First: A new twist to the overturning of the Tribunal decision I talked about last time, which highlights the lengths to which the apparatchiks are willing to go to stamp out those they deem as politically incorrect:
A Mississauga businesswoman whose home was ordered seized to pay an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal award to a former employee can keep her house — for now.
The Superior Court struck down the “fatally flawed” decision as so unfair to defendant Maxcine Telfer — who represented herself in the hearing — that it was “simply not possible to logically follow the pathway taken by the adjudicator.”
That October 2009 decision ordered Telfer to pay $36,000 to a woman who had been her employee for six weeks. Lawyers wanted the sheriff to seize and sell Telfer’s home to collect the money
Tell a Muslim woman that her food smells bad – lose your house.
Second: Final arguments were given in the Nunziata vs Berger case, which even the media refers to as a “he said she said” affair. Why we’re spending taxpayer dollars over a dispute with little evidence and even less credibility, as opposed to letting these two duke it out in civil court on their own dime, is beyond me.
Third: A social worker has launched a complaint against her employer, alleging that she hasn’t been promoted because of her race. Yet, when asked, she says,
“I’m not playing the race card,” said Henry, a mother of five. “This is about 20 years of working within a system, and being beaten down and deprived of opportunities.”
Maybe; but white people who feel “beaten down and deprived of opportunities” don’t get to launch a human rights complaint. So yes, by launching a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race with only circumstantial evidence, you are definitely playing the race card.
Fourth: I have always said that our very freedom of conscience is under threat by the Human Rights Commissions. Take, for example, the right to grow a beard:
For example, a man working in a soup kitchen may have grown a beard for religious reasons or simply from a lack of maintenance – the difference in rationale matters to the tribunal in determining whether the employee deserves protection, or deserves to go.
The Tribunal puts itself in the position of probing the complainant’s mind to determine if growing the beard is part of a sincerely held “religious” belief. Ergo, your very conscience dictates the rights that you may or may not have before our human rights system.
Fifth: Speaking of he-said he-said complaints, this one has been needlessly escalated:
Salah Rahmani complained to the department back in March 2010 after a faculty member on his supervisory committee allegedly made the remarks, but he says he was stonewalled.
Rahmani says that he went to both the graduate co-ordinator Paul Melançon and department chair Richard Rachubinski with his concerns on separate occasions, but he says Rachubinski subsequently asked him to sign an apology letter for falsely accusing a faculty member of racism.
Rahmani went on to launch a human rights complaint. The AHRC is licking its chops.
Sixth: Charles McVety’s program Word TV, after being hit with various CBSC violations for his colorful criticisms of homosexuality, has now been barred from the airwaves by CTS Television. While not a clear-cut case of direct government censorship, anyone who is familiar with the way broadcast standards work knows that CTS’s licence with the CRTC (government agency) would be threatened if the programs it airs generate CBSC complaints.