First: Bill 44 in Alberta has brought to light another contradiction between real human rights and the ones that have been invented within the past 60 years:
“Once you start getting parents to yank their kids out of everything they find uncomfortable or to sue teachers over it … that only moves us backwards in society,”
In other words, parental rights which have been respected for millenia are now subsumed by the rights of designated groups to influence our children.
Second: Get a little riled up during a municipal council meeting? Let’s call up the Human Rights Commission!!
Third: Another opinion piece on the case in Ontario in which the city of Cambridge was ordered to accommodate at their childrens’ camps an autistic child who screams racial slurs at other children. It reveals the problem with the current concept of “reasonable accommodation”, which has no clear or reasonable boundary.
Unfortunately a recent human rights tribunal decision breaches the bounds of reasonableness in interpreting that law. In doing so, it appears to sets a troubling precedent.
Of course human rights tribunals are notoriously uninterested in the precedents they might set. That’s seen as a job for the courts. Which is why this decision needs a judicial review.
Allowing it to stand gives parents of children with disabilities the apparent right to demand one-on-one support for the entire summer from any summer camp they choose on human rights grounds. However egalitarian such an idea may seem, it is clearly untenable.
Fourth: From Lexology, which is decidedly neutral with regards to the Tribunal, they note an alarming remedy:
The Tribunal ordered CBS to cease its discriminatory practices against employees who seek accommodation based on family status for purposes of childcare responsibilities. CBS was given six months to establish written policies to address family status accommodation requests. Interestingly, and perhaps alarmingly, these polices must be satisfactory to Johnstone and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.