Times Like These…

January 20, 2010

It is forced upon one that there is a beautiful trade going the way of the buggy makers. The honourable art and science of being a satirist.

A satirist (for those Liberals who don’t get it) is someone who exaggerates reality. Today, you cannot exaggerate reality.

A while ago I could have probably gotten some few chuckles if I had suggested that someone who publicly calls for the random (or not) murder of (Jewish) civilians could get the government to take seriously his hate speech complaint against someone who (accurately) quoted a couple of imams.

Then again I might not have. Some people like wild exaggerations about the culture of politically correctness and the tone deafness of certain types of activists. Others don’t like satire that they feel is just so inaccurate it’s tasteless. I wouldn’t have blamed anyone for thinking that joke fell into the second category.

Until it happened of course.

So now what do we satirize? Do we make silly jokes about women having the right to be forced to wear sleeves? Oh yeah. Not so much.

However I’ll bet I can come up with something funny given enough time. What if I said this;

“Who cares what you observe. Just because something’s true doesn’t make it legal to talk about it. Idiot.”

Then again why would I make that up when I could just quote this.

““It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.”

I tell you, it’s a dying trade.

But although some people like to compare satirists to rats (and they don’t think about rats the way the Vinyl Cafe’s Rat-a-Tat-Tat does, or even Ratatouille) they are slower to abandon a sinking ship. Some might even say they swim out to sinking ships so that they can go down with them in style but those people have agendas (cue creepy music). Usually trying to advance their career in liberal satire (I’m told it exists but is indistinguishable from liberal serious debate).

So here are some satirical predictions for 2010. And if anyone brings a hate speech charge against me for them, well, I may just have to mail them an English Writing Dictionary 101 (35.99 + tax and you can pay Liberal 7% tax)

The Imam who called for the murder of homosexuals will lodge a HR complaint against the blogger who complained about him on the grounds that that complaint was discriminatory. It was discriminatory because the only reason the blogger brought the case was that the Imam was Muslim. The Tribunal will find him (Imam) a credible witness.

Richard Warman will win the Order of Canada for anti-racism activism. This will mark the first time in Canadian history that someone simultaneously wins a national anti-racism award and is under investigation for racist hate speech.

Jennifer Lynch will lose it in public and will scream at a panel of MPs to get the * out of her Dominion. Said committee will vote to expand the CHRC budget and powers.

Someone will blow up a clogged airport security line while waiting to be frisked. (Okay so everyone’s making this prediction)

Warren Kinsella will wake up one morning to find a Maple Leaf painted on his car by a bunch of irate soldiers. Kinsella will then hyperventilate about the possible offense said leaf might cause agoraphobia communist immigrants.

Warren Kinsella will make nasty remarks about my blog as a result of this prediction. (Okay so I hope this one comes true. I could use the traffic of conservatives who visit Kinsella’s blog to find out who is really worth reading.)

A Green Party member will blow up an airplane to reduce carbon emissions. The Greens will then throw a street party where they celebrate the end of racial/ethnic/religious profiling in airports and burn Mark Steyn and “those deniers” in effigy (as long as they can’t actually get their hands on Steyn and said “deniers”). May will issue a press statement about respecting diversity and the enthusiasm of youth.

All pro-life club members will have to attend mandatory diversity training run by a panel of Elmasry, Morgentaler, and Napolitano (on special loan). “Patients” will not be released until they can read the Toronto Star without screaming. Life sentences will be considered.

Bans on human sacrifice between consenting adults will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

Someone will try to shut down the blogosphere but will be deterred when Blazing Cat Fur and his pet competition buddies collect all feral cats in Toronto and dump them in said killjoy’s bedroom.

On Canada Day all flags are flown at half mast out of respect for Aboriginals. (Except in Newfoundland where they are already flown at half mast so they take them down the other half and send up the laundry)

Ignatieff will disappear and never be seen again except for randomly released videotapes taunting Canadians who are stupid enough to live through Canadian winters (At which point I may find myself agreeing with him so profoundly I could almost vote Liberal. Only if he promises to bring about massive global warming though)

HRT will decide that homeschooling a child is denying them a service (government education) based on discriminatory grounds (I’m guessing religion here).

Someone will kill a cartoonist or author and then bring charges against the dead man for inciting the hate crime of his own murder. Murderer will win.


December OHRT Cases

January 2, 2010

[ ED NOTE: November’s OHRT cases can be checked out at The Miss Marprelate Tracts. ]

Anyone who has ever tried to sift through the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal cases at CanLII will know what I’m talking about when I say it is a headache. You have case decisions mixed in with responses to requests to expediate, add respondents, etc, etc, etc, and it takes a lot of time to find the really interesting stuff. So I have sifted through the cases for December and collected the documents that someone interested in the OHRT might actually want to read.

One thing that strikes you is that in many (not all) of these cases the person bringing charges is not what you would consider a model employee (or client, etc) who was innocently and unfairly subject to discrimination. In many cases the employee charging the company with discrimination was a bad worker, obviously argumentative and difficult, insubordinate, lying, or an opportunist desperately trying to keep their job. It’s nutty reading.

And yes this is some, I’m not saying it is all.

Epileptic woman
asked not to bring service dog to buffet in restaurant. Tribunal found in favour and issued $500 fine.

Woman with one child in subsidized housing claimed discrimination on the basis of family size because her request to receive an expedited upgrade to a larger dwelling was refused. Tribunal dismissed case.

Injured worker, who was in a trial period with his employer, dismissed. Tribunal awards $9,760 and other remedies (training for management staff, etc)

Student complains that makeup school did not include makeup suitable for darker skin tones in makeup kits and that she was expelled when she complained about this. Tribunal dismissed case.

Woman claimed that she was refused admission to law school because she was Russian. Based on her poor academic record the Tribunal dismissed the case.

Woman claimed she was dismissed because of a chemical sensitivity. Respondent alleges that she was dismissed because they were moving the work overseas. Tribunal dismissed the case.

Candidate for President of a Committee claimed that she was not given the position because of gender discrimination. Respondent claims that election process was restarted because of serious allegations of improper notification for voters. Tribunal dismisses case.

Injured employee had a dispute over payment with employer and was dismissed, according to the respondent, for threatening his employer and the company. Tribunal dismissed case.

Construction worker alleges protracted workplace harassment based on gender. Tribunal dismisses case.

Worker alleges improper response to disability and improper payment. Tribunal dismisses case.

Male Real Estate agent uses vulgarity with a female client (who also used a vulgarity). Tribunal finds him guilty of gender discrimination and fines him $300

Applicant defies Tribunal orders (publication ban) and case is dismissed.

Case to determine if applicant was denied church membership in retaliation for bringing a HR charge against church.

Prisoner alleges sexual discrimination because the provincial director did not exercise her discretion to allow applicant to remain in a youth facility when she turned 20.

Applicant fired while on leave for heart surgery. Tribunal orders over $37,000 in compensation.

Worker claims that she was subject to discriminatory comments and actions on the part of the managers at her workplace. Tribunal dismisses case.

Applicant, on return from maternity leave, requests alteration in job from full-time to part-time but insists that she has the right to require job description, hours, and pay in the new position to meet her specifications. Tribunal dismisses case.

Applicant was fired as a result of criminal record. Alleges this was discrimination. Tribunal dismisses case.

Insurance broker, on medical leave, was fired in an office restructure and was not rehired for a different position. Alleges that this was discrimination. Tribunal dismisses case.

Checkmate… Or Not

November 11, 2009

[ ED NOTE: This post is also available at The Miss Marprelate Tracts. ]

The Federal Court has accepted a case that will clarify legislation affecting medical marijuana users and restaurants they frequent.

Many people will remember the OHRC case where Ted Kindos, who runs Gator Ted’s Tap and Grill, was found guilty of discrimination for asking a medical marijuana user, Steve Gibson, who was smoking in his doorway to leave.

Health Canada advises medical users not to consume controlled substances in public.To many people, it is a simple matter of common sense and decency. If you must take something that is offensive to others, try to do so in private or at least in such a way as to minimize the effect on bystanders. At the very least, it could have a bad influence on young people who might be at risk for addictions.

But the Commission for the Protection of Discourteous Behaviour (otherwise known as the OHRC) seems to make it’s living enabling people who break the rules of courtesy and common thoughtfulness.

In the end Kindos was ordered, among other things, to put up “We accommodate medical marijuana smokers” signs.

Then the Ontario Alcohol and Gaming Commission showed up on the scene. Turns out that accommodating medical marijuana users could get your liquor licence revoked.

Naturally stuck between breaking the law and…. breaking the law, Ted Kindos decided to go to court.

Kindos is now asking that medical marijuana users not be permitted to smoke in public places or licensed establishments. As well, he is asking that Steve Gibson have his marijuana permit revoked for using it improperly.

The Federal Court has decided that the restaurant “ought to have its day in this court”.

By the way, on the subject of nice people, a quote from Steven Gibson our oppressed justice and human rights fighter, “People didn’t like the way I smell, but I don’t like a lot of smells either, I can’t bare to stand near some chicks, they’ve got so much perfume on, let alone some ethnics that I don’t like the smell of that much.” The Star.com

Gator Ted’s allegations that Gibson was an offensive, fill-in-the-blank, jerk are becoming more and more credible all the time.

For further reading