Enough's enough
By Ezra Levant - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - 63 Comments
Exclusive excerpt: How McDonald’s hand-washing policy was overruled
If British Columbia sounds like the land that common sense forgot when it comes to human rights, there’s good reason. Many of the most ridiculous case studies discussed in this book originate in that province.
Take, for instance, the time the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal declared that a McDonald’s restaurant employee had the human right not to wash her hands, even when she worked in the kitchen, and instead should be accommodated by finding her another job in the organization where handwashing was not essential. In theory this makes sense; but in practice, McDonald’s, who ought to know, say that there aren’t any positions that don’t require handwashing.
-
Aw nuts, we won
By Andrew Coyne - Friday, October 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM - 0 Comments
In the matter of Elmasry and Habib v. Roger’s [sic] Publishing and MacQueen (No. 4), heard before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal this past June:
More comment to follow once I’ve read the thing, but be clear on this: it is no victory to be told by a shadowy government agency that you will be permitted to publish. This ruling only preserves the tribunal from utterly discrediting itself, and as such keeps alive the possibility that some other complainant can drag Maclean’s or any other media organization through yet another travesty half-a-continent away, at great expense of time and money. It also prevents Maclean’s from appealing the tribunal’s decision to an actual court, wherein it might have had the relevant section of the B.C. human rights laws thrown out on constitutional grounds. (Or does it? Can you appeal when you win?)
So the real fight, that of returning our human rights laws to their original purpose, and permanently clipping the wings of the human rights commissioners, will have to be won in the political arena. Until that day…
NOTE: The foregoing represents the views of the writer only, and should not be mistaken for those of Rogers or Maclean’s, their management, employees, lawyers, shareholders, window-cleaners or bonded couriers.
NOTER: The Tribunal does not appear to have put the decision up on its website as of 2:45 PM Eastern time. I’m assured it’s coming soon. UPDATE: It’s up.
-
Megapundit: When Irish eyes are darkening with rage
By selley - Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM - 0 Comments
Must reads: …Dan Gardner on Mark Steyn vs. the sock-puppets; Christie Blatchford and Thomas
Must reads: Dan Gardner on Mark Steyn vs. the sock-puppets; Christie Blatchford and Thomas Walkom on the Toronto 18 trial; Richard Gwyn on Obama.
Business as usual in Ottawa
Flaherty trips over Bernier, the Dippers flip-flop, John Baird is bad for the environment and John Robson is charmingly irascible. Move along, nothing to see here…Jim Flaherty’s tenuous grip on the finance portfolio is part of “an unstoppable chain reaction” that sometimes follows “the removal of a weak link,” says Chantal Hébert in the Toronto Star—particularly when those weak links have stunning ex-girlfriends who used to run around with bikers. For one thing, Maxime Bernier’s disastrous leave-behind manoeuvre provides a good opportunity for Stephen Harper to put a more congenial presence in charge of the books. But the Liberals, knowing a shuffle is coming, are now demanding Flaherty resign over job losses in the auto sector—which would normally be “over the top,” says Hébert, even for Ottawa—in hopes he’ll either “dig in his heels” and look even more pugnacious, or be shuffled, which they can portray as a “demotion.”
The National Post‘s John Ivison looks at the NDP’s change-of-mind on whether Canada should attend the so-called “Durban 2″ conference on racism next year in Geneva—a sequel to 2001′s edition in South Africa, which quickly descended into bad anti-Israeli farce. First the NDP were agin it, Ivison notes, but now—based on the “assurances” of UN muckety-mucks that the Libyan, the Iranian, the Pakistani and the Cuban on the preparatory committee will keep things civil—they want Canada to “play a helpful role.” It sure “smells like politics,” as Ivison says. But as usual, the NDP’s position was never particularly convincing. NDP MP Bill Siksay was demanding we attend just four months ago.
-
Liveblogging the BC Human Rights Tribunal—Day I, Part II
By Andrew Coyne - Monday, June 2, 2008 at 6:41 PM - 0 Comments
Earlier: Liveblogging the BC Human Rights Tribunal—Day I, Part I
1:34 PM PST…
AndEarlier: Liveblogging the BC Human Rights Tribunal—Day I, Part I
1:34 PM PST
And we’re back, with more gripping testimony on what my friend objected to in my friend’s representation of my friend’s deposition…1:36 PM
The chair is reading their “ruling” on the admissibility of Prof. John Miller’s testimony—though on what basis they propose to decide is a mystery, since THERE ARE NO RULES OF EVIDENCE. They more or less have to make it up as they go along.Anyway, they are ruling it inadmissible, because it’s irrelevant. Or is it irrelevant because it’s inadmissible?
1:39 PM
Also ruling on Khurrum Awan’s testimony, as an Ontarian. They’re going to take it, but rule on particular bits of it as they come up. Sigh.1:42 PM
So now we’re going to hear about how the article affected him. He says Steyn didn’t distinguish between diffferent types of Muslims, painted all with a broad brush. He’s going through the more inflammatory passages in the article… -
Liveblogging the BC Human Rights Tribunal—Part I
By Andrew Coyne - Monday, June 2, 2008 at 3:09 PM - 149 Comments
So we are in, and almost ready to go. As trials of the century/year/week…
So we are in, and almost ready to go. As trials of the century/year/week go, this one is decidedly down-market: the courtroom would make a good walk-in closet. Maclean’s legal team is out in force, a phalanx of half a dozen suits. The opposing counsel, by contrast, is one suit and two or three badly-dressed juniors. If I didn’t know the stakes, I’d be rooting for them. Actually I am rooting for them, in a strange sort of way. Don’t tell my employers, but I’m sort of hoping we lose this case. If we win—that is, if the tribunal finds we did not, by publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or whatever the legalese is—then the whole clanking business rolls on, the stronger for having shown how “reasonable” it can be. Whereas if we lose, and fight on appeal, and challenge the whole legal basis for these inquisitions, then something important will be achieved. Hang on, we’re starting…
9:33 AM PST
The three member-panel has entered, chaired by Heather MacNaughton. She hasn’t gotten six words out before one of the spectators shouts out, “could you speak up please?” To her credit, she takes it in stride…9:36 AM
The Chair is reviewing the legal history of the complaint. Apparently they have no jurisdiction over the Maclean’s website. So that’s a relief…9:39 AM
“Proceedings before the human rights tribunal are considerably less formal than before a court,” the chair advises. Yes, indeed: unburdened by stuffy old rules of evidence, for example…9:41 AM
We have friends: the BC Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists are here as intervenors.9:46 AM
Lead counsel for the complainants (i.e., Mohamed Elmasry and the Canadian Islamic Congress) is Faisal Joseph. Leading off for Maclean’s is Roger McConchie, a BC human rights lawyer; Julian Porter will be coming on later to do the cross-examinations…9:51 AM
Lawyers for the two sides are wrangling now over what witnesses the complainants are going to call, and whether “my friend” had properly informed “my friend” as to what “my friend” (the first one) had planned…
