Kangaroo Justice

My Ontario Retired Grade School Principal Friend

[ ED NOTE: Mbrandon8026 from Freedom Through Truth was kind enough to let me crosspost this item from his blog. You can read the original here.

What a saddening story. Nobody won – again. Lovely to see tax dollars put to work so effectively. An interesting anecdote in the comments to the original post, too. ]

Back on May 14, 2009, I started this blog. My first real posting was about my friend, a now retired grade school principal who was the real victim in an Ontario Human Rights Commission/Tribunal case, actually two of them.

After 3 1/2 years, this case was finally going to come to the Kangaroo Court on December 18, 2009. Part of the delay, and only a part of it was that the Complainant had gotten counsel beyond what was available to her from the HRC last summer. She was determined to right some self defined egregious discrimination that only she could see. The HRC was not inclined to pursue the case, but could not stop it.

The Complainant hired a black civil rights lawyer to ensure that she got her pound of flesh. However, after he listened to her screed for some time, he didn’t figure that the black/white shtick would play well, since his client had anger management and authority issues. He kicked her to the curb somewhere along the way, further delaying the ‘Roo session.

With her nose out of joint, she then found another lawyer to appear to buy in to her story, but he did not really buy in, and so the matter was settled quietly just before Kangaroo Court was to convene.

A big problem in the case was that it depended largely on my friend the principal’s secretary for its testimony. This secretary had been disciplined by my friend for failing to do her work at the school, and not taking it too well, she filed her own HRC Complaint. She had turned her delusions into invented stories to support her own case, and was planning to use them to support the case here, in her testimony. The lawyer for the Complainant in this case did not like his chances with her testimony, even in Kangaroo Court, where truth is merely a potential obstacle to get at the desired outcome.

He approached the lawyers for the school board and my friend before court, and asked to settle the matter. So, now officially, the case does not exist, the matters are sealed and confidential, and there is of course the HRC standard non disclosure form in place to prevent the truth from leaking out.

The reality is though that the Complainant got a few shekels for her noise, maybe enough to pay for her new lawyer, if he is really cheap, I mean really cheap. This paltry amount will be paid by the school board, so my friend is not out of pocket, and does not have a black mark against her for having allegedly discriminated against this Complainant’s son.

Implying that it cost my friend nothing to go on this HRC imposed journey is false. She has spent well over $20,000 in legal fees to date on this case and on the one still pending from her secretary. She has retired from a job she loved, and her health has been seriously compromised by the stress of these two matters. She lost big time. Her students lost big time. Her family lost big time. As Ezra Levant says, the process is the punishment.

Today’s Lynch List

Alright, here we go.

First off, a bit of a grab-bag. Miss Marprelate Tracts notes the CHRT’s follow-up to Shahid Mahmood’s complaint against Air Canada for racial profiling, while CHRC Exposed and the Freedomsite Blog note Alan Shanoff’s article – Freedom of expression makes gains in 2009 – which appeared in the Winnipeg Sun ( it probably popped up in other Sun papers, but I’m only human ). Meanwhile, Living Church Of God notes the Boissoin appeal decision, while The Airdrie Echo, in a look at the year gone past, talks about Alberta’s inclusion of Bill 44 into their Human Rights Act ( scroll down a bit ), and The Cornwall Standard-Freeholder talks about the relation between Akwesasne and the Canada Border Services Agency, among other things.

Second, Barbara Hall in the news. Via Wawatay Online: Understanding human rights:

Following a presentation by Ontario Human Rights Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall, Dennis Franklin Cromarty High School student Stanley Barkman is much more cognizant of his rights.

December 29, 2009: Volume 36 #26, Page 16

“I understand my rights a lot better now,” said Barkman, a Sachigo Lake band member. “I finally know what discrimination really means. I know that if I want to rent an apartment, the landlord can’t just turn me away because of my skin colour.

“This knowledge will definitely help me. I feel like I can stand up for myself now.”

Hall spoke to the entire DFC student populous Dec. 10, the 61 anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

“Many people don’t get to be all they can be because of the barriers they face,” Hall said, adding attitudes and unfair stereotypes are barriers for First Nations people.

She said rules, laws and attitudes must be fair if discrimination will be eliminated.

When these things are not fair, that’s when the Ontario Human Rights Commission or Tribunal gets involved.

Read the rest here.

Third, via Ezra Levant’s blog: Two fascinating years in the battle for freedom:

I’ve been fighting against Canada’s censorious and corrupt human rights commissions for nearly four years now; it was in February of 2006 that the print edition of the Western Standard, may it rest in peace, reprinted the Danish cartoons of Mohammed to illustrate a news story. The “human rights” nuisance suits against the magazine, and me as its publisher, began immediately after that. But it wasn’t until December of 2007, when Maclean’s magazine got swiped by the jihadists at the Canadian Islamic Congress, and January of 2008, with my own interrogation at the hands of Alberta’s HRC, that I came to understand the full scope of the problem that these HRCs represent to Canada and our ancient freedoms.

It’s been two fascinating years since then. There have been a few stressful times in those years, when the nuisance lawsuits were piling up, but those occasional moments of concern are too few to mention when compared to the constant satisfaction of being part of a global team of freedom fighters — a grassroots “army of Davids” fighting against the HRC goliath. Not only have I made many friends (and, to my great relief, received financial support to fight the nuisance suits), but I think we’ve managed to go on the offensive and rekindle a national discussion about freedom of speech.

I remember, back in January of 2008, when I had to scour the news every day just to find some scrap to write about; today there are a dozen bloggers and a half dozen MSM journalists on the beat, full-time. HRCs across the country are now being covered by reporters who used to ignore them — and who now mine them for the rich stories that you would expect from a kangaroo court. Seriously: when was the last time you saw a news story about an HRC that wasn’t goofy, stupid, politically correct or just plain outrageous? They really are a gift to journalism, especially opinion writers, radio talk show hosts and editorial cartoonists. Too bad that gift comes at such a high cost, both in taxes and lost liberties.

Here comes 2010, and our battle for freedom continues — it always will. I came across this item that I published in the National Post two years ago, on December 18, 2007. I think it holds up pretty well. What’s different is that back then, I was writing, as an observer, about censors like Richard Warman and the Canadian Islamic Congress. Now I’m actively battling against them in the courts of law. As I think you can tell, I’ve loved the fight — and I love it even more that we’re winning!

Read the rest here. Also noted by Blazing Cat Fur.

Fourth, by Howard Levitt, via the Financial Post: Tribunals seem out of touch with the times:

Human rights commissions and tribunals in Canada seem stuck in the 1960s, perpetuating the myth Canada is a bigoted, racist society when, in fact, Canadians are largely tolerant and anti-racist. Prodded by like-minded legislators and courts, these government agencies set their sights on ferreting out now illusory workplace discrimination.

The soothing rhetoric from these groups about promoting workplace diversity and equality is a sirens call. Distracted by such lofty messages, the number of employer clients who ignore or downplay their exposure to human rights proceedings is striking:

No charge for proceeding Human rights complaints and applications are paid for by the taxpayer. As in civil actions, there is no filing cost. Complainants in Ontario may even qualify for a lawyer from the recently created Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre at no cost. However, employers on the receiving end of a complaint shoulder the considerable expense of defending themselves. With little or no disincentive for employees to proceed, no mechanism to weed out frivolous complaints and huge costs even if they win, the pressure on employers to settle is inexorable.

Read the rest here. H/t to No Apologies, and to Kathy Shaidle on Twitter.

Fifth, Mbrandon8026 writes, via Freedom Through Truth, on the Rabble/Babble, erm…well, one doesn’t quite know what to call it:

But, this I get. Since the Babblers are probably in general a bunch of white guys and gals, with too much time on their hands, and probably supported by Mommy and Daddy’s money, their racist remarks against white people, of which I am one, probably would get a free pass, if one of us were to complain to the Barbara Hall thought police about it. This is undoubtedly true, even though reading the “twaddle” did hurt my feelings, such that I am beside myself. In fact the two of us are fighting over the keyboard at this very moment, making it challenging to write this posting.

Now, if we could only get them to use the word “Nazi” in there somewhere, we could go to J Ly, and have them investigated into submission. These clowns do remind me of the now infamous Canadian Nazis, that have been writing screed from their basements, and are more a threat to themselves than to any real personages, but have gained the ire of the Ceej and the CHRC.

Read the rest here.

Finally, interacting with Islam; the Human Rights Mausoleum designer( scroll down ); the ski jumper saga continues; and where are you in China? ( scroll down )

Today’s Lynch List

News has been slow lately. I’m not complaining. A slow news day is generally a good sign these days.

Alright, here goes.

First off, a bit of a grab-bag. The Stephen Boissoin case is mentioned here ( don’t want to name the blog; it’s a bit, erm…anti-‘zionist’ to be polite ), while the Boissoin appeal decision is noted by Truthseeker24’s anti-N.W.O. corner. Meanwhile, Blazing Cat Fur talks a little more about the next complaint soon to be launched against Mark Steyn before the Ontario Human Rights system, and I Luv SA talks about The Weakness of Government and The Lack of Desire: There Goes Free Speech, in relation to the Canadian government’s rather weak stance on freedom of expression, vis a vis the HRCs.

Second, Andrew Lawton writes, via Strictly Right: The Myth of Human Rights:

There was a great episode of the Michael Coren Show a while back which my friend and fellow blogger RightGirl was on where one of the panelists posed the legitimate question of “What is a human right?” Coren agreed in his own British fashion and the discussion moved to a topic far far away. However, I think they may have touched on something important…which is that “human rights” are ridiculous. The Constitution guarantees certain inalienable rights such as freedom of association, religion, expression, press, freedom from discrimination, etc. Why does it need to go any further than that? There are no rights denied to any Canadians on a systemic basis. I’m sure there’s a case that discrimination and racism do exist within Canadian and American borders. However, on a governmental level, I’m hard-pressed to find any examples of denial of rights to anyone (heck, even terrorists have rights now for whatever reason).

“Human Rights” implies that there are rights necessary to humans that exist outside of the constitution. If these rights were so important, then they would exist within the constitution. The reason they don’t is because the Canadian Human Rights Act doesn’t offer any additional rights, but rather limits freedom. The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s parliamentary report on freedom of speech and the internet even goes so far as to say that “no freedom is absolute,” and that freedom of speech has limits. I agree completely, freedom of speech that qualifies as hate speech is taking that freedom too far. However, certain individuals feel *cough* Jennifer Lynch and Barbara Hall *cough* that legal non-hate speech should still be prosecuted…enter Canadian Human Rights Tribunal!

Read the rest here. Also noted by Blazing Cat Fur.

Third, by Andrew Chung, via the Toronto Star: A place de résistance for newcomers:

MONTREAL–Doggedly determined to succeed, Mounia Oulias makes a near-daily trek to a strip-mall immigrant settlement agency to use its aging computers to try to find a job.

For three months, the secretary by training from Morocco has been doing the same thing.

She hasn’t even had one reply.

“Of course, I didn’t think they would roll out the red carpet for me,” Oulias says with a shy smile. “But I didn’t think it would be this difficult.”

As Oulias is beginning to discover, among the provinces that receive the most immigrants – Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec – she has chosen the most challenging one in which to try to integrate.

[…]

The Quebec Human Rights Commission released a report in April following up on a 2001 law designed to promote equal access in public institutions to groups historically discriminated against. Eight years on, “visible minorities are poorly represented in all public bodies,” the report said. It also noted general “resistance” to meaningful measures to address the problem.

The commission criticized the Sûreté du Québec for a “near absence of visible minorities among the police personnel.” The level was just 0.4 per cent. Minorities are also markedly under-represented in the civil service.

Read the rest here.

Finally, a CHRC retiree; somebody alert the CHRC; hijackers ( scroll down );and a very interesting Canadian writer indeed.

Anthropomorphic Baked Goods to the HRC

As Reported by Dumb Old Housewives

[ ED NOTE: Mbrandon8026 from Freedom Through Truth was kind enough to let me crosspost this item from his blog. You can read the original here. ]

So, DOH (H/t Blazing Cat Fur) reported an Ontario HRC complaint in the making as follows, with the original found here: 

Kookie Pieceman isn’t a man. She isn’t sweet. She isn’t even brown. But she did not allow any of those facts to stop her from launching a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding Mark Steyn’s latest musical offering, “Sweet Gingerbread Man”.

“I was shocked by Mr. Steyn’s tone,” Ms Pieceman stated during a weekend interview. “His fans are apparently eating this up, but any right thinking person would certainly pan it. What benefit can there be in allowing him to sing?”

Ms Pieceman declined to repeat the harmful words contained in the controversial song, but maintains that in general, “it is likely to expose anthropomorphic baked goods to hatred and contempt.”

Mr. M. Man of Drury Lane, Ottawa, has spent his entire adult life in the baking industry, and concurs with Ms Pieceman’s assessment. “This song exposes me to contempt, all right,” he asserts. “That, in turn, breeds familiarity. Ever since songs of this genre became popular, everyone seems to think they know me.”

Mr. Steyn could not be reached for comment.

But, Kookie Pieceman has some skeletons in the closet as well, it seems., as the following video attests. Seems Ms./Mr./It Pieceman is probably only using this as political leverage to replace Mr. Steyn on the top of the pop charts. Having heard both Mr. Pieceman’s forgettable hit from the 50’s, below and Mr. Steyn’s Sweet Gingerbread Man, which is available here at BCF’s site, I am hoping that Pieceman’s HRC complaint is overturned before it gets to the Supreme Court of Canada.

If, of course this claim makes it to the Supreme Court, you can expect the Supreme’s to reprise their famous hit “You Keep Me Hangin’ On”. with the memorable lyrical line: “Get outta my life, why don’t you, Steyn? You just keep me hangin’ on.”

Thank You to Stephen Boissoin

Letter Writer to the Red Deer Advocate

[ ED NOTE: Mbrandon8026 from Freedom Through Truth was kind enough to let me crosspost this item from his blog. You can read the original here.

The Red Deer Advocate has shown some bravery in the fight against the HRCs. And theirs was not to fight Stephen Boissoin’s legal battles for him. But all the same, they could have done a whole lot more than they have, and it’s a shame that they didn’t. ]

Here is what a recent letter writer to the Red Deer Advocate had to say in favour of the Boissoin Judgement from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

Re. Dec. 4 news story headlined Judge rules against Alberta Human Rights Commission:

Finally! A ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission was hauled before a real court of law.

A real judge quashed their ruling as unlawful and unconstitutional! The public has known this commission to be a kangaroo court for years. The Alberta government ought to hang its head in shame for allowing this kangaroo court to exist for so many years in our province.

The human rights commission has been the puppet of the zealots of secular humanism who are dedicated to promote their perverse philosophy of life.

You will recognize these fanatics easily — they are usually well educated.

They are anti-Christian, anti-free speech and anti-morality.

Their goal is to bend the minds of our young people to undercut the fabric of our society — the glue that holds us honourably together. They consider themselves to be the elite thinkers, but, in fact, they are a waste of good skin.

We owe a huge thank you to Stephen Boissoin, who for seven long years endured the consequences of the unjust and mean-spirited ruling. And also a big thank you to the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a free-speech advocacy group.

The Alberta government ought to reimburse Boissoin for the huge costs he had to absorb to get a just ruling on this case.

Somehow, I have a feeling that, without a lawsuit, the provincial government will do nothing.

Maybe it is true, our present Conservative government is old, tired, arrogant and out of touch with the people, and out of touch with true Conservative values.

Jim Swan

Red Deer

Jim Swan had the balls to write what the Red Deer Advocate themselves did not. That they allowed this letter to the Editor to be published in their rag, is to their very teeny, tiny credit.

I happen to live in London Ontario, and our daily rag, the Freeps, has never heard of Stephen Boissoin, Free Speech, or anything like that. So here in London, the 7 people that still subscribe to the Freeps have not had the benefit of hearing anything good, bad or indifferent about the Stephen Boissoin case.

If any of the 7 of you are interested, you can go over to the left and look under labels, and then click on the Boissoin one, where I have currently about 87 references to him and the case that was brought against him for, of all things, speaking his mind about a topic of local (and broader) political significance. I expect that you probably won’t, since we vote Liberal provincially in these parts, and by doing that we support the Barb Hall led Kangaroo Court of Ontario that we derisively call the Ontario Human Rights Commission, where you of Ontarian extraction, residence or sentiment can take your hurt feelings for redress, against the meanies who caused you such pain.

Glad I got that our of my system.

Today’s Lynch List

Alright, here goes.

First off, Alan Shanoff writes, via The Winnipeg Sun: Freedom of expression makes gains in 2009:

Year-End Review 2009: Part 2

Here’s the second half of my year-end review of the top legal stories/developments for 2009.

1. Chalk 2009 up as another good year for freedom of expression in Canada.

Last Tuesday the Supreme Court of Canada gave the media a new defence with which to defend defamation lawsuits. It’s called the “responsible communication” defence and allows the media to defend itself even if some of the facts reported can’t be proven to be truthful. It won’t allow the media to run roughshod over reputations but it should encourage more investigative reporting.

2. A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did the unthinkable. It declared that Section 13, the hate speech section, of the Canadian Human Rights Code, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let’s hold our applause for the decision as it’s been appealed to the Federal Court of Canada and we still have a patchwork of 11 human rights codes in Canada leading to the strange situation where the same complaint may be filed in multiple jurisdictions. Section 13 is currently under review by Parliament’s Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

You can catch Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, both previous subjects of unsuccessful hate speech complaints, making their submissions to this Committee earlier this year on YouTube.

Read the rest here. Also noted by Blazing Cat Fur, and at Free Dominion.

Second, Dumb Old Housewives brings you the latest complaint, soon to be brought against Mark Steyn before the Ontario Tribunal for Human Rights ( or whatever it’s called these days ): Trying to imagine how Mark Steyn and the OHRC will meet next….

Kookie Pieceman isn’t a man. She isn’t sweet. She isn’t even brown. But she did not allow any of those facts to stop her from launching a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding Mark Steyn’s latest musical offering, “Sweet Gingerbread Man”.
   “I was shocked by Mr. Steyn’s tone,” Ms Pieceman stated during a weekend interview. “His fans are apparently eating this up, but any right thinking person would certainly pan it. What benefit can there be in allowing him to sing?”

    Ms Pieceman declined to repeat the harmful words contained in the controversial song, but maintains that in general, “it is likely to expose anthropomorphic baked goods to hatred and contempt.”

Read the rest here.

Third, Jim Swan writes a letter to the Red Deer Advocate: We owe a huge thank you to letter writer Stephen Boissoin:

Re. Dec. 4 news story headlined Judge rules against Alberta Human Rights Commission:

Finally! A ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission was hauled before a real court of law.

A real judge quashed their ruling as unlawful and unconstitutional! The public has known this commission to be a kangaroo court for years. The Alberta government ought to hang its head in shame for allowing this kangaroo court to exist for so many years in our province.

Read the rest here.

Finally, the CHRC and you, and if this were Sparta…

Today’s Lynch List

Alright, here we go.

First off, Binks does that thing he does, over at Free Canuckistan, with another heaping helping of links and commentary: An Happy & An Merry, 2009.

Second, a bit of a grab bag. Searching For Liberty notes the potential effect that a recent Supreme Court decision could have on our man Warman, while The pages of Ricky Earle, The Omega Letter, and ChristiansUnite.com note the Boissoin appeal decision. Meanwhile, How To Propose writes a brief Q&A for Ezra Levant.

Third, via the CBC: Tribunal to probe Air Canada over boarding refusal:

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will begin an inquiry into a complaint lodged by a Toronto man who says he was unfairly prevented by Air Canada from boarding a flight 5½ years ago.

Shahid Mahmood, an architect and political cartoonist, was not allowed to enter a Victoria-bound flight from Vancouver in May 2004. However, Air Canada gave his Chilean-born wife clearance to board the same flight, he said.

Mahmood said the ticket agent told him he had been “designated high profile.”

Mahmood, who is of Muslim-Pakistani heritage but was born in Canada, alleges Air Canada engaged in racial profiling, a charge the airline carrier has repeatedly denied.

Read the rest here. More from UPI.com, and Scaramouche.

Third, via Blazing Cat Fur: Merry Christmas Heathen Overlords and I hope you received a Lump of Coal:

Gee nothin says Christmas Day like a visit from the CHRC!

I dunno, do we roo’fully express a reluctant admiration for the unholy zeal of our Stasi wannabe’s at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or mourn the fact they might be receiving Triple Overtime Rates for working Christmas Day? What motive could they have to desecrate this sacred day? Are they perhaps planning to haul Santa before the ‘Roo Kourt?

Read it here. Also noted by Scaramouche, who penned this little ditty in response:

See the holly jolly censor,
At the best time of the year.
Even though there’s mistletoe
They’re busy spreading “cheer”.
See the holly jolly censor.
Keepin’ tabs on all who “hate”
Don’t relent, make ’em repent
‘Cause they “discriminate”.

Grinch, Grinch, not Jenny Lynch,
So virtuous and pure.
Wants a utopia.
Means well, that’s for sure.

See the holly jolly censor
And in case you disagree.
Oh, by golly
Tell the holly jolly censor:
“Bite me!”

Read it here.

Fourth, via StopRacism.ca: Richard Warman: Human Rights Legislation in Canada (Part 1):

Read StopRacism.ca‘s post here.

Fifth, the HRCs are a topic of discussion in the Full Comment Podcast‘s year in review for 2009. Check it out.

Finally, July-August headlines ( scroll through ); Merry Xmas to me; court papers from our man Warman; the ski-jumper saga continues; the tyranny of human rights (h/t); and best political book ( scroll down ).

Border Security to be Compromised, Again

In another chapter of the Human Rights mantra, “if it feels good, sue it”, another allegation of racial profiling has been submitted as a complaint to the CHRT, based solely on the complainant’s feelings.

Charmaine Archer was traveling back to Canada from Jamaica, and upon arrival in Ottawa was strip-searched by security officials when they found traces of heroin and THC on her toothbrush. But, alas, the reasons for the search are irrelevant compared to the complainant’s feelings…

“I was the only black person on that flight and I was the only one in there being searched,” she said, of the flight from Philadelphia to Ottawa, the final leg of her trip home from Jamaica. “I have all reason to assume it was racial profiling.”

In Canada, the procedures for border security checks are, apparently, dictated by those who are being searched:

Despite the reported traces on her toothbrush, Archer says the search should have stopped when no other evidence of drugs was found among her belongings.

Here’s your seat ma’am, right between two religious-looking young bearded Saudis in white robes and puffy jackets – we didn’t want to search them or put them through the metal detector because they might bring a complaint against us…

Cross-posted at SF