The Lynch List, 08-Dec-2010

A big List for you today…

First: This one is interesting. BCF has reported on this before, but I didn’t see it until now. Allegedly, health officials in Kingston General Hospital bowed to the whims of a new Muslim mother who insisted that male visitors of other patients sharing the room not use the washroom, and that they must vacate the room when she breastfed. That led to a complaint by a white woman who had just undergone emergency c-section and wanted her husband to help care for the baby. The hospital responded to the complaint – by moving the white woman to another room and charging her $750 for the privilege of having her husband at her side.

The other option for the hospital would have been to give the Muslim woman the private room and not charge her anything. But that would be expensive. So they went for the most despicable option: give her the common room for free and charge the white woman for a private room.

One commenter on this case suggests that the non-Muslim parties have a case for a Human Rights complaint. In doing so, he repeats a refrain I often use when those of the non-“vulnerable” classes consider a human rights complaint:

If the Ontario Human Rights Commission takes their case, it will finally show that it is willing to provide equal protection to everybody who has been wronged. Even though the plaintiffs are white people.

If it refuses to take it, that’s also good. The Commission will show once again that it caters only to the special interest groups and religious fanatics, who little by little are destroying Canada.

Second: A Kamloops woman is involving the BCHRT in a legal fight between the board of Kamloops Immigrant Services and a group of employees who were trying to have the board replaced. I can just see the group sitting around a table, trying to find some grounds by which they could launch a complaint. “Gay? Nope. Minority? No. I guess we’ll just have to go with female.”

Tribunal member Enid Marion has refused to dismiss the complaint, adding tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills to the taxpayer’s burden.

Third: Howard Levitt on the CHRT dramatically expanding the obligations of employers to staff with children (emphasis mine):

The impact this decision will have for all employers, over time, if it is not overturned on appeal, will almost assuredly be an increased demand among parents to work from home, a practice from which most employers derive little benefit; and as parents use this decision to secure desirable shifts, there will be a backlash from employees without children, who find themselves increasingly relegated to less desirable working hours.

Sounds like the CHRT is entrenching discrimination in our society…

Fourth: Hmm. You think a Tribunal hearing is a place to hear evidence?

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal had no hesitation in concluding that Newton was subjected to a sexually poisoned work environment.  Of interest, the tribunal heard no evidence on the workplace environment, but relied upon the comments made by the investigator from the human rights office in her report.

Hah! A Human Rights Inquisitor Investigator’s word is plenty enough to satisfy the “balance of probabilities”. Guilty!

Fifth: Xanthippa is following the Warman vs Free Dominion defamation suit. Not exactly involving the Human Rights Commission, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will be following this one earnestly. How happy they would be if the courts continue to erode any right to privacy on the internet!

Sixth: The BCHRT believes that some respondents should remain anonymous because the allegations may “damage [his] reputation and embarrass him if they were made public”.

Couldn’t that apply to every single respondent?

Seventh: Ask a black lawyer for his credentials? That will cost you $2000.

Eighth: The BCHRT furthers its campaign in making young women as unappealing to employers as possible:

The inn denied it fired Sutton because of her pregnancy, claiming the termination was because of her unreliability. It said it made it clear to Sutton when she was hired it needed a reliable person for the night shift job because it was difficult to cover on short notice. However, of the 28 shifts she had worked, she was absent for one full shift and three partials, including the night she went to the hospital plus two other times when she went home early claiming she wasn’t feeling well.

Need job security? Get pregnant!

Advertisements

2 Responses to The Lynch List, 08-Dec-2010

  1. […] THE LYNCH LIST– The Lynch List, 13-Dec-2010; The Lynch List, 10-Dec-2010; The Lynch List, 08-Dec-2010 …. […]

  2. […] THE LYNCH LIST– The Lynch List, 13-Dec-2010; The Lynch List, 10-Dec-2010; The Lynch List, 08-Dec-2010 …. […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: