First: Brian Coldin is a self-described “naturist” who enjoys walking around in the buff – in public. He has had multiple run-ins with the police, to the point that he launched a human rights complaint, claiming that law enforcement is discriminating on the basis of creed. Coldin himself commented (inarticulately) on these pages in the past in his defence.
His lawyers brought forward constitutional arguments in an Ontario court to ask that laws requiring clothing in public be struck down. Recently, the court declined to strike down the laws, and sentenced him to two years of probation for patronizing two fast-food restaurants in the nude. Which now will hopefully permit the police a leg-up in the human rights hearing. That is, assuming that the OHRT considers it within the Code for police to keep tabs on lawbreakers…
Second: Several doctors in New Brunswick want to reopen the abortion debate – though it’s not in the direction that you might think. A human rights complaint was launched against the government in 2008 which argued that its funding formula for abortion procedures is discriminatory. New Brunswick will only pay for abortions that have been declared medically necessary by two doctors. Now see if you can understand this pretzel-inducing logic:
The complainant is a female doctor. She wants her patients to be given taxpayer-funded abortions on-demand. She believes that she, as a woman, is discriminated against on the basis of sex because she needs to put her patients through the pain and anguish of this procedure in order to get a free abortion. Discriminatory how? A male doctor wouldn’t quite feel that same pain and anguish, apparently.
Ridiculous logic aside, the New Brunswick Commission gleefully accepted the window of opportunity to impose their own social order on the province. The complainant herself has even intimated that the complaint has little to do with her own suffering, and everything to do with “reopening the abortion debate in New Brunswick”. The government has now gone to provincial court in an attempt to stop the hearing. Let’s hope they succeed.
Third: Heh. The BC Human Rights Tribunal was almost enlisted on behalf of the villains in a case over systemic verbal abuse at a Surrey condominium. The judge eventually ordered the offenders – a middle-aged woman and her 20-year-old son – to sell their condo and move out, after he was presented with hundreds of allegations of offensive and intimidating behavior. The woman, at one point, went the route of many other societal troublemakers, and filed a human rights complaint. Her allegation? Fellow residents should “accommodate” being labeled a filthy whore, among other less savory insults, due to her son’s autism. The complaint was withdrawn when no evidence was presented.
Fourth: Joseph Brean at the National Post put together a great article on the quandry that Richard Warman and Section 13 now find themselves in. I hope Brean dotted all his i’s and crossed his t’s, cuz a lawsuit is never far away when Warman’s conduct is being discussed…
Fifth: A good scrawl by Brian Lilley – you don’t like human rights commissions? What do you have against fuzzy, cuddly kittens?