First:And you thought Barbara Hall was bad? How about failed election candidate Bernie “Burny” Farber?
The rumour mill has it that former Canadian Jewish Congress leader and Ontario Liberal candidate Bernie Farber is a contender to replace Hall.
As Anthony Furey points out, Mr. Farber doesn’t like the word “tolerance” because it “is far from accepting, or better yet, celebrating each other…”. You mean, meticulously-choreographed North-Korea-style forced celebrations? I’m sure Barbara would be on-board with that, if only the “highest law in the province” (the Ontario Human Rights Code) allowed her to.
Second: As part of the speech in which Hall insinuated that the Ontario parliament had to bow before her pronouncements, Hall makes plenty more statements that are fodder for this blog (somewhat paraphrased):
– The Human Rights Code already includes gender identity as a “prohibited ground of discrimination”. Barb read that into her legislation. You boneheaded parliamentarians are just starting to catch up to the fact that I make the laws around here, and you follow behind with the piece of paper that makes it legal.
– Private schools shouldn’t be exempt from Bill 13, which mandates gay-straight alliances in all schools but doesn’t seem to care much for the 94% of bullying that doesn’t involve sexual orientation. Heck, why stop at private schools? Churches, rotary clubs, pick-up basketball games, and even individual families should be forced to have these clubs too!
– That infernal right to freedom of expression is just a ‘peripheral right’ and can be overridden with abandon. After all, when a real right conflicts with a made-up one, I get to pick and choose which right to take away from you.
– It’s important to name the groups that we are targeting with bullying legislation. That way we don’t need to care about all the bullied kids who don’t fall in these groups. A little discrimination makes my job much easier.
– We support re-education of all teachers, students, administration, and the public if they don’t share my beliefs. So-called freedom of religion, after all, is another ‘peripheral’ right.
Third: These two guys bring up a salient point that is worth a discussion amongst the adults of this nation. that point is, should the state have the power to ban masks during protests. Unfortunately, the protagonists aren’t employing an appropriate forum to work out the matter. They plan to file a human rights complaint, alleging that their right to security of their person is being violated because they want to protest potentially violent whackos without their identity being discovered:
I file this formal complaint on the grounds that the new Montreal City bylaw violates my freedoms under the Quebec Charter, thus placing myself and others in danger of physical harm and threats from the Church of Scientology.
This reasoning is flawed. I could use the same to argue that I need land mines in my lawn to protect myself from home invaders. Instead, they should pursue the issue along the lines that one’s choice of clothing – including a mask – is part and parcel with our right to freedom of expression.
…but we all know how much Quebec’s human rights apparatus values that right.
Fourth: Another turban controversy, this time in soccer. To which I reply, as always, if it’s good for the Sikh, it’s good for the Secular. Should the Sikh get to wear headgear, then so can the non-Sikh.
Fifth: Barb wants a holiday in her honor. Well, I guess it doesn’t mention her specifically, but still…