Alright, here we go.
First off, just a tad, teensy weensy little more coverage of the Hadjis decision:
The Freedomsite Blog ( older link ) – Blogosphere round up of commentaries on Lemire Decision
The Last Exile – Rulers and Demgoguery
Second, Blazing Cat Fur has all sorts of updates Catholic that you should check out: Declaring Section 13 (1) Unconstitutional The Right Decision Says Catholic Register
The Canadian Human Rights Commission does important work in battling discrimination and ensuring work place equality.
Catholic Anger continues to mount against the Human Rights Kommissars and their continued attacks on the church.
Update: Lifesite News reveals that the Legal Support Centre of the Ontario Human Rights Cabal advised the Wannabe Homo Host Hostess to proceed with his complaint.
This is Bishop De Angelis letter to the diocese concerning the “Human Rights Complaint” by the dismissed homosexual Altar Servant.
Third, those in-the-subscription-know give tell of Mark Steyn’s next article for Macleans. Noted by Freedom Through Truth, Jay Currie, and Blazing Cat Fur. Binks from Free Canuckistan has a full PDF of the article here.
Fourth, yet another complaint. From the Ottawa Citizen: Critics barking over Carleton Place ‘service dog’:
OTTAWA-The movie, inescapably, would be called Carleton Place Chihuahua.
Except no one, even in Hollywood or Beverly Hills, would believe a story so bizarre — only government could make it so.
A teacup chihuahua named Dee-O-Gee, weighing maybe seven pounds, and its assertive owner, Alex Allarie, have dragged the Ontario Human Rights Commission into a dispute over what is and isn’t a “service dog” — the kind permissible in food stores and restaurants.
It is just one of about half a dozen complaints that Allarie, 52, has made against merchants along historic Bridge Street in Carleton Place.
All but one complaint has been dropped or mediated. But not the one against The Granary Bulk and Natural Food store, a fixture on the street since 1978.
That complaint is to heard by a tribunal on Dec. 1.
“I don’t want this happening to anyone else,” says Keith Rouble, the Granary owner at the time the complaint was lodged.
“We want to end this for every food business in town.”
The story has several episodes.
It began in early 2006.
According to Keith and his wife, Leslie, Allarie would visit the store, which has bulk items, to buy only small amounts of salt and pepper.
On at least one occasion, the dog was on a retractable leash and moving about the store, sniffing food items, the Roubles said.
Knowing Ontario’s health regulations, they told Allarie he could not bring the dog in the store. He responded by pulling out a prescription sheet that described the animal as a “service dog,” and also showed them a copy of the town bylaw that permits such animals in food establishments.
They were suspicious. The animal had no special harness, muzzle or markings and certainly didn’t behave like a typical service dog, used by the blind. Usually, he held it in his arms.
Their understanding of a “service dog” was an animal with highly specialized training from an accredited organization.
That summer, the couple were served with a complaint Allarie made to the Human Rights Commission on the basis he was being discriminated against because of his disability.
Fifth, Rob Nicholson gets busy!
OTTAWA, September 10, 2009 – The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C. Q. C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced the appointment of Shirish P. Chotalia, Q.C., as Chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Mrs. Chotalia received her B.A. with an English Major (with distinction) in 1983, an LL.B in 1986 and an LL.M in 1991, all from the University of Alberta. She was called to the Alberta Bar in 1987. Mrs. Chotalia is bilingual and a partner in Pundit & Chotalia, LL.P. Barristers & Solicitors, in Edmonton, Alberta where she practises human rights, employment and immigration litigation, work permits and other visas.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal was established in 1977 and is an independent agency which, along with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, administers the Canadian Human Rights Act, according to procedures specified by law, without interference from the Government.
Sixth, Rob Breakenridge writes: Another Rob Anders Controversy:
Not the first one we’ve seen – and probably won’t be the last. On this one, however, I’m left wondering why exactly this is a controversy. Here’s the story:A political pamphlet from Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders that urges changes to federal human rights legislation has raised the ire of Calgary’s largest Muslim organization, which views the dispatch to residents as inflammatory and divisive.
David Liepert, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Calgary, contends Anders crossed the line and made inaccurate statements unfairly targeting the Muslim community in a pamphlet that arrived earlier this month at some homes in the Calgary West riding. The longtime MP, however, disputes the contention that his pamphlet is inflammatory.
In an Anders communique, one of 10 different versions mailed out, he claims: “It is now illegal to hold opinions that offend radical Muslim activists,” and “under section 13 of the so-called ‘Human Rights’ code, Canadians have been prosecuted for holding personal beliefs which offend radical Muslim Imams and liberal activists.”
“He’s basically spread misinformation among his constituents about a large proportion of his constituency because there are many Muslims living in his area,” Liepert said Tuesday. “Any time you have a politician who, for political gain, targets a minority group with disinformation, it’s something that I think needs to be addressed.”
I’m not sure how mentioning the obvious is “targeting” anyone, let alone a visible minority. Canadians indeed have been persecuted for holding beliefs which offend radical Muslim Imams and liberal activists: ask Ezra Levant, ask Mark Steyn, ask B’nai Brith Canada, ask the Halifax Chronicle-Herald.I suppose it’s fair to say that none of those complaints led to a conviction, but as they say, the process is the punishment.What troubles me about the pamphlet’s contents is the fact that Anders sounds like he’s an opposition politician – perhaps instead of complaining about this to his constitutents, he should be pushing his party’s leaders to do something about it.
Lest our dear readers despair for the future as a result of the present conversation about the “thought monopoly of Academia,” let them take heart that opposition to the soft totalitarianism of the collectivists is not completely dead on the Canadian university campus. These are the flyers I’ll be posting around the University of Toronto’s downtown campus this weekend:
Eighth, the Persecuted Church Weblog writes about Stephen Boissoins’s upcoming appeal before the Court of Queen’s Bench, Alberta: Unmuzzle Stephen Boissoin:
In late November 2007, the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) ruled that Pastor Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition (CCC) violated Alberta’s human rights law by publishing a letter in a local newspaper that was “likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt because of their sexual preference” (click here for more information). On May 30, in the penalty phase of the proceedings, the AHRC ruled that Boissoin and CCC must pay damages equivalent to $7,000 as a result of the tribunal’s decision to side with the complainant, homosexual activist Darren Lund (to view the full ruling, click here). The ruling also ordered Boissoin and CCC to cease publishing “disparaging remarks” about homosexuals in the future in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet. Furthermore, Boissoin was ordered to publicly apologize to Lund in a local newspaper statement.
Boissoin has publicly stated that he “will never offer an apology” and has appealed the ruling. His court appearance is scheduled for September 16-17 (click here to download the legal brief). As is to be expected in a case that has dragged on for seven years, his court costs have accumulated to over $150,000. You can make a donation to his legal costs online by going to http://www.stephenboissoin.com/. I know that I am planning to.
Ninth, Jennifer Lynch does it again. From Blazing Cat Fur:
“Actually, as you’ll confirm, Dr. Natufe, I invited myself to come here tonight!”
From Jenny’s latest unsolicited pr blitz – Remarks by Chief Commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., at the National Council of Visible Minorities.
Hey, isn’t that like a white racist exploitation of a power position or somethin Marxist like that?
Oh Yea, Barb Hall’s OHRC tells us it is! – Thus one of the most critical components of modern or new racism is that it is based on an ideological construction of difference and othering. In combination with prevailing dominant white hegemonic power, racism becomes a commanding strategy for maintaining asymmetrical power relations or the status quo.
I note that Jenny’s
desperate cry for helpremarks at the Canadian Bar Association convention in Ireland have yet to make their public debut on the CHRC web site, a little odd given her penchant for self promotion.
Read it here.
Tenth, Abrams. v. Topham takes an interesting turn. From Free Dominion: Abrams v Topham – s54 Penalty Clause Dropped:
This is interesting for those following the CHRC’s Lemire Decision tribulations:
From: “Marvin Kurz” <Marvin@dsklaw.com>
Date: September 10, 2009 9:04:53 AM PDT (CA)
To: “DANIEL POULIN” <DANIEL.POULIN@CHRC-CCDP.CA>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “DANIELLE DESROSIERS” <DANIELLE.DESROSIERS@CHRC-CCDP.CA>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: Abrams v. Topham Complaint No. : 20071016
It is the position of the Applicants that a decision about this case should not be made until we know whether the Applicants in Lemire will bring a judicial review application of that decision, and until we can hear from the Commission in this case. The Tribunal should have all of the facts available in order to make its decision.
In the alternative, if the Tribunal feels that it must decide at this time, the Applicants take the position that this case should proceed despite the finding of Member Hajis in Lemire. As you are aware, there have been two previous findings of the constitutionality of s.13 of the CHRA, in Citron and Schnell. Further, the Tribunal in this case is no more bound by the Lemire decision than Member Hajis was by the two previous findings of the constitionality of s. 13.
The position of the Applicants is that two grounds relied upon by Member Hajis for the finding of unconstitionality in Lemire, the penalty provision and refusal to offer mediation, should not have led to the finding unconstitionality. Accordingly, Member Hajis’ finding is vulnerable to judicial review. Member Hajis could have interpreted s.13 in the absence of the penalty provision, even if he felt that he was not entitled to “read down” or “read out” the provision. If he was able to ignore s. 13 despite a finding of breach of the provision, he surely could have ignored the penalty provision when determining the constitionality of s. 13. Yet he fails to explain why he refused to even consider this step. With regard to mediation, that was perhaps an argument in favour of a judicial review of the decision to send the Lemire case to the Tribunal, not the constitionality of the legislation.
If a law enforcement officer breaks the law in the pursuit of an alleged criminal, the Criminal Code does not become invalid. Member Hajis’ decision threw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
Having said all of that, in light of the Lemire decision, the Applicants will no longer seek a penalty in this case, making the constitionality of that provision irrelevant. With regard to mediation, I understand that it was attempted but that it failed. Thus the two factors relied upon in Lemire do not apply in this case.
At this point, no particulars have been offered by Mr. Topham and the interveners of the arguments or the evidence to be called in regard to the constitutionality of s. 13. In the absence of indication on whether Lemire will be judicially reviewed, the constitutional matter can still be argued and whatever new evidence Mr. Topham and the parties supporting him wish to call may be considered. None of this affects the ability to deal with the merits of this case.
The Applicants have some scheduling issues which they will raise in separate correspondence with the Tribunal once it rules on whether and how it will proceed in light of Lemire.
This follows yesterday’s submission to the CHRT in the Abrams v Topham matter, by CHRC’s counsel Daniel Poulin.
From: “DANIEL POULIN” <DANIEL.POULIN@CHRC-CCDP.CA>
Date: September 9, 2009 12:56:06 PM PDT (CA)
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “DANIELLE DESROSIERS” <DANIELLE.DESROSIERS@CHRC-CCDP.CA>, <Marvin@dsklaw.com>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
Subject: Abrams v. Topham Complaint No. : 20071016
Dear Tribunal and Parties,
The present follows a number of emails and letters from the parties and interveners in the present case regarding the Charter issue and more particularly the recent decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Warman v Lemire.
At this time, I have yet to receive specific instructions from the Commission as to the position to be taken in interpreting the decision of Warman v Lemire. Consequently, I am unable to make submissions on that matter at this time. As soon as I have receive instructions, I will communicate with the parties to express the Commission’s position.
Canadian Human Rights Commission