Two big items from the past week:
First: The nation’s judges are in stitches again as another boneheaded human rights decision has come before them for judicial review. We talked before about this case, in which two black lawyers were asked for identification in a lawyers-only lounge. Not only did the three-judge panel throw the decision on its keester, but they also slapped the original complainants with a $20,000 legal tab for frivolous complaints.
The National Post editorializes:
Witch-hunting rights commissions need a dramatic reining-in. Too often they are so bent on finding defendants guilty that they run roughshod over due process and the rights of an accused to a fair hearing.
..and as the complainant beefs about the judges not being racist enough, Stand Up For Freedom writes:
The lead complainant, Selwyn Pieters, is considering an appeal. “If the judges had a critical, race-based lens, they would have seen it from the perspective of an African-Canadian,” he said. Essentially, Mr. Pieters is asking the courts to put aside their impartiality and see things solely from one party’s perspective. Human rights tribunals usually go along with that, but, thankfully, our courts do not.
Second: Storseth’s private member’s bill that seeks to strike out Section 13 has passed its vote at second reading. Voting mostly fell along party lines, which is disappointing. Props to Liberal MP Scott Simms for defying his party consensus and voting to protect our speech freedoms.