Human Rights Tribunal Sets Stunning Precedent: Religion Erases Jurisdictional Boundaries

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the Maclean’s/BCHRT hearing:

12:05 PM
McConchie is again pointing out that Awan is from Ontario, so whatever traumatic impact the Steyn article is supposed to have had on him occurred, as it were, outside the BC tribunal’s jurisdiction.

12:08 PM
Their reply: he’s a member of the Muslim “community,” which includes BC Muslims. So, I take it, if he’s harmed, they are.

The rest.

New York Times Reporter: WTF?

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the Maclean’s/British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal case:

10:55 AM
So he wants the tribunal to order Rogers to publish … something, in the name of “balancing” free speech against the right to be free of discrimination.

10:59 AM
Just coming back from a break. Lots of media interest, it seems: CBC, CTV (I’m told), the National Post, local media, and a guy from the New York Times, who’s doing a piece comparing how the two countries’ legal systems deal with speech cases. Needless to say, he can’t believe what he’s witnessing…

The rest.

MacNaughton In Charge

Turns out, Heather M. MacNaughton is the tribunal chair for the Maclean’s case. We thought it would be Barbara Humphreys, as she’s done most of the heavy lifting for the BCHRT in 2008. Judy Parrack is another of their designated hitters, sitting in on several cases this year. Obviously, though, this case requires the big guns, as MacNaughton is the Chair-with-a-big-C of the entire BCHRT.

Still, MacNaughton has done some trenches work in ’08. Here’s her statement from one of her cases dated March 19, 2008. It should give a good idea of how the BCHRT system works: you’re guilty until you prove your innocence.

Prove To Us The Complaint Can’t Succeed; Prove It Isn’t Good For “The Code”

Gallagher v Edna Laughy, Cindy Williams, Aggressive K-9 Services and Action Guard Dog Services

[5] The sole basis for the respondents’ application is:

“There was no age discrimination in Aggressive K-9 Services not hiring the Complainant.  He was simply not a suitable candidate for the job.  A decision in this case will not effect anyone else as anyone hired is judged on merit not age, sex or any other factors.”

[6] As the Tribunal has repeatedly said, to be successful in an application under s. 27(1)(c), a respondent must do more than just dispute that discrimination occurred.  They must put before the Tribunal sufficient information for a member to determine that there is no reasonable prospect of the complaint succeeding. No such information accompanied this application and, based on the disputed versions of events, I cannot determine that there is no reasonable prospect that this complaint will succeed.

[7] Furthermore, if Mr. Gallagher is able to prove his allegations, and establish that age was a factor in the decision making with respect to him, this complaint will benefit him and will further the purposes of the Code.

[8] As a result, I deny the respondents’ application to dismiss the complaint.

— Heather M. MacNaughton, Tribunal Chair

The rest.

Hope The Steyn Case Doesn’t Go More Than 8 Hours

[The Independent] We can get into a puerile game where we all shriek to silence the people we disagree with. Or we can grow up, and have an argument. That’s why – for today, and only for today – I am standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Mark Steyn.

The rest.

BCHRT Greatest Hits

We’ll be highlighting a bunch of these this week, as the BCHRT is in the news.

Here’s one from September, 2005. Ralph Stopps applied for a membership at the Just Ladies fitness centre. Tribunal Member (read, judge) Judy Parrack ruled against him. Reason? He knew the place discriminated against men before he walked in the door, so why did he bother? Case dismissed.

[33] Mr. Stopps said he did not know that Just Ladies excluded men.  It was his belief that it was a “marketing” ploy and it was directed at women.  I did not find this evidence credible.  It was clear from the entirety of Mr. Stopps’s evidence that he knew Just Ladies was a women-only facility.  He went there specifically seeking to be denied a membership; he would not have expected this result if it was a co-ed facility.

[159] In conclusion, Mr. Stopps’ complaint is dismissed pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Code.

But, over in Quebec:

A Montreal gay bar that caters to male clients has settled a discrimination complaint with a woman who was thrown out of the premises.

Bar Le Stud and Audrey Vachon, the 21-year-old woman who launched the complaint, agreed to keep the terms of the settlement confidential, Canadian Press reported Tuesday.

Quebec’s human rights commission says businesses have the right to attract a particular clientele but not to discriminate by excluding other customers.

We’re Guessing Money

[Rabble News] Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced that he will make an official apology on behalf of the government for the horrific abuse suffered by victims of Canada’s residential school system.

…

So is an apology in order? Absolutely. Does the Conservative government really understand why they are making it? I think not.

Even for starters, it’s going to take much more than an apology.

The rest.

“Gender” = “Women”

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, pretending to be Barack Obama and writing a speech for him.

Somewhere in the waning hours of this interminable primary, I found myself channeling Barack Obama as he began a long overdue and eagerly anticipated conversation – on gender.

“Tonight, I want to talk directly with the women of America…”

The rest.

Catholic Bishop: Sex Rights Have Trumped Religious Rights, But Maybe We Can Still Help

A letter from the When Human Rights Collide file:

[Bishop of Lancaster, Patrick O’Donoghue, June 2, 2008]

My dear people,

I write about the future of Catholic Caring Services in the Diocese of Lancaster, in the light of the implementation of the Government’s Sexual Orientation Regulations(within the Equality Act [2006]). This must be one of the most difficult letters I have ever written as your Bishop. I am being forced to act because of the Trustees’ view (8-2) that we have no choice, if we are to remain in the work of adoption, but to accept homosexual and lesbian partnerships for the adoption of children.

…

In the event of Catholic Caring Services not being able to continue in adoption work then I would hope that the Diocese would be in a position to set up an adoption group to canvass prospective adopters and support them following adoption.

The rest.