The Lynch List, 22-Nov-2010

With a salute to University of Windsor Law Professor Emily Carasco, who is single-handedly dragging the entire Human Rights system into disrepute.

First: Carasco complains that the University of Windsor did not discriminate enough when considering her for the dean’s position:

In documents filed at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, she also claims her bonus of four percentage points for being a woman and a visible minority was insufficient, and a “deliberate attempt to lowball” her score and keep her out of the dean’s office.

Related: “Objective, neutral human rights tribunal?” What planet did you come from?

Second: HIV sufferers have a human right to conceal their condition from fellow employees, says Quebec’s human rights tribunal, even in food-preparation industries.

Third: White man belittles Aboriginal – that’s racism. Aboriginal belittles white man. That’s just an expression of frustration at being historically discriminated against. Endorsed by those who staff our Human Rights bureaucracies.

Memo to Drew Hayden Taylor: Stop being a racist.

Fourth: Mark Mercer on the censorship paradox: protesting against someone’s ideas often backfires, giving those ideas valuable publicity:

The Waterloo disruption succeeded in its limited aim of shutting the event down. But likely enough it will also result in increased sales of Blatchford’s book. It certainly earned Blatchford media coverage across the country.

Fifth: Ezra Levant lost his libel defence against Vigna, (great pic of Ezra, btw) and was ordered to compensate Vigna $25,000. While much ado is being made about this statement from the judge:

[Levant] spoke in reckless disregard of the truth and for an ulterior purpose of denormalizing the Human Rights Commission across Canada which makes his statements malicious in that sense.

I don’t think it’s any indictment on any efforts to denormalize the HRCs. Rather, all the judge was doing was establishing malice – that an ulterior motive exists to the libel. If I’m wrong, let me have it in the comments.

Sixth: As much as I may not like the notion of grappling with transgendered inmates (see the title), the Conservative government is going against the orders of the CHRT in refusing funding for sex changes in federal penitentiaries. The CHRT, of course, insists that sex change operations should be an essential medical treatment, paid for by moi et tu.

Seventh: Okay, sometimes the courts are even crazier than the Human Rights Commissions. The federal court felt that the CHRT didn’t go far enough in awarding the CPP nurses back pay and “pain and suffering” for not being paid as much as doctors. Gee, the court is quite generous with other peoples’ money.

Finally, Scaramouche nominates Barbara Hall for TSA chief!


7 Responses to The Lynch List, 22-Nov-2010

  1. Kevin says:

    Gee, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about in your seventh point that “The federal court felt that the CHRT didn’t go far enough in awarding the CPP nurses back pay and “pain and suffering” for not being paid as much as doctors.” In actuality, the CHRT did not award any back pay in the previous decision, and “pain and suffering” was limited to select individuals and not to all the claimants equally.

  2. Kevin:

    Thanks for the clarification. The comment still stands, that the courts went further than the HRT in the awarding of back pay (from none to lots) and pain and suffering (from a little to a lot), on the basis of a very fuzzy notion of group rights (nurses are predominantly women, therefore being a “nurse” is now a protected ground under the Act).

  3. Kevin says:

    i’m sure your overall point will remain the same again, but actually the government all but admitted that discrimination had taken place by dropping their appeal in that matter. And I think this ruling only righted two wrongs: 1, that once discrimination has been proven, that it was wrong in the previous decision to put the total onus on quantifying that wrong on the one discriminated against. the decision was that given the evidence, the court was mandated to come up with a fair/reasonable quantifiable solution of back pay. 2, that it was deemed unreasonable not to extrapolate pain and suffering testimony of a few to cover the whole group of 400+ complainants, and that it would be unreasonable to require 400+ people testifying.

  4. Kevin:

    Good points, but I disagree in a couple ways:

    1) A government dropping an appeal is by no means an admission of guilt; rather, they know that it is politically unpopular to put further taxpayer resources into fighting something that has already been expertly (and erroneously) framed as pitting the government against women.

    2) I agree with you here; IMHO the onus should be on the court to quantify the wrong, using submissions from both sides. Just like sentencing in criminal cases.

    3) I agree here again, but disagree with the underlying premise that (allegedly) discriminatory pay structures warrant “pain and suffering” damages. I haven’t seen any evidence of nurses losing limbs over this.

  5. Kevin says:

    RE Vigna v. Levant:

    I agree with your assessment that the judge’s comment goes to an assessment of malice, but I ‘m not sure what comfort you take from that. The thrust of the decision confirms that Levant sacrificed accuracy in order to pursue his “denormalization” agenda, which prevented him from availing himself of journalism-type defences against libel. I would see that as a warning to all bloggers on this (or any political) issue.

    P.S. While I have regularly commented on this blog as “Kevin”, I felt like I should confirm that those alst few comments are not me. I’m not sure but I htink it’s the first time I’ve seen another “Kevin” commenting here.

  6. Hm, I see what you mean. That means that the courts must decide if the motive behind the communication is political in nature, or is within the realm of “objective journalism”, as if such a thing exists. Simply making that distinction requires a political decision by the judge.

    I didn’t catch the different IDs of the two Kevins who are commenting. Looking back, you both have “kevin” in your e-mail addresses, so it appears to be a coincidence. I should have guessed as much – the grammar and writing styles are very different.

  7. […] I am beginning to see (thanks Kevin) the serious ramifications of the Levant vs Vigna decision. Essentially, the judge has decided that […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: