First: Another page out of the book I’m writing, “1001 ways to exploit your ‘disability'”:
A BC government worker prefers to wear shorts to work. When his employer demanded that all employees wear pants for safety reasons (Which is the norm in a lot of workplaces I have been in) he complained that his varicose veins were irritated when he wears pants. Voila! He now has a human right to wear shorts to work.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal is entertaining this silliness. And truly disabled people across the country groan and slap their foreheads.
Second: An Ontario law student claims that Veganism should be a protected creed under the Code. Honestly, I do have a shred of sympathy for this one; the vegans that I know are pretty religious about it, and I think it’s reasonable that one’s religious dietary restrictions should be respected within reason for law-abiding citizens in public institutions like hospitals. Prisoners, on the other hand, should just be content that the taxpayer is actually feeding them anything.
Third: I’m actually disappointed that the anti-Semitic comic Dieudonné will not be coming to Canada for his scheduled shows. Not because I agree with anything this lunatic has to say, but more to test the mettle and impartiality of our provincial and federal censors. If Mark Steyn receives a public rebuke in Ontario and several days of hearings in BC for writing a piece critical of Muslims, and Guy Earle was put in the proverbial stocks for putting down some homosexual hecklers, you’d imagine Dieudonné would be symbolically tied to the bumper of Barbara Hall’s hybrid Hummer and dragged through the city, would you not?
Fourth: Among several other points of argument, there is one aspect to this Toronto Star editorial by the AODA that is particularly disingenuous. The author makes an erroneous assumption that all human rights complainants are automatically victims. It ignores the presumption of innocence. It also ignores the fact that often the respondents are victims of vexatious or spurious complaints, and often have had their human rights under the Code violated as well. Slanting the process towards the complainants is simply a miscarriage of justice, any way you look at it.
Fifth: I’ll give Paul Schneidereit of the Herald the last word on the T-shirt fracas, in a well-worded, balanced editorial forwarded to me by a loyal reader.
I’m no human rights expert, but it strikes me if you need an expert to tell you what could be “reasonably interpreted” from a five-word message, perhaps that’s a clue that someone, somewhere has, um, over-reacted.