First: I can already forsee the HRC judgment against Jenny Craig for offending an overweight woman by not hiring her. “Despite the respondent’s claims of hiring another applicant on the basis of qualifications and references, I find on a preponderance of probabilities that their unconscious prejudice against those with generous body mass could very well have been a factor, even if not the main factor, due solely to the respondent’s feeling of being discriminated against. I thereby institute the complainant as the Dean of Jenny Craig’s law department and forbid any further weightist comments by the respondents for life.”
Second: The lawyers get their turn to eviscerate BC’s plan to shelve the Human Rights Tribunal in favour of an overarching Employment Tribunal. Whatever you do, don’t think about the fact that the more complex and cumbersome the system is, the more that lawyers get paid. Stop! I said don’t!
In their lukewarm mealy-mouthed conclusion, they state the obvious: that the BC government’s proposal is simply one of several possible approaches to the issue. And, they wave their hands at the problem of conflicting jurisdiction between the two current systems:
It is not clear from our research and consultation that the overlap in jurisdiction between the HRT and the labour arbitration system over workplace human rights disputes is resulting in either conflicting jurisprudence or concurrent cases running in multiple fora.
Third: To get a sense of how the language of human rights has been utterly compromised by those seeking entitlements, check out this press release from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada in reaction to the Moore appeal defeat. While I sympathize with the plight of children with learning disabilities (I have one child with an LD), this group puts the onus squarely on the government to solve all their problems (my emphasis):
Too many students with LDs are not completing their high school education because they don’t receive the accommodations they need. “With the incidence of LDs increasing, we all need to work together to correct the situation for today’s students and future students with LDs,” remarked Yude Henteleff, LDAC’s Intervener counsel in the case. He also stated that no less than the best efforts to provide the most enabling environment for such children up to the point of undue hardship, is what school systems should be providing.”
They are making some impressive demands of other people’s money.