I’m sure you’ve heard about Mr. Ali Tarmourpour, the wannabe RCMP officer who flunked out of boot camp. Ali filed a Human Rights complaint he was only failed because he was Muslim and Iranian.
Predictably, the CHRT agreed. The Tribunals have an impeccable track record when it comes to condemning the police as racist. Evidence? Who needs that. The decision was based on two things that would be laughed out of a real court: statistics and feelings.
For statistics, the Tribunal used attrition rates for minority and non-minority (Caucasian) recruits, noting that the rate was almost twice for minorities. That’s enough for the Tribunal to assume that Tarmourpour’s dismissal was caused by racism. Imagine. A police officer stops you, accuses you of speeding (when you weren’t), and simply states that you’re guilty since men speed more than women. Amusing stuff.
For feelings, Tarmourpour alleges that he was yelled at and called names, but not necessarily racist ones. At boot camp. Tragic stuff. In one instance, Tarmourpour insisted that his jewelry was religious and he must wear it in contravention to policy. Sergeant Hebert agreed to the exemption, and informed the fellow recruits, in case they wonder why one of them was wearing jewelry against the rules. Apparently, Tarmourpour felt that this was discriminatory, and that was enough for the Tribunal.
Tarmourpour was awarded a six-figure salary and forced the RCMP to re-admit him. Luckily, the RCMP appealed to a real court to stop this insanity. Here’s what the Federal court decided (emphasis mine):
The Tribunal erred in applying the wrong test for direct discrimination in making a finding of direct discrimination by Sergeant Hébert
The Tribunal erred in law in relying upon statistical data contained in the report of the respondent’s expert which merely repeated the data contained in the report of the applicant that was not in evidence;
The Tribunal erred in concluding without evidence and only on the basis of speculation, that Mr. Tahmourpour’s performance was affected by the discriminatory treatment he received at Depot; and
The Tribunal erred in awarding lost wages to the date of reinstatement in a training program having engaged in no analysis as to whether that period could reasonably extend to that date.
Most of the decisions of the Human Rights Tribunals are based on admitted circumstantial evidence that routinely strays into the realm of speculation. Take two recent decisions against Ontario police officers, for instance. I would hope that this decision could be cited as precedent for an appeal of both of those.
But I’m not holding my breath.
In the meantime, the Human Rights assault on our police forces continues.
Cross-posted at SF