The Lynch List, 16-May-2011

First: Howard Levitt points out the ulterior motive of the HRCs in working towards the abolition of mandatory retirement policies: fertile ground for new complaints.

I ask in what way does this employee not fit? Is the employee older than the rest of the workforce? Is he slowing down? If any of these factors are found to play a role in their assessment of “fit,” I warn them about exposure to human rights complaints, which have increased since the abolition of mandatory retirement. Smarter employee counsels are looking at such factors as well.

Seeing as how the onus is on the company to prove that their hiring/firing decisions did not take age into account, older employers are now realizing it costs them nothing to roll the dice and force their employers into a Tribunal hearing, in the hopes of scoring some quick cash.

Second: Xtra! reports that the marathon human rights complaint of Paul Richard has finally met an ignoble end – 25 years after the alleged incidents occurred. True to form, the “victim of discrimination” lashes out with stereotypes at the nearest right-winger that they can find:

Richard believes the Conservative party has stacked the courts with potentially homophobic Harper cronies

Third: Free Dominion has posted the hearing dates for the judicial review of the Lemire decision (thanks BCF). Mark your calendars for December 13 and 14. While I’d like to think that the federal court will be definitive, I have a feeling we’ll be headed for the Supreme Court either way. Let us also in the same breath remember that the Whatcott case is heading to the SCC – the intervenors are starting to line up for that one, including the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Fourth: A glimpse into the warped and twisted reasoning of human rights hucksters (from Mercatornet):

“Let us agree,” I say in my workshop, “that no one should go to prison for respectfully stating an opinion which does not advocate violence.”

“No!” angry voices shout back at me. “People should go to prison for what they say if it is a negative comment against a vulnerable minority group, especially when they are in a position of power!”

…I mention the case of a Berlin pharmacist who refuses to sell the morning after pill. Radical feminists smashed his windows and wrecked the pharmacy. “Rightly so,” says another participant of FRA’s Fundamental Rights Platform. “He violated the right of access to medical care!” Heavy nodding from the audience.

I am not sure whether to be surprised, shocked or scared.

Fifth: Mark Steyn figures out that his American tax dollars don’t buy what they used to – just a horribly inaccurate “report” on Canada’s censorship laws…

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: