First: Bombardier is slapped with $300,000 in damages for daring to listen to US security authorities when they branded someone seeking pilot training as a potential terrorist risk. After American authorities cleared him, Bombardier immediately admitted him to the training program – but he still launched – and won – his complaint. The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal in essence convicted American authorities, who were not party to this complaint nor were they present to defend themselves, for racial profiling. And Bombardier gets to pick up the tab because, well, the QHRT can make them.
I can already hear the ignorant choruses of American politicians accusing us of training the next 9/11 pilots, under the protective wing of the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal…
Second: The CHRC is appealing the federal court ruling in which their ineptness to give the proper notice led to the dismissal of penalties against white supremacist Terry Tremaine. We already know that the CHRC holds the stringent standards in the justice/legal system in contempt, but I can’t see them convincing the federal Court of Appeal to bend the rules for them.
Third: An employee of Canada Mental Health Association tried to file a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of having a boyfriend. She complained that the complainant’s supervisor reduced the amount of attention after he learned she had a boyfriend. BCHRT member Tonie Beharrell couldn’t quite stretch the Code to cover “romantic status“, but allowed the complaint to proceed as a sexual harassment case. BC is probably the only jurisdiction in which you can be charged for sexual harassment for an absence of interaction.
Fourth: Another erratic instalment in this poorly-done series on Canada’s Human Rights System by Troy Media quotes Janet Keeping of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation, who seems to comment in favour of censorship:
“I think it’s good that we gave up some language that was always exclusive and hurtful,” she says, “but I also think that there is a point beyond which it’s ridiculous, and we’re into absurdity.”
However, Keeping also believes it’s good that people struggle to use the right language today – gender-neutral words, for example.
Of what I know of Keeping, this is a marked departure from her past position to do away with the censorship provisions in the CHRA, and therefore I expect that these quotes were taken a little out of context. Likewise, Natalie Des Rosiers of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association comes across as being absurd in this quote:
But getting rid of them would be a mistake, says Des Rosiers. “We know the work of the human rights commissions is more and more necessary with all the new forms of discrimination, such as war and terrorism.
How do you discriminate against someone on the basis of war? Or terrorism, for that matter – I can’t refuse service to someone with bombs strapped around their waist?
Judging by the rest of the article, the bizarrity of these quotes are probably more a fault of the author than the interviewees.
Fifth: The first newsletter from the SUFF campaign describes how Jennifer Lynch was successful in controlling the damage from the Steyn/Levant complaints:
For the most part, Lynch succeeded. The din about Section 13 receded. So did the public’s interest into the other parts of the federal and provincial Human Rights acts and codes; laws that were regularly being used to override the fundamental freedoms of Canadians, often with a startling degree of bias. The bureaucrats had learned their lesson: press their mandate only against those who don’t have the wherewithal to go public with their case, as Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant did.
Sixth: Christian bed & breakfast owners are on trial in England in cases similar to one currently before the BCHRT. As is typical in these cases, it’s not only the actions of devout Christians that are being attacked, but also their beliefs:
[the complainants] said she was breaching discrimination laws and that they were horrified by the former air hostess’s ‘outdated and abhorrent views’.