A judge has now ordered the commission to re-open her case.

A judge has ordered the P.E.I. Human Rights Commission to revisit the complaint of a woman who says she is the victim of discrimination by provincial social assistance officials.

Debra Kelly’s complaint, that she is being denied her full share of social assistance, dates back to 2003. Child support for her two children is considered part of Kelly’s income, so, she says, her welfare has been cut to a few hundred dollars a month.

The CBC news story does not specify the type of discrimination she alleges she suffered at the hands of social assistance authorities, and it’s not obvious from the facts reported. I guess the CBC doesn’t think its readers need to concern themselves with such minor details.

A search of the PEI HRC website turns up nothing on the Kelly case.

One would think the executive director of PEI’s HRC would disagree with the decision. His agency examined and dismissed Ms Kelly’s complaint, not once, but twice. One would think he’d take the view that his investigators gave her complaint careful consideration and found it lacking for good reason.

One would be wrong.

“I think it’s a fine decision,” said commission executive director David Larter.

“I’ll be asking the chairperson to convene a panel hearing in order to have the complaint, and the issues that arose from the complaint, be heard.”

That will do wonders for office morale.

She has multiple sclerosis and needs a scooter to move around.  Her husband, SMCC corrections officer William McSwain, has no physical disabilities.

“I won,” she said. “They discriminated against me because of whom I’m married to. It’s like winning the lottery.”

In a written ruling released March 16, an adjudicator found the denial of snow removal to McSwain was based on marital status, which is prohibited under the NWT Human Rights Act.
[…]
Even though she won, McSwain said she may end up with nothing but about $2,000 in legal fees repaid for her trouble.
[…]
McSwain said she went to the Human Rights Commission as a matter of principle.

“The government changed a program to disqualify me,” she said.

That much appears to be true.  For years, SMCC inmates had removed snow at homes where disabled persons lived with able-bodied spouses or other relatives.  However, when Ms McSwain became the first person on the programme married to an SMCC corrections officer, the first set of written rules came into existence with the apparent purpose of disqualifying her.

But why did it take so long for the decision to be rendered?   The complaint was lodged on 20 September 2006, but the hearing did not take place until 10-11 September 2008, and the written decision not released until March 2009.  And it’s not over yet.  Further hearings must be held and decisions reached regarding what “remedy” and allocation of costs are deemed appropriate.

Gluttons for punishment can read the full text of the ruling here as a badly formatted pdf document.

Earlier this year, the NWT HRC ordered payments to complainants who suffered hurt feelings.

h/t: The Blog of Walker

Eklemeddin İhsanoğlu, the OIC Secretary-General, stressed in a statement Monday that “human rights and man’s dignity are an integral part of Islam and core components of Islamic culture and heritage.”
[…]
“An OIC human rights commission would promote tolerance, and fundamental freedoms, good governance, the rule of law, accountability, openness, dialogue with other religions and civilizations, the rejection of extremism and fanaticism, and the strengthening of the sense of pride in the Islamic identity,” he said.

In view of the following, it’s impossible to take any of that seriously.

[O]f the 57 [OIC member states], only six – Benin, Guyana, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal and Suriname – are deemed “free” according to Freedom House assessment. The democracy watchdog scores all nations annually for political rights and civil liberties, classifying them as either “free,” “partly free” or “not free.”

More reasons not to trust the OIC when it comes to human rights:

• Muslim women around the world face crisis over violence
• Afghan Christians worship in secret
• Two imprisoned Iranian Christians in poor health
• Systematic persecution campaign against Palestinian Christians
• Sabatina James at centre of conflict between Islam and human rights
• Regulation of Muslim marriages needed to protect women
• Ladies, cover your entire body, except one eye: Saudi cleric
• Easter for secret believers

Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer is married to the Berlin Wall.
[…]
Berliner-Mauer (the German name for the Berlin Wall, which she has taken as her last name) has since defined her love under the term “objectum sexual,” or OS—in other words, a person who falls in love with inanimate objects. As an animist, she, along with a growing group of others, believe that inanimate objects are sentient, intelligent beings.

Take Erika Eiffel, who is married to the Eiffel Tower. Eiffel says she recalls being attracted to objects even as a child, and realized she was different only when she saw other people at school dating each other, while she was dating a bridge.

Here is proof that an “expert” can always be found to rationalise any human fancy, no matter how deranged:

According to certified sexologist Amy Marsh, however, it could be a new sexual orientation.

God help us if Canada’s “human rights” commissions ever latch on to that idea.

Rooney says he became depressed and withdrawn after the alleged incident and complained to the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal. Mr Bertiboni did not recall the conversation, but insisted he is not prejudiced against homosexuals and has had homosexual tenants in the past whom he treated with respect.

Last month, the tribunal ordered Bertiboni to pay $4000 to Rooney, even though Rooney had no corroboration for his account of the telephone conversation.

Coolopolis has the details of that and another questionable Quebec HRT decision.

The text of the judgment is posted here (French only).

The Human Rights Commission in the North has warned that plans to introduce checks on people crossing the Border may lead to racial discrimination.
[…]
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissions said it is concerned this could lead to ethnic minorities having to constantly carry documents or face frequent questioning when they cross the border.

Forced to carry documents?  Questioned when crossing an international boundary?  Oh, the humanity!

A company was forced to spend $35,000 in legal fees before the complainant dropped her case, but the complainant is ordered to repay only $3500.

A woman who filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal alleging sexual harassment by an employer has been ordered to pay the company $3,500 for dropping her complaint one day before a hearing.
[…]
A lawyer for Olympic claimed preparing the case cost more than $35,000 and wanted more than $5,000 in damages.

[Tribunal member] Ms. [Lindsay] Lyster ruled $3,500 is sufficient to signal the tribunal’s condemnation of Ms. Samuda’s conduct.

If it’s “sufficient” for the tribunal, it only shows the BC HRT has very low standards. But we already knew that.

Media organizations are creating a forum for online racism by allowing readers and bloggers to comment on stories on news websites, Manitoba First Nations leaders said Wednesday.

So, allowing readers and bloggers to comment is necessarily racist?

They’re now calling on the Manitoba government to investigate the CBC, in particular, for violating Canada’s hate laws.
[…]
There are “persistent bloggers who pounce on almost any story dealing with First Nations or indigenous issues and use it as an excuse to rant against or ridicule indigenous people,” Swan Shannacappo [of the Sandy Bay First Nation] said.
[…]
Aboriginal leaders called on the Manitoba government to investigate the CBC for violations of Canada’s hate laws and pass on the findings to federal regulators.

Two Manitoba cabinet ministers express sympathy for the chiefs’ censorship campaign, but elect to pass the buck claim they can’t provide much help.

Both ministers said that because CBC and the Internet are federally [sic] responsibilities, there is little the province can do except encourage the Southern Chiefs to file a complaint with the CBC’s ombudsman and a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I would not wish a CHRC complaint on anybody, BUT—if the CBC becomes a target, perhaps our national public broadcaster will, at last, take seriously the threat that Canada’s “human rights” commissions present to freedom and democracy.

h/t: Tongue Tied 3

[T]he point of Steyn’s testimony to the hearing — echoing the sentiments of great thinkers throughout history including Voltaire, George Orwell, Noam Chomsky and Thomas Jefferson, just for a start — is so simple, and yet so in need of repeating in Canada, in Ontario, in Toronto today. The right to free expression is the most fundamental of all rights in a democracy — it is in fact the one right that allows the very existence of democracy.

Another frequently repeated truth is that if you don’t believe in free speech for the most offensive, hateful, moronic people you can imagine, you simply do not believe in free speech at all. It’s so self-evidently true that one would think it wouldn’t even bear saying. And yet it is a point constantly missed by a shocking number of people wielding influence in Canada today.

Among those missing that point, besides “human rights” commissioners, are the little Stalins running student unions and universities across Canada. Pro-life opinion is being stifled and suppressed at Saint Mary’s, Carleton, Calgary, Guelph, Lakehead, York, and elsewhere. Why are they so unwilling to defend their views with rational argument? One can’t help thinking it’s because they can’t.

If only the powerful people who disagreed with him [Steyn] — and with pro-lifers and whoever else — spent less time trying to shut him up and more time trying to argue with him, maybe we’d get somewhere.

Amen to that.

h/t: Mark Steyn

It was her response to Steyn’s criticism of OHRC’s silence on honour killings that shocked me.

“There are thousands of things that happen in the province of Ontario on a daily basis and we don’t comment on all of them,” she said.

But, I spluttered, women are being murdered.

“As I said, we are a small commission.

“There are many problematic things that happen in our community and we have to make choices because we can’t respond to everything,” Hall said.

So honour killings are merely “problematic”?

It’s a question of priorities. The OHRC hasn’t got time to worry about women getting killed for disrespecting a male relative. Barbara Hall has bigger fish to fry, like sitting in judgment of every word published by Canadian newspapers, magazines, and websites.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is calling for Parliament to force all Canadian magazines, newspapers and “media services” Web sites to join a national press council with the power to adjudicate breaches of professional standards and complaints of discrimination.

For Barbara Hall and the OHRC, some things are simply more important than human rights.

h/t: Kathy Shaidle and Ezra Levant

Kindos was about to pay the fine and post obligatory signs saying, “We accommodate medicinal marijuana smokers,” when a different government agency told him he could lose his liquor licence. Serving anybody possessing a controlled substance – prescribed or not – is against the law.

It also transpires that Mr Gibson is not exactly a poster boy for human rights.

“People didn’t like the way I smell,” the smoker, Steve Gibson, acknowledged of one complaint against him from fellow patrons.

“But I don’t like a lot of smells either,” he said. “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.”

Yeah, no one could have seen that coming.

h/t: Edward Michael George

The most recent case involves a wheelchair-bound man whose feelings were hurt by being required to pay for a cab company’s handi-van service.

The most recent decision came on Jan. 7, when the commission’s adjudicator James R. Posynick ordered City Cabs to pay Bill Burles $1,500 for “injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect” for repeatedly having to pay a $6 service charge to use the company’s handi-van vehicle.
[...]
Burles had asked for $3,500 in compensation “for loss of quality of life and financial expenses.”

He said the dignity compensation can be viewed as reimbursements for things you can’t itemize on a list and don’t have monetary value.

“Like a social life,” he said.

The NWT HRC ordered City Cabs to subsidise Mr Burles’s social life.

The Yellowknifer newspaper points out the obvious: By accepting hurt feelings as grounds for compensation, “the NWT Human Rights Commission threatens to open the floodgates to countless complaints”.

Careful, Mr Editorialist, that could hurt the feelings of “human rights” commissioners.

h/t: No Apologies

The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission does not have the jurisdiction to look into the complaint of an Acadian parent who says his children missed out on funding provided to English-speaking students, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled.

In a written decision released last Thursday, Justice Allan Boudreau complied with Halifax Regional Municipality’s request to quash the commission’s decision to appoint a board of inquiry.

The municipality argued that the facts alleged by Lucien Comeau didn’t constitute discrimination under the provincial Human Rights Act and asked the court to prevent the board of inquiry from conducting hearings into the matter.

“The complaints, as presented, do not appear to be within the usual role or expertise of the commission,” Justice Boudreau wrote.

The full text of the court’s ruling is posted here (pdf).

English and French language schools received funding in accordance with applicable provincial legislation, and the court found “not one shred of evidence” that French schools were funded differently because of language or ethnicity.

h/t: e-mail from Binks

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h4GC_kby9s[/youtube]

Kathy Shaidle was there.

I guess Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and his best friend the Lying Jackal, and The Guy Who Is Suing Us, were all too busy chasing imaginary Nazis on the internet to be there.

I guess Truffles the Hobbit, the young Liberal Party hack who threatened to take me to court for being an anti-semite (because I joked that he was “too stupid to really be Jewish”) was too busy to be there.

But I was there.

A puny Catholic gal and 12 — count ‘em — 12 Jewish people showed up to counter-demo a big (5000+?) anti-Israel, anti-semitic rally in Toronto yesterday.

Mark Steyn congratulates Canada’s “official Jews” for helping to eliminate hatred and intolerance.

During the last year, as the Canadian Islamic Congress and their eunuch stooges in the “human rights” commissions attempted to criminalize my books and columns as “hate crimes”, various leftie groups – including PEN Canada and the Canadian Association of Journalists – came to see the country’s censorship laws as incompatible with freedom. The only public defenders of the “human rights” commissions were, of all people, the Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and other “official Jews” (in Ezra Levant’s words) who insisted state censorship was necessary in order to cow the last three “white supremacists” in Saskatchewan into submission and prevent such horrifying crimes as scrawling swastikas at knee height in public toilets.

So the Canadian Jewish Congress made common cause with the Canadian Islamic Congress and the neo-Nazi takeover of the prairies (or, at any rate, prairie toilets) has been prevented. And now explicitly genocidal eliminationist threats against Jews are being bellowed out at public rallies. But that’s okay, because it’s not a hate crime, unlike my book. Which may explain the curious silence of the CJC and the toilet warriors.

After watching last weekend’s anti-Semitic demonstration in Calgary, Ezra Levant looks for support, not from the silent Jewish establishment, but from Christians.

Thank God for September 12th people, especially evangelical Christians. I would place my life in their hands before those of the Official Jews anytime. I just hope that remains a hypothetical decision.

God save Israel.

Finally, Deborah Gyapong posts photos of a well-attended pro-Israel rally in Ottawa.  No flag burning or hate-filled obscenities are reported.

Q: Will the government amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prevent unwarranted interferences in free expression by human rights commissions?

A: The government has no plans to do so. We’re certainly aware of the issue. My understanding—we’ve been monitoring this closely—I think you’ll actually see there’s been some modification of behaviour on the part of the Canadian human rights commissions. The most egregious cases right now are mostly at the provincial level. And it is a very tricky issue of public policy because obviously, as we’ve seen, some of these powers can be abused. But they do exist for valid reasons, which is obviously to prevent public airwaves from being used to disseminate hate against vulnerable members of our society. That’s a valid objective. It’s probably the case that we haven’t got the balance right, but I’m not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be.

Jay Currie says the Conservative Party “should be ashamed of itself” and advocates Plan “B”—strategic voting aimed at hurting, and perhaps even unseating, the Conservative government. Ezra Levant, by contrast, looks on the bright side and points out that the PM’s implied criticisms of human rights commissions would have been unthinkable a year ago.

No doubt about it, Mr Harper’s comment is disappointing. I fully understand Jay’s frustration and the reasons for his proposal but, for myself, I don’t have the stomach for strategic voting. If I became too disgusted with the Conservatives to vote for them, and did not see an acceptable alternative on the ballot (and I haven’t seen one for many years), I’d just stay home on election day.

On the positive side, Harper’s statement seems to contain an implied threat to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. “The most egregious cases right now are mostly at the provincial level” implicitly recognises that the CHRC has pursued “egregious” cases. “[A]s we’ve seen, some of these powers can be abused”, i.e., the CHRC has sometimes abused its powers.

I admit, however, that I find his parting shot baffling:

It’s probably the case that we haven’t got the balance right, but I’m not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be.

No way is that satisfactory. He thinks the balance isn’t right, but doesn’t know how to fix it. Come on, Mr Harper, you’ve got some smart people working in the Department of Justice. Put them to work: Make it your government’s priority to get the balance right. Don’t just shrug your shoulders and put the issue on the back burner.

The CHRC commissioned an internal review from an independent expert and even he recommended repealing Section 13. In view of that, Harper needs to present a more detailed defence of his view that the Canadian Human Rights Act is acceptable as is.

Ezra stands by his prediction that the law will be changed in 2009. I hope he’s right.

Korean Air told the commission to shove off respectfully declined to comply.

Korean Air said it has no intention of abiding by the watchdog’s advice because it “seriously” violates an individual company’s rights to formulate its own hiring system.
[…]
The commission’s advice is not legally binding, but investigator Na Sang-won said that if Korean Air does not comply, the watchdog may ask the Labor Ministry to take punitive action.

What punitive action might that be?

Korea’s law on equal opportunity in employment carries a maximum penalty of a 5 million won ($3,810) fine.

$3810? That will definitely cause Korean Air to re-consider its sexist ways.

ROK Drop is running a poll asking readers, “Do you want Korean Airlines [to] hire male flight attendants”? At the time of writing, “No” is winning heavily, with 83% of the vote.

h/t: The Western Confucian

The purpose of my complaint was to test the objectivity of the Commission. My complaint relates to the imam’s book L’Islam ou l’Intégrisme ? À la lumière du Qor’an et de la Sounnah (Islam or Fundamentalism ? In light of the Qor’an and the Sunna), (2006/2007), 3rd edition corrected. Imam Abou H., who is fluent in Arabic, attended universities in Saudi Arabia where he studied Islam and the science of Hadiths. His teachings can therefore be perceived as authoritative with respect to Islam.

My complaint under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the “Act”) claims that the writings of the imam are supremacist and expose persons belonging to the following groups to hatred or contempt : homosexuals, Infidels (non-Muslims), women, Jews, Quebecois (as an ethnic group and national minority).

The results of the objectivity test are in: The CHRC flunks.

On December 5, I received a letter fom [sic] Stéphane Brisson of the Commission informing me that they will not proceed to investigate my complaint. In the opinion of the Commission, the writings of the imam are not likely to expose persons from identifiable groups to hatred or contempt.

“Not likely to expose persons from identifiable groups to hatred or contempt”? Did they even read the book? Check out these colourful remarks from Imam al-Hayiti:

• Homosexuals and lesbians should be “exterminated in this life”
• “Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded”
• Most Infidels “live like animals”
• “they [infidels] are evil people, they love perversity”, and “they are our enemies”
• “men are superior to women and better than them”. In general, “men have a more complete intellect and memory than women”
• “It is because of this religion of lies [Christianity], which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery”
• Jews “spread corruption and chaos on earth”

All of the above quotations were translated into English by Marc Lebuis. See his post for many more odious examples.

Christian pastor Stephen Boissoin said far less offensive things about homosexuals and was ordered not to say another word about them for the rest of his life.

Why does the CHRC give hatred a free pass when it’s uttered by a Muslim?

h/t: Kathy Shaidle

He needs to get with the programme: Hasn’t he read the script for defenders of Canada’s “human rights” commissions?   Our human rights commissions avoid adversarial procedures. Canada is more civilised than that.  Our way is to promote conciliation and harmony by summoning insensitive bigots uninformed rednecks to informal re-education sessions.  Offenders are enlightened; they come to see the error of their ways; they capitulate apologise.

Commissions thus perform an indispensable role in ensuring that our fair land remains on the path to utopia.

No panels of the P.E.I. Human Rights Commission sat in 2008, as all complaints were settled before reaching that stage in the proceedings.
[…]
The most common discrimination complaints involve employment, disabilities and political beliefs. Larter said it is better to resolve issues without the panel, which take a lot of time and money for everyone involved.

How exactly do “political beliefs” give grounds for a discrimination claim?

“It’s akin to a lawsuit,” he said.

“If I were to sue you and we appear in court, we’re going to have to call our witnesses; it’s the same thing with a panel hearing on the Human Rights Act.”

Except that a real court observes legal safeguards that a “human rights” panel does not—presumption of innocence, rules of evidence, and other inconveniences.

Nevertheless, Mr Larter foresees some lawsuits human rights panels in the near future.

While have been no cases in 2008, Larter said there are two or three cases currently on the commission’s books that he expects will reach the panel stage in the new year.

I wonder if any of those eagerly anticipated panels will deal with “complaints” about “political beliefs”.

While Prof. Moon’s report is excellent, the actual power to implement his recommendations, or any others that relate to the CHRA, resides not with the commission but with Parliament. It is the nation’s elected representatives who are ultimately responsible for the act. Therefore the ball is, as they say, now in Parliament’s court.
[…]
In an open and liberal democracy, we have a right to be protected from hate speech, but we do not have a right to not be offended. Canadians laid down their lives in two world wars to give us the cherished right of free speech. It is now the duty of Parliamentarians to stand up and protect it.

Besides the Canadian Human Rights Commission, all thirteen provinces and territories have human rights commissions or tribunals with widely differing mandates and statutory authorities. Thus, Dr Martin also calls on provincial and territorial legislatures to act on Prof Moon’s recommendations “so that there is one standard for free speech across the land”.

It would appear a matter of simple justice that legal provisions governing speech be harmonised across the country. One reason why human rights commissions in Canada have become the subject of public ridicule and outrage is the absurdity of jurisdiction shopping, as was attempted by Mohammed Elmasry and his sock puppets in their campaign against Macleans magazine.

This is the full text of the report’s conclusion:

I have taken the position in this report that the censorship of hate speech should be limited to speech that explicitly or implicitly threatens, justifies or advocates violence against the members of an identifiable group. However, the prohibition of this narrow category of extreme expression fits awkwardly in a human rights law that is concerned with the eradication of discrimination through education and conciliation. It is for this reason that my principal recommendation is that section 13 of the CHRA be repealed. The Criminal Code hate speech provisions, and in particular section 319(2) and section 320.1, offer an effective response to hate speech while respecting the public and constitutional commitment to freedom of expression. If section 13 is retained, however, I have proposed a series of amendments to the scope of the section, and the related complaint process, which are intended to make the hate speech ban fairer and more efficient. Censorship of expression that stereotypes or defames the members of an identifiable group is not a practical option and so we must, as a community, develop other ways to respond to this expression.

The full report can be viewed here (html) or downloaded here (pdf).

The federal government should act on Prof Moon’s recommendation ASAP.