First: This case has finally gone to its foregone conclusion. In the words of the BCHRT member presiding over the case, “The University went beyond what was legally required to do and took steps to accommodate Mr. Gerd’son after it decided to evict him.”
So if UBC dotted its i’s and crossed its t’s, will they be compensated for the grief that Mr. Gerd’son put them through with his vexatious litigation, not to mention the considerable resources they were forced to expend? The real courts laughed at the case, but the BCHRT took over a year before finally clearing UBC’s name.
Second: A somewhat amusing complaint about being denied entry into a nightclub because of the moccasins she was wearing. Was the bouncer inappropriate? You be the judge. Should this be before a human rights tribunal? I think we can all agree on that.
Third: Karen Selick comes out guns a’blazing against the Human Rights Tribunals in a principled piece that even criticizes – wait for it – Exra Levant for being too easy on the ‘roos. She agrees that the Codes should be abolished:
Human rights codes have fabricated a phoney “right” to be free from discrimination and used it to override a panoply of genuine human rights, including: freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of contract and control over one’s private property. There can be no such thing as the right to violate someone else’s rights. It’s a contradiction in terms. The only solution to this seeming paradox is the complete repeal of the human rights codes, not mere changes to the enforcement mechanisms.
Joseph Obagi, a litigation lawyer (and financial beneficiary of the system), disputes her claims:
[Without human rights tribunals], we would be left with public opinion as the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong for actions which fall short of criminal conduct.
Heaven forbid! The public can’t be deciding what is right and wrong!! Lawyers won’t be making as much money!!