Alright, here we go.
First off, from the Regina Leader-Post: Ontario gym owner fumes after transgender bathroom battle:
By Linda Nguyen and Allison Cross
A fitness club owner in southwestern Ontario said Tuesday he has wasted tens of thousands of dollars fighting a legal battle with a transgender woman over which washrooms she should use, only to have the case thrown out by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
“It’s like I’ve been terrorized by this for years,” said John Fulton, owner of Downtown Health Club for Women and Fulton Fitness in St. Catharines. “I wanted to take them to task. I didn’t want to settle and pay them. I told them that they weren’t going to get a penny from me. I didn’t care if I ended up homeless because of this.”
Fulton would not divulge exactly how much money he spent on legal costs, but said most of the expenses went to paying his high-priced Toronto lawyer to prepare for trial.
He did say he spent an additional $100,000 on redesigning the change rooms to offer more privacy to those who use them.
Fulton’s legal battle began in the summer of 2006 when a man, who had transitioned into a woman, wanted to join Fulton’s gym. The woman insisted that she be allowed to use the women’s change room and bathroom. According to Fulton, he made a number of other suggestions such as having her change at work or home or finding another space in the gym for her. He said the woman refused and threatened legal action
Read the rest here. Also noted by Five Feet of Fury, and at Free Dominion. H/t to Blazing Cat Fur, who also draws our attention toward Rob Breakenridge’s coverage, and this story from the St. Catherines Standard: Human rights outcome angers businessman:
Posted by Don Fraser
St. Catharines fitness club owner John Fulton is upset he’s saddled with major legal costs, even though an Ontario human rights complaint against him was dropped.
“Not only did I not get my day in court, I was bad-mouthed,” said Fulton, owner of Downtown Health Club for Women and Fulton Fitness.
“They put me through hell for three years and at the 11th hour, they dropped it,” he said. “There really was no resolution … and my costs with this are huge.”
Fulton declined to reveal how much he has to pay, but said it’s a large amount. In an earlier story, his costs were estimated to be as much as $100,000.
Read the rest here. Meanwhile, from LifeSiteNews: Gym Owner Complains of Human Rights Commission Process after Costly Battle with Gender-Confused Man.
“The integrity of the Tribunal’s processes”? That’s a laugh, considering that, as I know firsthand, they make it up as they go along. But in any case how can DVBIA’s disclosure impact the “integrity”? One can understand it might be prejudicial were this a jury trial. But in this instance Tonie Beharrell is both judge and jury: Is her “integrity” so easily impacted?
Or is it some sort of “contempt of court” deal? Two years ago, when the “human rights” enforcers first inserted themselves into my life, at the very first meeting with counsel I asked what the rules were with this racket, and I was told that there was no such thing as contempt of court with these “human rights” commissars: You could say what you want about them and their crappy pseudo-courts. So I did, mercilessly, week after week in Maclean’s. If I got hold of a document, I revealed it, starting with my publication here of the original complaints. The only time Maclean’s and I had a wee bit of a falling out was when I was stopped by a scrum of reporters leaving the courthouse in Vancouver and I denounced Tonie Beharrell and her chums as a troika of “pretend judges”, which it was felt was a mite excessively abusive as they were only a few yards away at the time. (The Globe & Mail report appears to be subscriber-only, but here’s the CP story from the Pictou County News.)
Other than that, Maclean’s and I said whatever the hell we wanted regardless of whether or not it “had a significant impact on the complainants and on the integrity of the Tribunal’s processes”. Which, of course, it did. Why do you think we got off? Under the BC “Human Rights” Act, we’re clearly guilty but our “significant impact” on the “integrity” of the “process” happily took care of that.
So I wonder whether Judge Beharrell has the power to levy such a fine. If I were in the DVBIA’s shoes, I certainly wouldn’t pay it.
1. According to Levant: “Moon claims the CHRC does not have a 100% conviction rate for censorship prosecutions. He weasels around this point a bit, but that’s what he means.”
Not true: The fact is that Moon does not deny that all the cases sent to Tribunal for hearing by the CHRC were decided against the respondents. Moon points out that the CHRC brought only the most egregious cases to Tribunal for decision and that is why all the twenty or so cases under s. 13 were successfully decided against the respondents. Just read the complaints and/or judgments against people like Guille, Ouwendyk, etc. to find out why the Tribunals ruled against them. No one in their right mind could have found that the respondents were not broadcasting the most virulent forms of hate. What does Levant not understand? If anything, the CHRC should be commended for acting on the side of caution, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.
I will not quarrel here with Levant’s choice of words like “conviction rate” and “censorship prosecutions”. Those terms more accurately describe criminal prosecution, not the human rights process, which relies on mediation before a Tribunal hearing. These criminal prosecutorial terms are used by Levant to suggest that the CHRC has strayed from a human rights process to a criminal one.
Fourth, Scaramouche writes about awards log-rolling surrounding the Canadian Mausoleum of Human Rights:
Not that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with that, and that there isn’t a goodly amount of altruism involved and that, indeed, lots of money is being raised for a plethora of good causes. It’s only that I happen to see the “human rights” mausoleum as not only a humungous drain on the taxpayer, not only woefully misconceived. I see it as validating the whole “human rights” racket–a parasitical nomenklatura that’s grown too powerful, too smug, and altogether too big for its britches. That it puts itself squarely in the state censorship camp is all the more reason to heap scorn on it–so phooey on them and it (Camp Silenzio).<!– –>
Read it all here.
Quick…call Richard Warman. There’s a hate crime in progress.
Stung by bloggers making fun of their useless efforts to nail basement Nazis and loony Arthur Topham while ignoring the actual anti-semites in our midst, B’nai Brith connects the dots and notices where there are large number of people, with guns and rockets, actively trying to kill Jews.
It is just possible that this will shame the CJC into a similar, intelligent, response. But I am not holding my breath.
Plus, there is no question at all that this ad is likely to subject Hamas supporters – almost all of whom are Muslims – to hatred and contempt. Hamas=Nazis tends to do that. (And, as we know, it does not matter if that is true..the coward Lynch and her gang don’t care. They know Hate when they see it.)
If Lucy can tear himself away from his SLAPP suits I’m sure there is a complaint here somewhere. Actually, maybe I should file one on the Warman logic that you don’t actually have to be a member of the hated group to “collect” on their behalf.
Are they still pissed over that thing with the Higgins Counterterrorism Research Centre and the Manitoba Human Rights Commission?
Sixth, via the National Post: Medical marijuana vs. liquor licence feud continues:
By Jordana Huber
TORONTO — The Federal Court has declined to throw out the case of an Ontario restaurant owner who wants one of his former patrons stripped of his right to smoke medical marijuana.
Ted Kindos, owner of Gator Ted’s Tap and Grill in Burlington, Ont., is seeking a declaration from the Federal Court that people with a permit to smoke medicinal marijuana cannot do so in a public place or any licensed establishment.
Federal government lawyers sought to dismiss the case, arguing there is no dispute that requires adjudication because Health Canada does not purport to authorize permit holders to smoke marijuana in violation of any applicable law or in an establishment subject to Ontario’s liquor licensing laws.
In his decision released Monday afternoon, Federal Court Prothonotary Kevin Aalto said Gator Ted’s is “caught in a conundrum” between Ottawa’s medical marijuana regulations and its obligations under the regulations of the Liquor License Act of Ontario.
Seventh, via SafetyMoves.com: Alwyn Child appointed to the Hazardous Material Information Review Commission:
The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health, and the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Labour, today announced the appointment of Mr. Alwyn Child to the Hazardous Material Information Review Commission (HMIRC).
Mr. Child has also dedicated much of his career to improving human rights in Canada, beginning in 1981 as an investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and eventually becoming the Director of Policy and Planning and International Programs.
Read it all here.
Eighth, via Review How?: Human Rights Law in Canada:
Worldwide Canada is considered to be one of the leading countries that support the global human rights movement. The history of Human Rights Law in Canada begins in the advent of the Canadian Bill of Rights, before that the human rights issues were usually regulated with single court cases and the verdicts of such cases were used to regulate similar situations. In 1938 by the decision of Reference re Alberta Statutes, the Supreme Court of Canada first recognized an implied bill of rights.
Today there are four key mechanisms in Canada to protect human rights: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and provincial human rights laws and legislation. The cornerstone of human rights in Canada is the Canadian Human Rights Act. This Act was passed by the Canadian Government in 1977 and the goal of extending the law with this act was to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on various grounds such as gender, disability, or religion.
Read the rest here.