First: Ah, yes. Round and round we go. The CHRC (your tax dollars) is appealing the Tribunal decision (your tax dollars) that refused to contravene Canada’s constitution by forcing the federal government to top up First Nations child welfare funding (with your tax dollars) to provincial levels. Of course, the defendent in both the Tribunal decision and now the federal court appeal is the federal government itself (your tax dollars).
So when will someone “fight” for the taxpayer?
Second: The Canadian Bar Association isn’t too happy with the way Tribunal members are re-appointed:
I then focus on a current proceeding before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that, in my view, demonstrates some of the negative consequences of the lack of a fair, transparent and merit‐based reappointment process.
Merit-based? Keep dreaming.
Third: The events happened back in 2001, but they’re now being brought forward as part of a pattern of discrimination in a complaint by a female police officer in Durham. While she brings forward serious allegations that should be investigated by police (which they are), the human rights complaint deals with a specific incident in which she was commanded by her superior officer to search a rowdy inmate. It’s part of a police officer’s job – unless she’s pregnant, apparently.
She claims that her subsequent miscarriage after the scuffle with the prisoner is grounds for a human rights complaint. Which leads me to callously ask: if you can’t fulfill the duties of your job, why are you doing it? Look at it this way: if I’m running away from a knife-wielding assailant, can the responding police officer refuse to intervene because she might suffer a miscarriage?
Fourth: Amnesty International continues their campaign to preserve Canada’s system for forcibly advancing progressivism, namely the Human Rights Tribunals. In decrying Saskatchewan’s effort to increase the standard of justice, they complain that the robes that real judges wear are, well, too intimidating for the downtrodden seeking human rights
A tribunal is also a much more relaxed and less expensive setting than the formality and complexity of a courtroom. Rules of evidence are not as stringent. Claimants are not faced with the intimidation that comes with such trappings as lawyers and judges wearing robes. Given that human rights complainants very often come from marginalized, low-income communities, this informality goes far in boosting both comfort and confidence.
As always, they propose a system that has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with stacking the deck against the respondent.
Fifth: The latest from Stand Up for Freedom: The CHRC plays fast and loose with definitions.