Paging Steyn: Get Ready For A Beating

We’ve been looking at the BCHRT over the past few days, to get a heads-up on what Steyn can expect when the Maclean’s case goes before the human rights bureaucrats in British Columbia this week.

Here’s a couple of interesting bits from the BCHRT. Enjoy. You pay for every single minute of it.

Today we’ll cut the BCHRT some slack and look at some cases that were actually thrown out. Why they were thrown out is an educational experience in itself:

1. Staples v Hoffert, case dismissed

Tribunal Chair: Heather M. MacNaughton 

No one appearing for the Complainant 

On behalf of the Respondent: Marcus Hoffert

Reason for dismissal: “(c) there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;

Neat. The complainant doesn’t even have to show up. We also like the language for the dismissal: not “the complaint has no merit,” but that it didn’t have “a reasonable prospect” to succeed.

2. Gallagher v. Aggressive K9 and others (case dismissed):

[Reason for dismissal]: 

(c) there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;  

(d) proceeding with the compliant…would not:

(i) benefit the person, group or class alleged to have 

been discriminated against, or 

(ii) further the purposes of this Code

Cool. Another case thrown out not because of merit, but because it wouldn’t get a good betting line in Vegas. Cases can also be dismissed if they don’t further the “Code,” or benefit the entire planet.

3. Tina Small Legs v. Supinder Dhillon:

[19] Here, there is no answer from the respondent.  Therefore, if I find that Ms. Small  Legs can prove that her race was a factor in Ms. Dhillon’s refusal to continue to employ her, then Ms. Small Legs will have established a case of discrimination…

[27] I make the following remedial orders: 

1. Pursuant to s. 37(2)(a) of the Code, Supinder Dhillon is ordered to cease the contravention of the Code and refrain from committing the same or similar contravention. 

2. Pursuant to s. 37(d)(iii), Supinder Dhillon is ordered to pay Ms. Small Legs $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

Complainant doesn’t show? No problem. Respondent doesn’t show? They lose.

Aurelian v. Cressey Properties (Case dismissed):

(c)  there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;  

(d)  proceeding with the complaint or that part of the complaint would not 

(i)  benefit the person, group or class alleged to have been discriminated against, or  

(ii) further the purposes of this Code;  

(e) the complaint or that part of the complaint was filed for improper motives or made in bad faith; 

Ah. Finally they get to (e) and tell you that the complaint was crap. But what if it had “furthered the purposes of the Code…?”

Finally, meet Barbara Humphreys. She works for the BCHRT, and wears two hats. She’s been a counsel for the complainant, as well as a judge (they call it the harmless title of “Tribunal Member”) in BCHRT cases. If Steyn draws her, it ought to be a quick trial. Here’s a good example of the way she decides a case, where she uses a students’ union to guide her decision:

Majority Rules: [National Post] “I was reminded of this justice-by-show-of-hands farce last week when the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) dismissed a complaint brought against the UBC-Okanagan students’ association for refusing club status to another branch of Students for Life.

As part of her justification for dismissing the complaint, BCHRT investigator Barbara Humphreys cited a general meeting of UBCO students in November, 2006, at which a majority voted against permitting a pro-life club. Council had been unable to decide what to do, so they deferred to a student assembly that voted down the application.”

So if Steyn doesn’t show, he loses. If the complainant doesn’t show, he loses. And if enough people think he should lose, he loses. If the case gets chucked out, it’s not because of merit, it’s because of its probable chances for “success.” So he loses.

Bye, Steyn.


4 responses to “Paging Steyn: Get Ready For A Beating

  1. I am totally changing my name to “Tina Small Legs”

  2. Barbara Humphreys and BCHRT should be tried before a real court for criminal conspiracy, violation of privacy laws, intent to commit fraud, Orwellian abuse of language, and impersonating the Gestapo.

    This issue is never going to go away until the BCHRT is abolished and the conspirators are imprisoned.

  3. Orwell would be chuckling!

  4. Pingback: Steynianism 158 « Free Mark Steyn!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s