before moving on to real news.
While I think this latest rightwing crusade will end in failure like all the other rightwing crusades of days gone by (ie. kill the cbc, kill the gun registry, kill national healthcare, etc), someone needs to keep an eye on it.
I nominate you.
Well, it's a dirty job...: )
Dr. Dawg my hat is off to you. You have dug a hole for Ezra and there is no longer any way out for him to climb out.
BTW you are too kind. The man is a dinosaur who in my view willingly manipulates the truth in order to make his right wing points. He will do anything including maligning some of Canada's most stalwart anti-racism warriors. His attack on people like Bernie Farber is shameful. He doesn't hold a candle to people like Farber, Kinsella, Karen Mock, Leo Adler and many more who have been in the trenches for years fighting bigots and white supremacists. Ezra would more likely make common cause with these asshats than battle them.
Well fucking smote.
So you agree that it's OK for the socks and their lawyer to submit evidence printed off of internet sites as the hearing is proceeding? Do you see nothing wrong with ANY of the procedures of these bodies?
At this point an image of him comes unbidden to my mind, David Warren with a sweet, innocent look--and his fingers crossed behind his back.
Which exposes the armpits and the stench.
The stinky, angry old men and their never-ending trauma.
We'll remember them fondly when they're all gone. We promise.
So you agree that it's OK for the socks and their lawyer to submit evidence printed off of internet sites as the hearing is proceeding?
It's okay for the lawyer to submit whatever they want as evidence. Whether or not it's accepted is another matter. And from my cursory reading of the hearing so far it looks like quite a bit of the evidence submitted hasn't been accepted.
Police in Bastion o' Freedom shut down performance art.
Mark Steyn and speechies having conniptions.
...developing.
Thank you. This information is very helpful to me (see my comment under The Passion of The Steyn). Clearly, I have a lot more research to do before I'm up to speed on these Administrative Tribunals.
How pervasive are they? By that I mean, how many different aspects of life are they involved in? Universities? Labor relations? Health Care?
Not all muslims are terrorsits but all terrorists are muslims.
Case closed, and the right to free speech shall not be infringed.
dawg that was splendid. mr robinson, you are a jolly false idjit. you'd be closer to the truth if you said that not all fundamentalists are terrorists, but all terrorists are fundamentalists. but that wouldn't suit your flavour of bigotry would it?
all terrorists are muslims
Wow, I had no idea that the IRA, the UDA, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and the FLQ were Muslims. Live and learn.
I wonder if Levant might face discipline hearings before the Law Society someday. His seemingly deliberate misstatements concerning HRC decisions and overall tone on this issue would appear to run afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
While Rule 2 states: A lawyer should seek to improve the justice system Rule 3 goes on to state: A lawyer must not act in a manner that might weaken public respect for the law or justice system or interfere with its fair administration.
In the commentary to the rules it sez:
" As Rule 2 makes clear, constructive efforts to improve the justice system are consistent with this obligation. In contrast, behaviour that is destructive or scornful of the justice system is inconsistent with a lawyers position and responsibilities"
As well as the commentary to Rule 3:
" Society expects that the legal profession will play a leading role in protecting the integrity of the justice system and ensuring that it functions properly. A lawyer's behaviour is incompatible with this role if it encourages public disdain or disregard for the administration of justice. Examples are delibertate flouting of the law or other flagrant disrespect for an aspect of the justice system; irresponsible or unjustified allegations of corruption or partiality; criticism that is ill-considered or malicious; disrupting judicial or administrative proceedings; and suggesting to a client or other person that evasion of the law is acceptable.
Roy:
Quasi-judicial tribunals do the grunt work of the legal system. There are, in addition to human rights tribunals,a plethora of others.
Here are a couple of links:
http://
www.thecanadianencycloped...s=A1ARTA0000044
http://www.simsgroup.com/adminsearch.htm
http://www.ccat-ctac.org/en/
Procedures are looser in the sense of being somewhat less formal, but, as I noted in my post, common law rules of evidence and procedural fairness apply.
Chet, I think that the people in South America will be stunned to find out that they were converted by Tom as well.
A classic case of what one might call "rhetorical capture." The declaration does have a ring to it, but no content. Unless, of course, Timothy McVeigh was a Muslim, as well as all of the other closet Muslims mentioned by commenters (the IRA! Who knew?).
Not to mention all those radical anti-abortionists who see absolutely nothing wrong with firebombing free clinics and killing doctors and clinic escorts.
And to think, all this time I've been suffering from the misconception that they were actually extremist, fundagelical Christians. My bad ...
I wonder if Levant might face discipline hearings before the Law Society someday.
One does wonder, doesn't one? I hope Dawg is screen-capping.
This contempt for not just the truth, but the law is egregious.
Egregious indeed. But he has a role model for that.
Please help me get my bearings in the "progressive" world.
1. I operate a landscaping company with two employees -- one is my wife in the office; the other two are general laborers helping me in the field. One helper is blinded in an accident at his parents' cottage. Am I obliged to create a new job for him -- even if it is a job that didn't exist before and is not required to be performed?
Generally, is it considered "progressive" to require an employer to retain an employee who becomes disabled if that employee can no longer perform at the same level as before (or even at the level of the lowest performer)? Why? If so, would it be "progressive" to reduce the person's salary to reflect their reduced contribution?
2. If the first applicant for a job at a large company was a blind person who is qualified but cannot do the job unless the employer supplies expensive equipment, is it "progressive" to immediately hire that person without interviewing other candidates? Why? If other, sighted candidates turn out to be equally qualified, is it considered "progressive" to hire the blind person anyway? Why?
Is it "progressive" to ask such questions or do you have to be an angry old man to even wonder about such topics?
Pogue Mahone (!):
The test of "undue hardship" applies, and always has, in every jurisdiction I know of. So your hypothetical question is very easily answered, I think.
No idea what that means, Dr. I don't have the congenital sensitivity to "the other" that seems to be one of the hallmarks of the "progressive".
I'm trying evolve beyond dinosaur status but also trying to link back to the scorn heaped on Levant for questioning Steacy's ability to effectively investigate HR complaints and whether an equally-qualified sighted person could perform at a higher level. And wondering whether an organization that is not taxpayer- funded and/or as "progressive" as HRC/T's could justify (ie afford) hiring him.
Say Pogue Mahone, does your lack of congenital sensitivity allow you to understand this:
"Do unto others as you have them do unto you."
Basic - not fundamental - Christian kindness and decency. Why does it seem lacking in those reactionary fundamentalist right-wing neo-cons?
Wow. This PM guy not only moves the goalposts, but whisks them right out of the stadium.
Here's all about "undue hardship," anyway.
Pogue Mahone: póg mo thóin.
Ti-Guy:
The two phrases mean the same, don't they?
Thanks again, Dr Dawg!
I'm going to have to spend a lot of time exploring this topic, but I have to say that unelected technocrats "operating at arms length" from government, make me very uneasy.
That's because of some things I've discovered myself, (not, been told about by others), demonstrating that "cabals" of unelected technocrats can be just as ruthless, unscrupulous and dishonest in pursuing their own social & political agendas, as mindlessly obsessed with achieving goals regardless of the ethical & moral implications of their means, as any corporate or political entity.
I'd like to see some kind of citizens oversight mechanism developed for monitoring what these administrative tribunals are up to.
But as I say, I'm just beginning to learn the reality of how they function.
"The two phrases mean the same, don't they?"
Dawg: Indeed they do.
That's because of some things I've discovered myself, (not, been told about by others), demonstrating that "cabals" of unelected technocrats can be just as ruthless, unscrupulous and dishonest in pursuing their own social & political agendas, as mindlessly obsessed with acheiving goals regardless of the ethical & moral implications of their means, as any corporate or political entity.
These tribunals are nothing compared to what the corporations do and are legally required to do. And the "unelected technocrats" is really over-the-top. Our judiciary is, in essence, unelected and if we know what's good for us, we'll keep it that way.
"Quasi-judicial tribunals do the grunt work of the legal system. There are, in addition to human rights tribunals,a plethora of others."
And the chances of being forced to appear before any of these for commenting on a blog would be...?
Ti-Guy,
I'm happy that criminal court judges are not elected in our country, too.
However, these administrative tribunals are not "real" judiciary - are they? If I'm confused because I'm just learning about them, please correct my ignorance.
Comparaison n'est pas raison.
Roy:
As noted, they are quasi-judicial. That means: common law protection re rules of evidence and procedural fairness and, even with a privative clause (there is none in the BC Human Rights Code), some possibility of review by a regular court.
So, no, the Tribunal Chairs are not judges, per se. But that doesn't mean they have no expertise or can do whatever they like. The Tribunals are part of the legal system, and are governed accordingly.
However, these administrative tribunals are not "real" judiciary - are they?
They're part of our legal system, which is the only judiciary we have. And that's the only "real" one anyone ever has; the one he or she is bound by.
It has always been acceptable for me for the speechies to mount a campaign to have the laws changed; that's their right as citizens (and our right to oppose them). But they showed their hand by displaying contempt for the law (and for the truth) and by revealing, yet again, they don't care for any kind of human rights laws at all.
Of course, the ongoing public vilification, defamation, dishonest propaganda, personal attacks, backchannel conspiracies and libel are just the sizzle on the (burnt) steak.
Thank you for clarifications.
I'm off to study the subject in greater depth now.
deBeauxOs:
Unsure why my comments led you to say that fundamental Christian kindness and decency seem lacking in those reactionary fundamentalist right-wing neo-cons when, as Dr. Dawg points out, the CHRA itself recognizes "undue hardship".
ie Unconditional application of "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" would impose YOUR subjective preferences on ME with absolutely no consideration of any practical consequences. The CHRA understands that impracticality and describes several conditions that limit your simplistic prescription.
I'm still waiting to be educated about whether "progressives" -- if they were operating a company (assuming "progressives" could stomach something so distasteful) -- would automatically hire the blind person before interviewing others and whether, if they had a choice between equally qualified blind and sighted candidates, they would choose the former. Would it be acceptable to pay the disabled person less if his limitations meant poorer performance?
The CHRC guidance pointed to by Dr. D. identifies the impact on employee morale as a factor to consider. If I and other members of a department were being paid the same as a handicapped person while significantly outperforming that person and at lower overall cost to the company, would that be OK because, if I was blind, I might wish for the same treatment? Seems that would reflect an ideology summarized by: "To everybody according to their needs; from everybody according to their ability." I thought that ideology was discredited a while back.
Pogue Mahone,
Don't hold your breath. So far, so called "progressives" have shown a complete inability to understand the realities of operating a business and the importance that small companies have in terms of economic output.
Rather broad stroke there, Charles.
Please provide your proof that all small companies are run by 'non-progressives', whatever that is.
Awesome, wordy trolls ...
Kiss My Ass: "progressives" don't need to decide this, the law does. Why don't you go look it up instead of spewing politely worded hate all over the place?
Oh, and Kiss My Ass, if the laws don't work for you, why doesn't Stevie change them for you?
Charles: an excellent point.
Charles:
I run a small business myself. I do all right.
Cameron:
"Excellent point?" What was it?
Sorry I meant Frank..
Clearly Charles made no points. Charles just spewed more filth.
This appears to be his function.. perhaps he is a bot.. though I think many on the Canadian right would fail a turing test.
So far, so called "progressives" have shown a complete inability to understand the realities of operating a business and the importance that small companies have in terms of economic output.
Heh. You really must have to work hard at being as miserable as this.
I think I shall boycott small businesses just for that. Even the local café that serves...*gasp*...lattes.
Hahhaha... lattes.. hahahahah
hmm... I really could go for some caffeine right about now..
I could go for some drywalling right now, but...alas...I'm boycotting small businesses. Looks like it's Home Depot and DIY for me.
Drywalling, crap, I feel for you.
When our son was born, we reframed part of a wall and put in french doors, so it was great, framing and drywalling, my two least favorite things ever.
French doors. Hmf. How "progressive."
/Speech Warrior.
I know, more than one way out.. and their name?
Re: Point 2
I think it is no coincidence that this case is being heard in BC. BC is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not have a Human Rights Commission. What no one seems to realize is that HRC's perform a gatekeeping function, i.e. a complainant files a complaint with the Commission and they determine whether it will go to a full hearing or not. In BC we have a direct access system, the only one in Canada. Anyone can file a complaint and as long as it is arguably a matter that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over it will go to a full hearing. It is open to a respondent to argue prior to the hearing there is no jurisdiction, however Maclean's has not done so in this case.
FREEDOM Doors, please.
Dawg,
Kudos on putting the time and effort into a definitive analysis. This is one that deserves to be saved and trotted out as a reference.
I wasn't going to do that joke, it seems kind of played out...
It has moved from "witty as cunning play on contemporary turns of phrase" to "warmly evocative of a fondly-remembered bygone joke, with perhaps a soupcon of faux-nostalgic self-mockery."
Ah.. so its gone through the "played out" phase to "iconic cultural touchstone"...
Thanks.
Yes, Dr Dawg, kudos for the analysis, even if your inner mischievous little boy couldn't avoid gratuitous adjectives like "odiferous" and an off-the-wall diversion into evolution. I do think there is an essential incompatibility between something as serious to both wallet and reputation as a S. 13 complaint and the laxity of an administrative tribunal, but the other side is being naive or disingenuous if they think a civil court would be different by degrees. Whether these proceedings should be criminal or quasi-criminal in nature is a difficult and thorny issue that demands thought, hard work and civil debate, which is presumably why so many on either side would just rather have fun and hurl epithets.
I must say that, checking out some of the blogs tracking this drama from both the left and right makes me think we have arrived in the realm of the surreal. Some of the free-speechers seem to be openly bemoaning that the complaints which would silence them forever and usher in totalitarian rule may actually be dismissed (the horror!) while some of their opponents are arguing the curious view that, while these people are no doubt dangerous and despicable racist hate-mongers, if not objective fascists, and just the types we need HRC's to protect us from, any fool can see these particular complaints should have been dismissed out of hand months ago.
Is this a great country or what?
Whether these proceedings should be criminal or quasi-criminal in nature is a difficult and thorny issue
Peter, I'm not sure I follow. Who wants to make these proceedings any such thing?
"So far, so called "progressives" have shown a complete inability to understand the realities of operating a business"
*cough*BillGates*cough*
any fool can see these particular complaints should have been dismissed out of hand months ago.
Well, we'll just put you in charge then.
...or bottle you and market you as a soporific.
Ewps. Pardon me, I'm sure.
Ti-Guy,
You may have misunderstood Peter on this occasion. He thinks it's amusing that some of the speech-warriors want their heroes to lose, while some of us progressives (me, anyway) think that the complaint against the (insert pejorative here) Mark Steyn has no juridical merit and that he should win. He may have something when he suggests that this is quintessentially Canadian.
Well, just got in from running some errands and ran into Mark Steyn. Ok, not literally ran into him, though the thought may have crossed my mind.
Turning the corner on the sidewalk onto Hornby from Robson St., right by the Provincial Courts, and there he was right beside me.
Think some of that aura of wobbling fromage might have spilled on me.
Must. Scrub. Harder.
I should like to make the following comment: what should a blogger do when his hit counter falls below 50 unique visitors a day. A mock suicide video? A real suicide video?
As a follow up question I should like to ask: if the human rights tribunals had most of the process and protections of real court, would that make them more acceptable, or are they just redundant and dangerous, period?
Wow ... a miserable bot ... that was rather original. I am glad to hear you are doing ok with your business Dawg 
My point is that it seems every time I read this blog, people are advocating policies that hinder small businesses from succeeding. Overly onerous taxes and high amounts of regulations are just a few examples. Others seem to think entrepreneurship is not important for a mature economy. Worse, others link us up to 50 minute videos that predict the coming destruction of the American middle class by defining net worth as savings - debt, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room (real estate value - outstanding mortgage).
My opinion regarding people with disabilities in the work force is very simple. Government should be extremely generous in supporting them financially but should not be forcing businesses to hire or retain them if they are less productive or more costly. If that makes me a right wing psychopath than so be it ...
You may have misunderstood Peter on this occasion
Ti-Guy would be far from the first, Dr. Dawg, but he is the only one I've encountered trying to make a life project out of it.
You may have misunderstood Peter on this occasion.
No, I understood him on this occasion. And the last one. And the one before that...
I'm just needling him. And I don't like using smileys all that much. They're just too chirpy and bubbly and perky.
Worse, others link us up to 50 minute videos that predict the coming destruction of the American middle class by defining net worth as savings - debt...
I believe I was guilty of that high crime.
...and apparently, he's still seething about it.
Indeed ... seething ...
You were simply guilty of putting up one of the worst pieces of economic analysis I have ever seen ... and I've had quite a few stinkers presented to me. I was in fact quite amused. But no worries, it will take quite a bit more than that for me to be seething.
A small clarification of your clarification, since you want to get the facts straight.
Mark Steyn is not a respondent at all, the complaint is against Macleans only.
Mark Steyn's name is often attached because he is world famous, whereas Maclean's magazine is little known outside of Canada. And that's good for traffic.
There, now do feel free to carry on being all lefty with each other, but wash your hands before entering polite society again, thanks everso.
Bill Gates is a good one, Ben and Jerry's is another, I was going to say Body Shop, but that didn't go very well..
Bucket is an interesting mix, I'd guess we'd call him a red tory..
And polite company dailybayonet? Coming from the side of the aisle that has decided that hanging out with Nazi's is cool.. that's a big fucking rich.
Wouldn't that mean that Dr. D "can't get even the most elementary facts right as he blathers on ..."? Isn't that an example of the pot calling the kettle black?
Probably proves he's wrong about everything else.
ahem, you meant a 'bit' rich Cameron. Do try and be accurate, Dawg likes accurate.
Oh, and do try not to throw accusations like me being a like Nazi sympathizer around, you might get Dawg a Human Rights Complaint, and that would be like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters. Bad.
You were simply guilty of putting up one of the worst pieces of economic analysis I have ever seen.
No it wasn't. You just didn't agree with it. Hence the seething.
Oh, and do try not to throw accusations like me being a like Nazi sympathizer around...
How about asshole? Are you OK with that one?
Ok. Enough with the screechy speechies and conceited "conservatives" for one day.
He is right about one thing. I do have to use the hand sanitiser quite often after visiting here.
Golly tigger, was I talking to you? I think not. You kiss your mother with that mouth?
I am impressed with the overall improvement in your speed here, last time it took almost 6 posts for someone to shout Nazi. This time, only one. Well done, you must all be so proud of Cameron.
/polite applause
dailybayonet? Can you please show me where I called you a nazi?
Of course you can't.
Because I didn't.
Didn't imply it. Didn't mean to say it. Wasn't even thinking about it.
If I were going to call you a name I'd just come out and say it. I'm not really all that shy about that sort of thing.
(Oh, and correcting typos? Pathetic.)
Further, the simple reality is that the crowd who are all in hot water for their so called free speech are all comfy and cozy with a genuine Nazi.
This isn't hyperbole, it's a simple statement of fact.
Or have you lot changed the rules now to the point that if it looks like a Nazi, goose-steps like a Nazi, hates everyone that isn't white like a Nazi and spews hate like a Nazi we're still not allowed to call it a Nazi?
Tell me again who's against free expression and speech?
Piker.
For the record, just to be clear, I just called you a Piker.
That was what me calling you a name looks like.
Gosh, even some sophisticated Torontonians are drinking Ezra's Kool-aid it seems: http://tinyurl.com/5lh997.
I guess none of them have read the "foundational documents" underlying freedome of expression either?
I love when people have arguments by themselves.
It makes it so the sane don't have to get involved.
Great little blog you got going here, Dawg......seems quite normal for the left wing-nuts in your space; fighting and calling names is pretty much the sort of debating procedure one would expect to see here.....
Well, Sip, my commenters can probably speak for themselves. If you have something to say about the post itself, I'm all ears...
Gosh, even some sophisticated Torontonians are drinking Ezra's Kool-aid it seems
Well, sure, if you believe every word that Ezra tells you. Personally, I like beer.
A small clarification of your clarification, since you want to get the facts straight.
Mark Steyn is not a respondent at all, the complaint is against Maclean's only.
You're right, of course. Correction made. No excuses on my part. The analysis remains exactly as I left it, though.
Hi Dr. D.
IANAL, so I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying. Can you clarify? "Rules of procedure and evidence are very much in place"
Then you quote:
Under Section 32 of the BCHRC, Section 59 of the ATA applies. Here it is:
Standard of review if tribunal's enabling Act has no privative clause
59 (1) In a judicial review proceeding, the standard of review to be applied to a decision of the tribunal is correctness for all questions except those respecting the exercise of discretion, findings of fact and the application of the common law rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.
(2) A court must not set aside a finding of fact by the tribunal unless there is no evidence to support it or if, in light of all the evidence, the finding is otherwise unreasonable.
(3) A court must not set aside a discretionary decision of the tribunal unless it is patently unreasonable.
....
These rules are for judicial review of a tribunal decision, not for the rules of evidence w/in the tribunal itself. Correct?
i.e. by my reading (and again, IANAL, so please help me out), the tribunal can make up whatever rules of evidence (or lack thereof) they want, and apply them however they want. If there is an appeal, it is then up to the appeals judge to determine if the decisions were arbitrary/bad faith / irrelevant etc.
So for example, in this trial, according to Andrew Coyne (who admittedly blogs for Macleans, the defendant), the Tribunal allowed evidence from a Toronto Legal student (who works for the plaintif), about how he "felt" when mocked for filing the lawsuit ... which is, pretty irrelevant to a lawsuit before the _BC_ human rights commission. This evidence was allowed by the commission, and presumably would be thrown out on appeal? Or is the "decision" Section 39(4) is discussing the final ruling of the panel, and not just an intermediate decision on rules of evidence?
I live in B.C and have followed all of the tribunal decisions you referenced. You forgot to mention the UBC professor found guilt of sexual harrasement after 10 years and over 100,000 expense defending himself. Incidently he was not allowed to call other professors as whitnesses who were also shaken down by the same woman.
Additionally I also attended some of the MacLeans/muslim hearings.
To sum up concisely you are full of dawggy doo.
(Sorry if there are any spelling mistakes but you'r not important enough for me to go to the effort of puting it through spell check.)
Horny Toad
Jacob:
A few points of clarification:
First, this is not a lawsuit, but a complaint before an administrative tribunal.
Secondly, the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Actare to ensure precisely what I said. If the rules aren't followed, the findings of the Tribunal can be set aside.
Thirdly, the issue of "feelings" is germane to the instant case; the Tribunal may make an award based upon the personal effects of discrimination. Let me hasten to note, though, that I don't believe the Tribunal will do any such thing in this case.
HT:
You aren't even referring to a BCHRT case. From the foggy depths, you are dredging up Rachel Marsden. And that was at SFU, not UBC. I don't give a damn about your spelling, but next time, come back with facts.
1. Dr. D: "Let me hasten to note, though, that I don't believe the Tribunal will do any such thing in this case."
But, what do you believe they SHOULD do? Is pursuing the complaints against Maclean's and Levant going beyond the rose-colored-glasses expectation of the SCOC in the Taylor case? If so, how/why did it happen and why isn't that being discussed by the intellectual elites here?
2. Dr. D: "... the issue of "feelings" is germane to the instant case; the Tribunal may make an award based upon the personal effects of discrimination."
Consider the recent SCOC Mustapha vs Culligan (http://tinyurl.com/5f3low) -- the hairdresser who, after discovering insects in his bottled water, "developed a major depressive disorder with associated phobia and anxiety". The SCOC decision says some interesting things germane to this discussion:
a. "The law does not recognize upset, disgust, anxiety, agitation or other mental states that fall short of injury. I would not purport to define compensable injury exhaustively, except to say that it must be serious and prolonged and rise above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that people living in society routinely, if sometimes reluctantly, accept."
b. "The law has consistently held — albeit within the duty of care analysis — that the question is what a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer: ... As stated in White, at p. 1512: “The law expects reasonable fortitude and robustness of its citizens and will not impose liability for the exceptional frailty of certain individuals.”"
But, perhaps reflecting how easily SOME Muslims can take offense (http://tinyurl.com/2jupfu), the decision makes this special clarification:
"If the evidence demonstrates that the defendant knew that the plaintiff was of less than ordinary fortitude, the plaintiff’s injury may have been reasonably foreseeable to the defendant."
Based on that and the general knowledge that at least SOME Muslims are easily offended (Is there anybody unaware of that?), it is clear that all of Canada's mainstream media and the Internet should be immediately shut down.
Thank you for providing some hard, recognizeable features in the propaganda fog.
Pogue:
(May I call you Pogue?)
What do I think should happen? I thought I'd been clear, but once again--the BCHRT should toss this complaint. And some kind of initial screening process should be in place and operative. At least (if the case goes the way I suspect it will) a benchmark will be achieved that will enable similar complaints in the future to be more effectively dealt with.
With respect to the issue of feelings, you are bringing in different law, different facts and a different case. I have no difficulty with the SCC ruling at all, but it isn't germane to human rights law, where the effects of discrimination are an important factor in creating a remedy.
The thing that I continue to find the most amazing is the sheer amount of disinformation being swirled around the two (main) legal proceedings.
1) is the Maclean's dealy. If you read some of the right wing nuts you'd think that Steyn was in some gulag right now, being attacked by rats.
2) is the Warman libel case. This is not a free speech case at all. Nor does it have anything to do with the HRTs.
I find the fact that Dawg has to keep explaining these basic facts to people who, if their command of the English language is a sign, seem quite intelligent utterly amazing.
Dr. D: "May I call you Pogue?"
Why don't you simply call me a "reactionary fundamentalist right-wing neo-con" as deBeauxOs does (06.05.08 - 9:11 am) or insane as Cameron implies (06.05.08 - 9:31 pm)?
Yes, I excerpted from a different decision, etc. But, the excerpts deal -- I thought -- with jurisprudence that guide the honorable SCOC justices when they decide about feelings and psychiatric "injury".
Are you saying that if the BCHRT makes an "award based upon the personal effects of discrimination" against Maclean's that on appeal the SCOC would not apply this jurisprudence: "The law does not recognize upset, disgust, anxiety, agitation or other mental states that fall short of injury. I would not purport to define compensable injury exhaustively, except to say that it must be serious and prolonged and rise above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that people living in society routinely, if sometimes reluctantly, accept."?
Sounds pretty general to me. If I'm wrong, then maybe "the law is an ass" -- and a schizophrenic one at that.
KissMyAss: What is one meant to make of someone who seems to be having an argument by himself, or at least a different argument from everyone else?
Cameron:
How about that they are trying to make a point but you don't understand it -- perhaps becaue they haven't done a good job in making it clear? Then, "Hey, Pogue, I'm missing your point -- please clarify." might be a more mature response.
But, although claiming otherwise -- often in a cool, detached, condescending, ever-so-eloquently worded manner, Dawg's posse here is just as guilty of ad hominems as the conservatives they disagree with.
My point in this case doesn't necessarily link back to the Dr's most recent post but to the blanket condemnation of the "Free Speechers" in the ensuing commentary. That has become code here for people crazy enough to be concerned about the abuses inherent in the CHRA (and similar provincial legislation) and actually practised by the commissions and tribunals established to "interpret" it. So, I was pointing out that there are a few high-profile folks who share our concerns whom I would place in the "progressive" (a word now without meaning) camp.
My point, since we're trying to be polite, was this: when discussing apples it would be nice if you'd stick with discussing apples, and not try and a) discuss oranges and b) try and confuse the apple discussion by insisting that there is no difference between apples and oranges.
Finally, one could make the argument, fairly successfully I would guess, that your whole tone, the way you write, your "voice" as it were, is insulting.
I know that for many people on the right if one does not actually swear or call someone stupid it's not considered an insult, but out of your hermetic star chamber you'll find that words have meanings.
So when you use quotes around words in a way that seems to suggest sarcasm/scorn people notice. Equally, when you make blanket statements about people that are insulting, you really have lost the right to act hurt when they respond in kind.
Thank you.
"You aren't even referring to a BCHRT case. From the foggy depths, you are dredging up Rachel Marsden. And that was at SFU, not UBC. I don't give a damn about your spelling, but next time, come back with facts."
Actually, I'm not talking about Marsden at all. Her case had to do with a prof at Simon Fraser and was about 10 years ago.
I'm referring to the one that occurred at UBC that just came down a couple of months ago.
The woman was east indian/,muslim, Momood smething or other Again, I can't be bothered to look it up.
My facts are correct so your still full of doggy-doo.
Horny Toad
Oh,and by the by, I'm waiting with baited breath for Pogue Mahone to issue a stern talking to Horny Toad....
Well not baited breath really, since I have this idea that I like oxygen.
"The woman was east indian/,muslim, Momood smething or other "?
OK, so here it is. Dutton vs Mahmoodi and you can read all the sordid details here.
http://www.safs.ca/april2000/bal...00/
balance.html
Are those ENOUGH facts for you?
Horny Toad
Pogue:
The SCC was referring to the civil tort law that guided the bottled water case, not to "law" in general. In human rights legislation, compensation for the effects of discrimination are fairly common.
HT:
You really might be happier in your usual SDA haunt--your level of debate is more in keeping with what goes on over there. Here, we try to be civil about our disagreements, and avoid childish potty-talk. Just so you know.
You are referring, in any event, to the Mahmoodi case. Readers will have to judge for themselves wrt the merits of the decision rendered. (I prefer direct links to the documents in question, rather than links to the opinions of others.) Professor Dutton didn't like it, and applied for a review of the decision to a regular court. His petition to quash the judgement was dismissed. (The judgement is worth reading: many interesting legal issues are discussed therein.)
I'd like to apologize for my potty talk...
I've been in a crappy mood lately and my filtering mechanisms are down.
Thanks, Cameron. I just like to keep the debate here on-topic and reasonably civil. I hope others get that message.
I guess there are two things going on for me
1) the aforementioned stress and crappy mood (visa forms and figuring out an international move and the sale of a house... grrrr)
2) my continued annoyance at certain parts of the right who figure that they can insult everything you think and believe as long as they don't swear and still be called polite.
In any case, I'll try harder to self edit on the swearing etc.
Dr D:
Wow, do the progressives congregating here (note I didn't use quotes) agree that the definition of psychological injury -- which I assume includes feelings -- used by the Supreme Court should vary with the legislation a particular adjudication relates to?
Can we discuss whether Shariah Law is compatible with the Canadian Constitution, regardless of how politely, if SOME (ANY) Muslim claims to be deeply -- I mean really, really deeply -- offended by the very topic? It is discriminatory since it focuses on just one religion.
ie. Where does one find how the SCOC defines feelings hurt by discrimination that would justify an award? I'm not in favor of hateful expression -- although contemptuous expression seems fine to me since there is so much out there that is truly contemptible -- but would appreciate being able to freely discuss public policy.
Dr. Dawg
Thanks for the explanation.
Re "feelings" - So under the BC Human Rights act, the feelings of the complainants (Elmasry and ?Habib?) could be germane.
But what justification can there be to admit testimony on the feelings of someone who is:
(a) not a party to the complaint
(b) not in the jurisdiction of the court
(c) not a member of the identified group allegedly discrimiated against (i.e. Muslims of British Columbia)
(d) not an expert witness or anything
and
(e) part of the plaintiff's legal team (and therefore hardly an impartial witness)
Jacob:
Very briefly, there's a large hop, skip and jump between admitting testimony and giving it any weight in the final decision.
Jacob,
I was a complainant (correct term) in a psychological harassment case here at my workplace. I was one of 4 people who complained at the same time about the same situation.
In the end the judgement came out the way I wanted it to, but it totally ignored my and one other colleagues testimony to the outside investigator.
oof.... and to think, i once mocked your credentials. sliced up warren with the skill of a surgeon. thanks, too, for the most informative article about this case, and about your hrc system, that this yank has read yet. catching up has been a hump, but i've always been able to tell free-speecher horse puckey when i've tread through it. the additional info will come in handy. heh!
KEvron
"Here, we try to be civil about our disagreements, and avoid childish potty-talk.Just so you know."
Right! Like this comment by t.
"How about asshole? Are you OK with that one?"
Horny Toad
Dawg: I wonder if you and the rest of your "commenters" have any idea the seriousness of this -http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/
LundDarren113007Pa.pdf
as how our rights are being eroded by these 'kangaroo' courts. I expect you will all feel that it is warranted......fools.
"Right! Like this comment by t."
hi, bryan!
(waves enthusiastically)
KEvron
"fools."
uh, bryan? you've missed your cue....
KEvron
Dr. D:
Is Warren, as far as you're aware, a regular reader, or did he just stumble upon your post during one of his (undoubtedly frequent) self-Googlings?
Re: Your update with the response from David Warren:
So, basically, all he's saying is "I stand by what I wrote. My assertions are well founded and if you research them, you'll discover that for yourselves."
Oh..bravo, *clap* *clap*...*clap*
Hack.
Good for you, Dr. Dawg, and good for Warren. And it's nice to see my old pal Ti-Guy apply the same thorough, reasoned analysis to Warren's arguments that he demands of the rest of us. I know, I know, Ti-Guy, you're just so tired.
This debate has become so personalized that those who want to actually debate the issues have been thrown into the streets. I feel like I'm a spectator at a minor league hockey game. I'm looking forward to some classic hockey, but when one team (Steyn, Levant, Coyne, Warren, Currie--Martin in nets) eyes the other (Kinsella, Steacy, Warman, Hall, McNaughton--Dawg in nets), they both decide they'd rather just have a barnbusting brawl.
But hope springs eternal, so how about dealing with this comment from Warren:
This is a disaster also for Canada's Muslims, for the views of fanatical Islamists are being presented as representative of all.
I can at least understand the legal arguments of the S 13 defenders without agreeing with them, but how, how can anyone defend the right of a private citizen or self-annoited NGO to wrap themselves legally in the mantle of spokeperson for an entire religious or national community? Surely S 13 was intended to protect specific aggrieved people who suffered indentfiable harm. And why aren't you on the left worried that this isn't all going to come back and bite one of yours bigtime (Christians? Americans?)some day? Is it because you are just assuming the HRC's will always be run by your team? You once believed that about your absolute right to protest and promote your causes in whatever forum and using whatever language you wanted. Now where are you?
Good to see you plugging away at this still. I've grown a bit bored with it (until the RCMP's CHRC investigation winds up). Slightly OT, is the BC setup similar to the proposed set up in Ontario, where I think everything will go straight to a Tribunal?
BCL:
Not quite: the Ontario Human Rights Commission will still exist. But complaints will no longer be screened, which I see as a step backwards. Here's a good article about the changes.
Peter:
Why should this be a "disaster" for Canadian Muslims? What's this imposed homogenization all about? Was the Oklahoma bombing a "disaster" for white Christians? Was the Susan Smith case a "disaster" for women? (Not that the instant complaint, ill-founded as it may be, is on the same scale, but that merely reinforces my point, I think.)
Categories are great for shorthand, but their over-use can lead to serious consequences. Here's a post of mine that goes into this matter a bit.
And it's nice to see my old pal Ti-Guy apply the same thorough, reasoned analysis to Warren's arguments that he demands of the rest of us. I know, I know, Ti-Guy, you're just so tired.
I'm not making the baseless assertions, Peter. Why should I have to do all the work?
I notice you're not doing any work either; just trying to shame me and being generally condescending, patronising, and scolding.
*yawn*
Dr Dawg:
Your analogies to Susan Smith and Oklahoma completely escape me. It is the CIC that is guilty of imposed homogenization and the HRC's may be aiding and abetting them. What would you say if Opus Dei brought a complaint in the name of all Catholics or the Lubavitchers in the name of all Jews? Would you sit back if I brought one on behalf of that horribly oppressed group, white males of Anglo-Saxon descent? Geez, surely we don't have to argue about whether the legal entitlement to speak for a collectivity should be based on accountability to and the consent of that collectivity?
Peter:
I thought that you meant that the possibly ill-judged actions of the complainants were a "disaster" for all people who shared their religion/ethnicity in BC. That kind of alleged community accountability is without merit. But I take your point: claiming to speak for a "community" requires its own accountability, and I don't think the complainants have met the test by a long shot.
There is, in fact, a bit of harrumphing on the right side of the aisle at the moment about the status of Elmasry, who put in the complaint as a private individual rather than as the President of the CIC, but then proceeded to claim the authority to proceed in BC on the basis of precisely that presidency. The Tribunal refused to allow questions in cross by Julian Porter about the CIC, on the basis that Elmasry was appearing as a private individual, but it seems that the latter was having it both ways. There may be some technicalities here that I'm missing, but that's the way it looks to me.
Would you sit back if I brought one on behalf of that horribly oppressed group, white males of Anglo-Saxon descent?
I would help you write the complaint. I'm very familiar with the irremediable disabilities of your cohort and would make a strong case for the rest of normal society to treat you with compassion and forbearance.
Which wouldn't mean we'd have to change our behaviour at all, when you think of it.
Peter,
There's nothing particularly unusual about a single person beginning a proceeding on behalf of many, none of whom have agreed to be represented by that person; that is, after all, the essence of a class action. And while class actions have procedures to address that issue -- people can opt out -- the presumption is that the representative plaintiff can speak for those who remain.
In this case, it might have made some sense for another Muslim organization to seek intervenor status, to challenge the assertion that the CIC spoke for all Muslims in BC. To the best of my knowledge, no such application was made.
And it's not as if the CIC was alone in purporting to speak for many. The Canadian Association of Journalists was there as an intervenor, despite the fact that very few Canadian journalist are members of the organization. Indeed, John Miller, one of the leading journalism educators in Canada, sought to intervene in order to make submissions critical of those made by the CAJ. Miller's take on Steyn's piece and the HRT debate is worth a read. It can be found here: http://www.thejournalismdoctor.c...r.ca/ViewBlog/
9
Interesting that the good Dr. -- a master wordsmith -- chooses the word "harumph" to describe how "the right" expresses its concern/puzzlement about Elmasry's having it both ways -- a point he appears to AGREE with.
"Harumph" def'n: 1. to clear one's throat, esp. in a studied, pompous way
2. to protest or complain in a pompous or self-righteous way.
Congenitally venomous, I say. Even if you agree with a conservative viewpoint, denigrate it somehow.
A lot of harrumphing going on here. I choose my words with care.
truewest:
Thanks. Your point about class actions is a good one--food for thought, although I believe the members of the class still have to have suffered an identifiable damage through the commission of a tort, i.e. they have to have bought the faulty product and suffered a loss from it in some way. I don't think "the consumers of Canada" is a proper class. And I've certainly never heard of a class action for libel--wouldn't that chill the blogosphere. As to intervenors, they are there at their own expense to offer a particular perspective to assist the court, not to present evidence, meet a standard of proof, or gain a benefit from the verdict. The CIC would be a perfectly proper intervenor in certain cases.
Here's some stuff I found in David Warren’s columns after identifying the “source” of one his recent items as a staged photo from the website Atlas Shrugs, which had been debunked in 2005. (It appeared in the 8th of at least 10 columns in defense of Steyn et al against the “kangaroo courts” and “commissars".
http://www.regrettheerror.com/ne...culpa-mea-
culpa
http://
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.c...eek_in_isr.html (photo source)
Jan. 12, 2008: Warren reports a massacre in a church in Kiambaa, Kenya by the Luo tribesmen of "Barack Hussein Obama" (elsewhere: “a vote for Obama is a vote for Osama”). "Members of this mob washed the church with gasoline, then set fire to it, with the people still inside. Those inside were all members of the Kikuyu tribe. Those outside were mostly Luo".
Reports name the mob as Kalenjin. Luo do not live in the area. On the Luo opposition leader: “Mr. Odinga was raised from his childhood (in East Germany) as a Soviet agent. The Soviets aren't there to control him any more; he has his own games going, including an interesting one alleged on the Internet (with documentary evidence) with a certain Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi, suggesting dimensions of the conflict previously unobserved).” Odinga apparently attended university in Germany, but the rest?
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com...ndex.php?
id=831
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...ping-
Kenya.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...der-
767804.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/
ho...H_.242020080108
http://uk.reuters.com/article/
ho...H_.242020080325
http://talkjournal.blogspot.com/...p-in-
kenya.html
http://www.thefaithspot.com/arti...uk/news/
article
Feb. 6, 2008: "I have a list before me of confirmed Islamist terror attacks since 9/11/01, in Iraq and all over the world. More than ten thousand of them". No source for this information, but it appears to come from "Religion of Peace.com", an "anti-Islamic website" (Wikipedia), which maintains a list with no independent verification.
http://www.canada.com/scripts/st...7ae2302&
k=43418
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.co...s-2001-
2003.htm
Indonesian "Massacre", Dec. 5, 2001: "As I write, a large number, quite possibly thousands, of Christians are being massacred in Indonesia by the Islamic Laskar Jihad ('Holy War Army'). This is happening in the interior of the island of Sulawesi, in and around the town of Tentena, about 40 kilometers south of the city of Poso…In the time since Sept. 11…Christian women (have been) raped and all those unable to flee either butchered or forcibly 'converted' to Islam. My information is from C
Welcome, Carol.
Please post the rest of your comment--alas, Haloscan imposes a character limit.
My information is from Christian mission Websites and email, and my estimate is conservative". The Laskar Jihad "tend to arrive with a collection of heads from the last village, mounted on pikes". The Christians are described as "actual martyrs, incidentally". Warren condemns the lack of Muslim protest at "this proposal - to commit a genocide against 18 million people".
It would have been difficult for Muslim “mosquitoes” in the Palestinian territories to condemn, because the Sulawesi incident was reported by the BBC, CNN, AP, and others, as 7 or 8 deaths. The story must be read in its entirety to appreciate its literary, if not reporting, qualities.
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com...index.php?
id=43
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-...fic/
1719964.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-...fic/
3812737.stm
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORL...rest/
index.html
"Islamo-fascist Awareness Week", Oct. 24, 2007. Warren reports on a controversial Muslim-baiting event held on some American campuses. Implying that Collier is an independent observer, he provides “an account” by Peter Collier of a lecture at the University of Wisconsin by David Horowitz, failing to identify Collier as one of the organizers. The "account" comes from a promotional article by Collier on Front Page Magazine, the journal he runs with Horowitz, which sponsored the event, and is elsewhere credited as written by Horowitz.
It describes numerous simultaneous events across the U.S. While some passages strongly resemble the Front Page text, Warren’s version describes physical detail contradicted by photos.
Warren: "An account by Peter Collier of one of the events, at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, where David Horowitz was speaking specifically on the fate of women under radical Islam, gives some idea. Before he had even started, the noise and hostility was rising to cancellation levels. But on a large screen he flashed up a photograph of a woman in a burka being shot in the back of the head. Into the stunned silence he began: "Everyone in this photograph is a Muslim. There is a helpless victim; there are perpetrators of murder. This photograph is why we're here tonight”.
Collier/Horowitz: "At the University of Wisconsin, Madison, David Horowitz spoke to….The volatile crowd quieted immediately when Horowitz began his speech by showing an enlarged photograph of a Muslim woman on her knees being shot in the back of the head by Muslim fundamentalists. "Everyone in this photograph is a Muslim" Horowitz began. "There is a helpless victim; there are perpetrators of murder. This photograph is why we're here tonight”.
A report of Horowitz’s speech at Madison appears in the U of W student newspaper. It describes a mostly respectful audience, with a disruption by one audience member, and says Horowitz himself became abusive at the end. It includes a photograph from the event that shows Horowit
It includes a photograph from the event that shows Horowitz pointing to a hand-held poster of the woman in the burka allegedly being shot. There is no “large screen” upon which Horowitz “flashed up” what Warren implies is a large projected image. Instead we see one of two posters for the event held awkwardly by a young woman.
Like the 2005 staged photo Warren was forced to retract, the other official poster of "Islamo-fascist Awareness Week" was from a movie.
http://frontpagemag.com/articles...CA-
80513A48E4B0
http://www.canada.com/ottawaciti...c8eb71d9cca&
p=1
http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/843
http://www.townhall.com/
Columnis...ready_a_success
Beslan Massacre: “Half the terrorist corpses so far identified were Arabs and the rest other international Jihadis, plus a few locally-recruited Ossetes.” This is surprising. Survivors do not cite “Arab” or “international” participation. Warren describes all but "a few" of the estimated 26 to 40 participants as either Arabs, or foreign Jihadis, and his seems to be the only ‘report’ to do so. On Sept. 26, 2004, he adds this description of Christian children "running with their mothers and being machine-gunned in the back by more men shouting Allahu akhbar!". No source given. Sites such as Jamestown.org describe Arab/international participation as unlikely and unproven.
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com...ndex.php?
id=378
http://www.jamestown.org/news_de....php?
news_id=65
Just a few examples. Too long I know, but there's even more. Perhaps Warren could explain them.
C. W.
Don't hold your breath. : )
The question about the tribunal concerning Maclean's and Mark Steyn is not about who is being examined but about the police state character of the so-called "offense". This trial or whatever you want to call it is a serious attack on free speech, which seems to be hard to find in Canada. Exactly why does anyone have the right not to be "offended", especially when the "offense" happens to be a statement of truth?
I got raked over by Tonie Beharrel when she was a lawyer for five (count em five) lyin ass women who accused me of sexual harassment--for staring--the lead girl Jennifer Tannis was the daughter of a former business partner--who had been successfully petitioned into bankruptcy---a 70 year old man (at the time) Murray Camerson was also accused of 'staring' until they found out he was legally blind.
Tonie Beharell was an articled student---who I have publicly accused of subporning purjury. FOI declarations and affidavits reveal that between the (now dufunct BCHR commission) and Tribunal--where a fresh file is started--Beharell aided and abetted claimants to change testimony and lie. Nearly every Charter Right available to Canadian citizens was taken from me including my lawyer being disbarred---I was posted on the government webstite as a "pedophile" using my publishing business as a "sexual playground". I filed a 100 page Statement of Claim in 2001--the government was served but never filed a Defence.
Beharel was made a Tribunal Judge despite being a lawyer for just one year--after I filed the lawsuit to protect her from the claims I have made about her being a lyin promoter of perjury.
There are a people in this Tribunal--with the AG's office--in government who get up and go to work every day--when they ought to be in jail---in my opinion--based on the facts.
Commenting by HaloScan
