Alright, here we go.
First off, the Canadian Queer Hall of Fame gets some buzz, and, of course, HRC-related people happen to pop up. From the Georgia Straight: Let’s put more than five people in the Canadian Queer Hall of Fame:
Kudos to the creation of a new Canadian Queer Hall of Fame, as well as to the first five inductees: Janine Fuller, Robert Kaiser (Joan-E), Ted Northe, Mark Tewksbury, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Trudeau, a former prime minister, was named for decriminalizing homosexuality and saying the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.
There will be an inaugural Q Ball on September 19 to raise funds for Qmunity, which will house the hall of fame. It will highlight the history and achievements of the LGBT community.
The announcement of the first five inductees got me thinking of other worthy recipients of this honour. Here is a list of 25 other B.C. residents, some deceased, who warrant serious consideration for induction into the Queer Hall of Fame in the future. There’s a comment space below for anyone to offer their suggestions—or to disagree with some of my picks.
Mary-Woo Sims: During her tenure as chief commissioner of the B.C. Human Rights Commission, she was a relentless advocate for public education about human rights and for equality for gays, lesbians, and transgender people. An out lesbian, she has won several awards for her advocacy work.
Canada’s abortion law was struck down in 1988 on Charter arguments, leaving the country with no law on abortion. Most criminal restrictions on pornography have also been struck down on Charter arguments. The Charter also gave teeth to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to impose its politically correct standards of behavior and thought on any Canadian who dares to challenge the liberal establishment Trudeau left as his legacy.
Second, is Richard Warman on a hit list? Apparently he was, kinda sorta:
Updated Grosvenor Legal Documents & Extortion conviction:
Grosvenor’s latest legal challenge:
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 21, 2008
For two years, Edmonton resident William Grosvenor engaged in a
virtual campaign of terror against Ottawa human rights lawyer
Richard Warman. Grosvenor bombarded the Internet with calls to
murder Warman while providing his home address, and links to
pictures of him and Google maps on how to get to his home.
Combined with this were hundreds of online postings attempting to
destroy Warman’s personal and professional reputation.
Now a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted
an injunction to put an end to it and has awarded Warman $50,000
in damages for defamation and assault, the latter stemming from
Grosvenor’s death threats and incitement to violence. These
threats of violence repeatedly called for Warman’s murder,
described him as a “Dead Jew walking”, and said: “I AM GOD AND I
HAVE A RUGER P-90 AND IT’S BULLETS HAVE YOUR NAME ON THEM FAGBOY
In her decision issued 20 October 2008, Justice Lynn Ratushny
found that despite Grosvenor having filed papers saying he
intended to defend the civil suit, he never did and was thus
deemed to have admitted the allegations against him. Instead of
defending the action, the day after being served with the
statement of claim on 15 Jan. 2008 , Grosvenor began sending
waves of emails to Warman’s personal email address repeating his
online threats and libel.
Justice Ratushny described Grosvenor’s defamatory postings as
“vicious, profane and extreme”. She found they were made
dishonestly and in knowing or reckless disregard for the truth,
and said it amounted to “highly reprehensible misconduct”. sHe
went on to note the level of hatred and anger contained in
Grosvenor’s threats. Justice Ratushny said Grosvenor’s efforts to
target Warman for violence, including repeatedly providing his
home address during a two-year period, took them beyond empty
threats and meant they had to be taken seriously.
Warman is an Ottawa lawyer who has successfully filed and
litigated 14 cases against members of the white supremacist and
neo-Nazi movements under the Canadian Human Rights Act provisions
prohibiting the spreading of hate propaganda through the
Responding to the decision, Warman said “I’m hugely relieved that
the injunction has been granted and hope this will bring an end
to this two-year long nightmare.” He continued, “I wish I had
never heard of William Grosvenor, but if someone is going to
encourage people to kill me then I’m going to see what I can do
to stop them.”
The terms of the injunction granted by Justice Ratushny at
paragraph 92 of her judgement reference the submissions of the
plaintiff at subparas. 119(c-f). These sub-paragraphs require
Grosvenor to issue a complete retraction of the defamatory
comments; take all reasonable steps to remove them and his
threats from the Internet; prohibit him from publishing further
defamatory material or incitement to violence; and also from
contacting or communicating with Warman in any way.
The specific terms are:
119(c) granting a mandatory injunction requiring the Defendant
Mr. Grosvenor to make a complete public retraction of the
119(d) granting a mandatory injunction requiring Mr. Grosvenor to
make all reasonable efforts to remove from the internet, the
entirety of any and all of the internet postings that he has
published or caused to be published, and which are defamatory to
the Plaintiff, and/or which invade the Plaintiff’s privacy and/or
which threaten to harm or kill the Plaintiff and/or contain
invitations and encouragements to harm or kill the Plaintiff,
whether by using the Plaintiff’s name, nick-name, address,
photograph or other means of identity;
119(e) granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant
Mr. Grosvenor, and/or any other persons acting for the Defendant,
from publishing, causing to be published, posting, or reposting
on the internet or by any other method or medium, either in Mr.
Grosvenor’s own name, under any nick-name, pseudonym or aliases
that he now uses, has used, or may use in the future, any words
which are defamatory to the Plaintiff, and/or which invade the
Plaintiff’s privacy and/or which threaten to harm or kill the
Plaintiff and/or contain invitations and encouragements to harm
or kill the Plaintiff, whether by using the Plaintiff’s name,
nick-name, address, photograph or other means of identity; and
prohibiting Mr. Grosvenor from publishing or causing to be
published any such words about Mr. Warman, anonymously, or in the
name of another person;
199(f) restraining Mr. Grosvenor from contacting or communicating
directly or indirectly with Mr. Warman, in any way or by any
Read it here.
Third, Jesse Ferreras comments on the Rob Anders pamphlet blowback, at Ferreras J. – Dissenting.
Fourth, Chad Groening writes for OneNewsNow about the Anthanasios Hadjis decision on Warman v. Lemire, and on the reaction to said ruling by the executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, here.
Fifth, a hearing begins. From CNW Group:
OTTAWA, Sept. 14 /CNW Telbec/ – Today, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal began hearing a historic case which asserts the federal government is discriminating against thousands of First Nation children in the federal child welfare system. It is the first time a human rights complaint case involving discrimination against First Nations has been filed with the Human Rights Commission. The federal government has applied for a judicial review, which began last Friday, which is challenging the Tribunal’s right to hear the case.
The case before the Tribunal, filed by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society (FNCFCS) follows a number of reports, including the Auditor General of Canada (2008) and Standing Committee on Public Accounts (2009), which found that the federal government is not funding First Nations child welfare agencies at the same level as provincial services resulting in inequitable services. The reports note that government has known about shortfalls in its child welfare funding for more than nine years, but has made very modest improvements in only three provinces. As a result First Nations children and families on reserve lack the same prevention services offered to other Canadians, case-workers are overburdened, and many agencies operate without basics like computers or safe office buildings, which are sorely needed to improve planning, evaluation and the effectiveness of the services offered to children.
“At its heart, this issue is about caring for the most vulnerable members of our society. Our children deserve the same care afforded to other children in Canada. We hope all parties to work together to address the inequities in the system,” said Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo. “We look forward to the fair and independent process offered by an independent Human Rights Tribunal, as a step towards solutions which are urgently needed.”
“A year after the apology for the wrongful removal of First Nations children from their families, the federal government is spending thousands of taxpayer dollars to derail the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from hearing all of the facts instead of using that money to help children on reserves stay safely with their families,” said Cindy Blackstock, CEO of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society.
The case was filed with the Human Rights Commission two years ago. The Commission recommended mediation three times. Each time the AFN and FNCFC society accepted, but the government refused. After the Canadian Human Rights Commission put the child welfare discrimination case before a Tribunal, last October, the federal government appealed the Tribunal’s right to hear the case to federal court. That appeal began on September 11, 2009.
The Tribunal proceedings are open to the public. Updates on the tribunal will also be available at www.fnwitness.ca.
Read the rest here.