First: Another day, another Tribunal decision overturned by a real court with a scathing rebuttal from a real judge. A Muslim woman was awarded $36,000 for having to endure workplace policies concerning the dress code and policy for using the company microwave. Let’s see what the court had to say about this decision (emphasis mine):
- the manner in which the adjudicator dealt with the inability of a key witness for the employer to attend the hearing was a denial of procedural fairness;
- the findings with respect to the microwave policy are flawed by legal errors and lack factual findings to support the legal conclusions reached;
- the reasons with respect to the dress code policy are inadequate to explain how the policy was discriminatory against Ms. Saadi, either with respect to its content or how it was applied, and fail to address applicable legal issues;
- the adjudicator unreasonably refused to permit Ms. Telfer to present a photographic image to explain her objection to Ms. Saadi’s clothing, which interfered with the employer’s ability to present its case;
- the findings with respect to the hijab are unsupportable and flawed by legal errors;
- the finding that it is discriminatory for a man to be present at a meeting to discuss the style of business dress required of female employees is unsupportable in fact or law;
- the conclusion that the termination was discriminatory was dependent upon the other findings of discrimination and is not sustainable on its own;
- the conclusion that the termination was discriminatory was heavily dependent upon drawing an adverse inference with respect to the failure of Mr. Barnett to testify for the employer, which was both unreasonable and legally incorrect and which compounded the procedural unfairness in proceeding with the hearing in his absence; and
- there is an overall failure to refer to evidence to support critical findings of fact, including findings of credibility that are either conclusory or missing altogether, and the reasons are inadequate to support the conclusions reached or to permit meaningful judicial review.
Second: Some commentary from Mesopotamia West regarding the birth of Canada’s Charter and the flawed Canadian concept of human rights. According to a book about Trudeau, the impetus for his enshrining of the Charter in our constitution was not about preserving individual rights, Rather, it was about disarming individuals to leave them vulnerable to external control by organized groups:
Actually, there are two problems with [Trudeau’s] individual rights concept. The first is an internal contradiction and the second, external.
The internal contradiction is that if you raise individual rights to the ultimate level, as the Charter does, you also have to provide a way for an individual to protect those rights and you have to say those rights include the individual’s property. Individual rights can’t be protected by the state for the same reason prices on individual goods can’t be set by the state (Adam Smith). To defend individual rights you have to allow the individual the right to defend them.
This could be done in Canada in the Charter by including the right to concealed carry of weapons and the right to own property. Neither are in the Charter.
The external contradiction is that when any group in society attacks the individuals in an ‘open society’ around it, that group will succeed. It will succeed because groups acting together have more power than individuals acting separately. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia is a case in point. They were a minority in the revolution, but they were tightly organized.
This is why the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be the likely winner, eventually, in the Egyptian unrest.
Mesopotamia West blames Trudeau’s dangerous vision on his religion, specifically Roman Catholicism, and its alleged tendency to work towards cultural supremacy. What must be pointed out are the religious underpinnings to liberalism and the concepts of human rights to begin with. They were not developed as a secular means to check the power of the king and the Catholic church, but were rather incubated and eventually put into practice by Protestant Christians as an expression of their religion, and not a rebuke to it.
Third: Ezra Levant was hit again for Giacomo Vigna’s legal costs. Criticizing the HRCs is expensive business.
Fourth: There might be a typo in this article, but it appears that an Edmontonian of Egyptian descent is considering a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, concerning the Egyptian government’s decision to cut off internet in that country. What exactly does he expect the CHRC to do about it? Send Jennifer Lynch to Egypt to preach human rights to Hosni Mubarak? Actually, that doesn’t sound like such a bad idea…