On we go!
First, the Alberta minister in charge of the province’s Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, culture minister Lindsay Blackett, commented on the Stephen Boissoin case and recent appeal: Boissoin’s case should never have gone to the Commission at all.
Second: Steve Crowder, of Pajamas TV, editorializes on the state of free speech in his native Canada. From Big Hollywood:
See how clever this little backdoor is? When you criminalize thought through hate crime legislation, you can ultimately criminalize speech based on the premise that the words are reflective of hateful thoughts. Combine that with leftists basing their arguments on the premise that conservatives are all bigoted, homophobes (mostly because we’re all secretly gay) and you’ve got one hell of a powerful tool in your hands.
You needn’t ask Ann Coulter. Just ask Stephen Boisson, a Canadian pastor who now faces fines and possible jail time due to his speaking out against homosexuality. No he didn’t beat any gay people up, no he didn’t use words that would incite violence, and no, he wasn’t even caught rejecting advances from Boy George in a Los Angeles porta-potty. He simply stood by the doctrine of his church and actively expressed himself. Canadian human rights tribunals were not happy.
Third, a Bracebridge resident is adding a Human Rights complaint to his current lawsuit against the OPP for “unfairly charging him numerous times”. It’s hard to imagine what victim group Coldin falls under which would allow him to file a complaint, since he is a white male. Considering the types of charges that the OPP has brought against him (public nudity, criminal harassment, assault with a weapon), it’s likely on the basis of mental disability…
Fourth, Ian Levitt on the “infantalization of employees”, in the Financial Post:
Unwittingly, the courts are encouraging people to turn to them for redress of perceived offense from minor workplace dustups. Judicializing petty grievances prevents the development of a mature and resilient workforce that can cope with adversity. The upshot of such decisions is to dilute the meaning and vigor of legitimate harassment and abuse.
Courts and tribunals seem to disregard or underestimate the stress businesses and management endureto keep afloat in a competitive environment. A workplace cannot be expected to maintain the standards of a government bureaucracy such as the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which is shielded from the pressures of meeting a payroll and attaining a profit.
A similar editorial at the Globe and Mail here
Fifth, BCF reports that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is going to hold hearings on whether the police discriminate against men when investigating domestic disturbances. Frankly, the HRTO is the last body I’d want to have dictating to the police on how to respond to calls, discriminatory practices or not.