As he says:
To battle stations!
What does this piece of…hosiery have to gain by pursuing such a suit? That’s a question that only he, and perhaps his lawyer, can answer. Part of it, I think, is that he enjoyed his time in the spotlight during his contretemps with Mark Steyn, and this is a bid to reclaim it. Also–maybe he’s looking to boost his profile in the run up to a possible poltitical career. Elmo’s Sock: NDP MP. Elmo’s Sock: Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism. And maybe someday, Elmo’s Sock: Order of Canada.
Fifth, Dick Field in the Canadian Free Press talks about the wild new trend coming to the USA:
Strangely, a very similar case in that weird Canadian country to the north of the USA has just had a decision rendered by one of its kangaroo courts, euphemistically known as a “Human Rights” tribunal. This decision is about as injudicious and corrupting of the rules of justice as President Obama’s precedent setting and unwarranted remarks.
In both cases (in the USA and Canada) it was a case of a black citizen in an upscale housing area claiming unfair racial profiling. The USA case involved a police sergeant responding to a call phoned in by a neighbor involving what appeared as a robbery in progress, when a witness had seen what was thought to be a black man struggling to break into a neighbor’s house through the front door.
In the Canadian case, a policeman patrolling a similar upscale neighborhood was attempting to prevent possible break-ins; not unusual for the area. He noticed a black person checking out houses in the area and followed him. He politely asked for his identity. His identity as a postman was verified by a fellow white postman. There was no altercation or harsh language. The man later took his case to the Ontario kangaroo court tribunal system and levied a complaint that he, a black person had been racially profiled and stopped solely because he was black.
The kangaroo court judge ruled that there was no evidence of “overt” racism but said the case was “confirmation that systematic discrimination was often something of which people were unaware and it requires hard work to get rid of.” He was found guilty of racial profiling. The police force and chief is also being charged and will appeal. The idiocy of the case is that the Chief of Police is probably the hardest working chief the City (Toronto) has ever had in terms of focusing on good race relations and working with so-called marginalized communities.
Sixth, Margaret Wente in the Globe and Mail has a good column up about a recent Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision: Guilty of unconscious racism:
White cops and black men can be an unhappy mix. Last week, all hell broke loose when a white cop intercepted a black man trying to break into a big house near Harvard University. Unfortunately for the cop, the man was Henry Louis Gates, a prominent African-American scholar, and he lives there. Tempers flared. Accusations of racial profiling filled the air. Prof. Gates was promptly arrested for disorderly conduct, i.e., mouthing off. It turned out the cop was a race-relations trainer. Barack Obama got involved, declared them both fine men and invited them to the White House for a beer. If only things worked that way in Canada, Instead, we have Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal. It has ruled that an individual can be convicted for racism, even when it’s totally unconscious.
In March, 2005, Constable Michael Shaw was on patrol in the Bridle Path, an ultra-affluent Toronto neighbourhood he knew well. He was showing a female trainee the ropes. Down the street, he spotted an unfamiliar letter-carrier delivering the mail. He asked him for ID, ran his name through the computer, thanked him for his trouble and verified with a regular postie that the new guy was a fill-in. The letter-carrier was not insulted, detained or charged with any crime.
Innocuous? Not to Ronald Phipps, the fill-in letter-carrier. He is black. The cop is white. Mr. Phipps decided he’d been a victim of racial profiling, and took his case to the Human Rights Tribunal. In a ruling last month, the adjudicator agreed.
Seventh, Peter Worthington in the Winnipeg Sun has something to say about the HRCs in Canada: Rein in the human rights bureaucracy:
In a column in the National Post Ezra Levant, who has been battling Alberta human rights zealots, identified seven individuals who work for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) who also joined neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, or white hate groups.
It’s not that these individuals are Nazi sympathizers or racists who’ve infiltrated the hallowed halls of human rights activists. They aren’t. What they are, are provocateurs, using the Internet to join suspect hate groups in order to collect evidence against them.
In other words, it’s a form of entrapment.
Intelligence agents joining (penetrating) a group to assess possible treason or subversion, is vastly different from enticing, provoking or encouraging a racist reaction by pretending to be more extreme than the extremists — which is what CHRC provocateurs do.
Levant, has been summoned before human rights tribunals (accused of “hate” for publishing Danish cartoons mocking Islamic terrorism), as has Mark Steyn, for exercising free speech, in a book in which he contends the high birthrate among Muslims will change the demographics of western countries.
In both the above cases human rights bureaucrats have looked foolish to despicable — and have lost credibility among Canadians. At least, one hopes this is the case. The CHRC is, arguably, an often bigoted and unnecessary institution in our country.
Eighth, Briggs from the William M. Briggs, Statistician & Consultant blog has posted a review of Ezra Levant’s book Shakedown: An internet success story: Shakedown by Ezra Levant:
Evil exists—evil people, I mean. Take Barbara Hall. She’s “Chief Commissioner” of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (HRC). That’s a place where someone can go and tattle on his fellow Canadians when he feels his “human rights” have been violated. The beautiful thing is, he gets to decide what those rights are and how they have been violated.
No complaint is too frivolous! And there cannot be too many of them. In fact, Hall doesn’t think enough Canadians are ratting each other out because she wants the number of complaints to “spike”: she desires to boldly seek out “known and unknown causes of discrimination”! The fact that this spike would boost her budget and secure her position are incidental considerations, of course.
Finally, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint on Canada’s HRCs; of race and police; turbans and marriage commissioners; Ezra Levant and Michael Savage; what’s up with that Ezra Levant guy anyway; and the compound lies of Jennifer Lynch.