Well, there’s only four today, but they are all good ones.
First: Now you have a human right to organic meat. In addition, the unelected BC Human Rights Tribunal believes that it is in a better position than our elected representatives to define hunting regulations.
[Mr. Hall] is among approximately 100 hunters eligible for the disabled hunter special access permit — which allows a disabled hunter to bring a non-hunting companion along in his or her vehicle. (There are about 85,000 non-disabled hunters in B.C.)
In the past, a companion was not allowed to kill an animal shot and wounded by the disabled hunter. Instead, that person was only allowed to retrieve animals shot by the disabled hunter. An earlier tribunal ruling determined a hunting companion would be able to hunt, but only “in aid of the disabled hunter.”
This second ruling in part was to determine how many hunting companions could accompany the disabled hunter and agreed with the ministry that the hunting companion must have a licence to hunt.
“I agree with Mr. Hall that having only one hunting companion in the [vehicle] may pose safety issues for that hunting companion. For example, if the disabled hunter shoots an animal, but that animal is only wounded, the hunting companion must dispatch that animal and then retrieve it. During this process, another animal might be attracted to the area requiring the hunting companion to take measures to protect their own safety which he or she might be unable to do.
Oh, and Mr. Hall gets $5000 for the pain and suffering of not being able to hunt. Maybe that will teach the government for daring to make exemptions for disabled people.
Second: The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is underway with a hearing into alleged police brutality – without identifying the perpetrators involved. The Ottawa Police could not determine who it was that allegedly pulled Chad Aiken over and proceeded to “taunt him and punch him in the chest”. I’m not sure if this has any precedent in civil or criminal courts – proceedings against an unnamed assailant. Nevertheless, despite having no idea if any of their officers were involved, the Ontario Police Service is still trying to make this all go away by the usual Commission-approved bribe.
Third: Wow, get this one. Legal Aid Ontario investigated a legal aid clinic for alleged financial improprieties in 2003. While the allegations were substantiated, the clinic complained to the Human Rights Tribunal that they were being targeted because the majority of their board of directors is black. They didn’t deny that they made many suspicious “administrative mistakes” and accounting errors to their benefit, but nevertheless insisted before the Tribunal that it was discriminatory to investigate them. To date, the Tribunal has refused to dismiss the case. Does skin color grant you immunity?
Fourth, a woman has been granted $20,000 in damages in lost wages and suffering. She lost her job when she told her employer that she had to take an indefinite leave of absence to receive treatments for breast cancer. There was some dispute as to whether she had effectively resigned, but the kicker is in the “remedy” – the employer will be forced to “learn about the Ontario Human Rights Code”. I mean, fifty lashes would be less cruel, no?