A Must Read...

Gay caveman probably not gay or a caveman

...but keep in mind if you bring it up for discussion that now, unlike 2500 BC, you have to deal with Human Right Tribunals and their legions of window blind commandos.

IMHO Hall Not Being Truthfull...

...when she says during her days playing sports she never suffered a concussion or brain damage; if this is not the case maybe she can explain a lot of the stupid and unfair decisions handed down by HRCs.

Drawn Off Topic

Barbara Hall on head shots

Talking current affairs with not the usual sources

Isn't This The Truth....

The Year in Ideas: The death of humour
The year has been notable for the amount of offence that was taken at so little. In Canada especially, where hurt feelings are now specifically compensated in human rights law, taking offence looks like a growth industry

Two Views...

University of Windsor fires back at failed law dean candidate

In response to the human rights complaint over its search for a new dean of law, the University of Windsor says the failed candidate has a reputation for being vindictive, and she lacks “sufficient scholarly gravitas”

"B" is for Bonkers: Leftist Lunacy in the Deranged Dominion

"University of Windsor fires back at failed law dean candidate".This National Post article may have more leftist lunacy per square inch than any other article in the history of Canadian journalism.It's got:* A former NDP political...


The way the Ball bounces







Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/#ixzz1549ziTGw

Presented In A Manner Even Leftists Can Understand...

George Jonas: The Charter should defend individuals, not restrict universities


Here’s a tale of free speech. Sometimes it’s possible for a sign on the front lawn saying “I love life” to coexist peacefully with a neighbour’s sign saying “I love choice.” The neighbours may even nod to each other at the bus stop.

Things can get rocky when the choice-loving neighbour has more disposable income than the one who prefers life, and decides to erect a sign that blinks after sunset. Still, conflict isn’t inevitable. Unblinking neighbour can get a bank loan and make his own sign blink, or decide there’s more to life than blinking.

Things get more complicated when a municipality sets up a Blinking Sign Standards Enforcement Agency that makes unblinking neighbour fancy that blinking neighbour’s sign exceeds regulation height. Snitching requires no bank loan, but being forced to retain a local obfuscator who specializes in Blinking Lights Law does. Five thousand dollars later, when Commissioners Blinking, Winking and Nod decide that the impugned sign satisfies Section 2/-235 of the Signage and Sundry Act, there’s plenty of bad blood between neighbours. Read More »

What Would Have Been Jone's Punishment...

...in any other jurisdiction other than the USA?

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD

Preacher’s destructive campaign shines a light on freedom of speech

Hmm!...

...can the descriptive "black" lead to a Human Rights Tribunal hearing?

Bastions Of Learning Becoming Battlefields And It Makes You Wonder...

...why you don't hear more about the actions taken by the universities to discipline and expel "students" that preach hate coupled with physical attacks. I am sure if similar situations were directed towards females, blacks, aboriginals and homosexuals prompt and punitive action would be taken posthaste.

Machete used in anti-Semitic attack, Ottawa students say

A student supporter of Israel at Carleton University and an Israeli engineering student at the university say they are lucky to have survived...

HRCs Hijacked By Pompous Left Wing Twits

John Ivison: 

Laws should protect against hate, not against being offended

Posted: April 02, 2010, 10:48 PM by Gillian Grace

A bad night at Zesty's and other tales of the rights tribunal

Margaret Wente

So this lesbian walks into a Vancouver club and a part-time stand-up comic lets loose … Apr 03, 2010 2:03AM EDT 0 0

Shake Your Head In Wonderment...

Canadian human rights law: A contradiction in terms

Ian Hunter, National Post

The Mohawk elders of Kahnawake, Que., have served eviction notices on non-native residents who live on their reserve. Meanwhile, the Quebec Human Rights Commission has evicted a mid-60s woman with a bum shoulder from her condo parking space and given the space instead to a 57-year-old woman who weighs 389 pounds.

The Mohawk Elders of Kahnawake say: Our Reserve is for us. Therefore, non-natives must go. "This is not about ethnic cleansing," said Mohawk Grand Chief Mike Delisle, "it's about self-preservation."

This is not about a parking space, says the Quebec Human Rights Commission, it's about discrimination.

A naive Canadian -- one, say, who recently had glanced through our holy writ, the Charter of Rights -- might think there was something amiss in people, some of whom had lived in the same home for decades, being evicted solely on the basis of race or ethnicity; they would be forgetting that Canadian law does not apply on reserves. At least, not according to the human rights consensus, which supposes our Indians to comprise a sovereign nation nestled within the bosom of another sovereign nation called Canada.

This might seem an oxymoron, but rights rhetoric lives by oxymoron; it's how discrimination gets to be called affirmative action. Besides, if we challenge rights rhetoric, we might end up with another Oka or Caledonia, and who wants that? Certainly not the Minister of Indian Affairs, Chuck Strahl, who said: "Whether I like the [Kahnawake] decision or not, these are decisions made by First Nations people on their own land. It is not for me to make these decisions, nor for the government."

Meanwhile, over in Sainte-Marie, Que., Jocelyne Nolet bought a condominium unit, as did Marise Myrand. Ms. Nolet also bought a parking spot by the front door; she has a sore shoulder, and didn't want to have to carry her groceries too far. Ms. Myrand, all 389 pounds of her, coveted that parking spot. The condo board, not relishing the prospect of being sandwiched between the two women, urged them to work it out between themselves. They could not.

So, in true Canadian fashion, Ms. Myrand went off to the Human Rights Commission to complain. And in true human rights fashion, her complaint was upheld. Ms. Nolet must give up her parking spot on March 1. The condo

board has been fined $10,000, the money to come from other condo owners who presumably don't care much who parks nearest to the door.

"The condo association did not want to take its responsibility to accommodate the woman," said Quebec Human Rights Commission lawyer Pierre-Yves Boudreau, "It's reasonable accommodation."

Well, it's reasonable for the obese Ms. Myrand, perhaps less so for Ms. Nolet of the sore shoulder. It has long been clear in human rights jurisprudence that there is a hierarchy of prohibited grounds of discrimination; race and sex always trump, say, religion or age. We shall now await the formulation of a hierarchy of disability; obesity, we now know, trumps a sore shoulder.

Just what was the condo board supposed to do? Unless both women drove Smart cars (unlikely in the case of Ms. Myrand), the Solomonic precedent of cutting the space in half wouldn't do the trick. One of the two residents had to be disappointed. And it's the iron fist of the human rights bureaucracy that picks which one.

The evicted property owners of Kahnawake are without a remedy because Canadian law is not applied on Indian reserves. Ms. Nolet is without a remedy because human rights law is applied to private parking places -- but in a manner that any reasonable person would consider to be totally arbitrary.

I remember years ago participating in a panel on human rights law at the University of Ottawa with, among others, the late Gordon Fairweather, the first chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He severely upbraided me at the time for suggesting that human rights rhetoric stands common sense and meaning on its head and leads, inevitably, to fantasy land. Gordon, wherever you are, I rest my case.

-Ian Hunter is professor emeritus in the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario.

Did The Quebec HRC Consider This...

TaichungCanuck Says:
February 10, 2010 at 5:02 pm

According to the article, the complainant weighs 389 lbs, has diabetes, is in a wheelchair, and needs an oxygen tank to breathe.
The real question here is: Should she even be driving?

Canada: Where Parking Is A Human Right

February 10, 2010 — Adrian MacNair

Not to invite a human rights complaint of my own here, but wouldn’t walking a few extra metres to the front door help with the whole morbid obesity problem?

MONTREAL — A morbidly obese Quebec woman with various health problems has won her legal fight for a better parking spot.
Not only has Marise Myrand won that parking upgrade outside her condominium, but her condo association has also been slapped with a $10,000 penalty for refusing her request.
The move came in a precedent-setting ruling distributed Wednesday by a tribunal of the Quebec Human Rights Commission.
The 57-year-old resident of Sainte-Marie, Que., weighs 389 lbs., suffers from diabetes, needs a wheelchair, and gets help breathing from an oxygen tank.

In the decision the Tribunal ordered Jocelyne Nolet, already in her sixties and also disabled, to give up her parking spot. In its ruling, the tribunal noted that the Quebec Charter of Rights gives everyone equal rights “without distinction, exclusion or preference.” So now we know that being morbidly obese is a guarantor of a good parking spot as being an inherent “human right”, and not just a courtesy as we previously believed.

Posted in canada. Tags: human rights commission, Marise Myrand, morbid obesity, quebec. 7 Comments »

1. issachar Says:
   February 10, 2010 at 4:29 pm Funnily enough, this sort of thing is what the “human rights” commissions and tribunals were supposed to be doing in the first place. They were intended to settle minor disputes and reconcile the parties involved without full fledge lawsuits. It was only later that they got bored with this and decided that it was more interesting attack magazines and columnists.
   Although I’m not sure how a $10,000 fine works with the whole “reconciliation” angle.
   
2. Adrian MacNair Says:
   February 10, 2010 at 4:36 pm Is funnily a word? Damn, apparently it is!
   
3. TaichungCanuck Says:
   February 10, 2010 at 5:02 pm According to the article, the complainant weighs 389 lbs, has diabetes, is in a wheelchair, and needs an oxygen tank to breathe.
   The real question here is: Should she even be driving?
   
4. Yuval Levy Says:
   February 10, 2010 at 5:44 pm The Quebec Charter of Rights might give everyone equal rights – “without distinction, exclusion or preference.” as noted by the tribunal, but it does not give the tribunal the right to make such distinction, exclusion or preference either.
   If Ms. Myrand was renting the contested parking spot before Ms. Myrand asked for it (as seems to be the case), the tribunal is making a distinction between Ms. Nolet and Ms. Myrand, and it is excluding Ms. Nolet to make a preference for Ms. Myrand.
   So to fix one woman’s problem, the tribunal discriminates against another? Outrageous! I hope the decision is appealed.
   
5. Sure Says:
   February 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm I am confused. If the ruling stated that the Quebec Charter of Rights gives everyone equal rights “without distinction, exclusion or preference.” did they just rule that handicapped parking spots are illegal in Quebec?
   
6. TaichungCanuck Says:
   February 10, 2010 at 6:02 pm Sure, in the human rights commissions universe, everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.
   
7. Fat Tony Says:
   February 10, 2010 at 7:16 pm It is a distinct society after all.

Welcome Back. Another Quality Contribution

November 25, 2008

A blow to liberal fascism in Canada: Moon recommends repeal of 13

November 25, 2008 was a momentous day for opponents of Canada’s creeping march towards liberal fascism. A week after administrators at one of our most prestigious post-secondary institutions, Queens University, sent a gang of thought police out to campus cafeterias and lounges to eavesdrop on private conversations, the long-awaited Moon Report on the future of the Canada Human Rights Commission was released to the public (read the full report here). Despite the fact that the Commission’s own leader hand-picked the report’s left-leaning law professor writer, and paid him handsomely with Commission funds, Prof. Richard Moon made explicit in no uncertain terms in his report: the now world-famous Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act must be repealed! (More details in op-eds from Ezra Levant and the National Post Editorial Board).

Amazingly, the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s chairwoman Jennifer Lynch, seems ready to throw the report down the memory hole, and start again in her attempt to whitewash the fascism of Section 13 and preserve the legal activist community’s make-work racket. In this context, it’s not hard to understand why Canada’s “official Jews” (a term coined by Levant that I have gratefully adopted) continue to wage battle against those who wish to strip the Human Rights Act of its most heavy-handed powers of summary execution. Here’s the official response of Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress - an organization that clearly has the interests of lawyers and leftists, rather than Jews as a whole, at heart. Typical response of liberals to failure - double-down on the rejected policy, and blame the problems on “poor implementation” (reminiscent of Barack Obama’s upcoming return to the New Deal in America).

Farber may be the most egregious proponent of Section 13, but he’s not alone. Leo Adler, head of the Canadian branch of Rabbi Marvin Hier’s excellent L.A.-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, has tarnished his organization through vocal support. The B’nai Brith, a Jewish community and charitable organization to which I belong, has also supported the draconian speech code law. I’ll be following Levant, and doing what I can to hit these organizations in the pocketbook. I will be doing my best to participate in his “Jews against book burning” campaign, and ensure that no donated funds of mine will go to the CJC or Friends of Simon Wiesenthal (who is probably turning in his grave at Adler’s antics) until their policies change.

In the meantime, I look forward to the law’s repeal in Parliament. Get it on the agenda, Mr. Harper!

Only In Canada You Say!

Monday, June 09, 2008

Amazing doings in Canada

A Christian pastor who conveyed the Biblical view of homosexuality has just been found guilty of hate speech by one of Canada's notorious "human rights" kangaroo courts. He has been ordered never again to say anything negative about homosexuals, has been fined $5,000 and ordered to publicly recant his views. The latter order is straight out of the old Soviet legal system, of course. I know of no court anywhere else in the world where people can be ordered to avow a belief that they do not hold. Details here