The Human Rights Commission Lotto

[Michael OLeary]

The rights wheel of fortune

MARGARET WENTE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
March 3, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

Here's your cutting-edge human-rights case for the day: Should a person with a penis be allowed to use the women's locker room because he feels like he's a woman?

If you answered "not necessarily," please send a dollar to John Fulton, who owns a gym in St. Catharines, Ont. He'll need it for his defence fund.

Three years ago, Mr. Fulton got a call from a deep-voiced stranger who wanted to sign up for his women-only gym. Two days later, he got a visit: The stranger turned out to be a preoperative transsexual. Mr. Fulton, perhaps with his female clients' reactions in mind, hesitated. A week later, he received a lawyer's letter demanding an apology and a cash settlement. He refused, and now is trapped in human-rights commission hell.

"I'm probably screwed here," he said last week after a mediation session proved unsuccessful. He's right. Here's why. The offended party gets a free lawyer. Win or lose, he pays nothing. But the defendant always pays. If he decides to put up a fight, he might have to spend $100,000, maybe more, even if he wins. The case could drag on for years.

Lawyers who act for people such as Mr. Fulton usually advise them to settle. That typically entails a modest sum of money paid to the complainant, an abject letter of apology, and an agreement to post a prominent sign guaranteeing (for example) equal treatment for all self-identified women, regardless of the configuration of their private parts. They must also agree never to disclose the settlement or any of the details.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission boasts that its mediation process achieves a phenomenally high settlement rate. Now you know why. Many companies have come to regard these payouts as just another cost of doing business.

Increasingly, those on the receiving end of the human-rights process are little guys. Just ask Ted Kindos. He runs Gator Ted's, a popular family restaurant and sports bar in Burlington, Ont.

A medical-marijuana smoker liked to lurk around the doorway, self-medicating. When Mr. Kindos asked the toker to take off, the toker took him to the human-rights commission for discriminating against someone with a disability. Mr. Kindos was told that he could settle if he forked over $2,000 to his tormentor, and posted a prominent sign saying that Gator Ted's accommodates customers with medical disabilities.

There's just one catch. If Mr. Kindos agrees, he stands to lose his liquor licence for allowing a controlled substance to be consumed where alcohol is used. His lawyer thinks the courts should sort out this dilemma before Mr. Kindos gets nailed. Mr. Kindos's loyal customers are outraged on his behalf. But the human-rights commission doesn't agree. It has a full-blown tribunal hearing scheduled for this summer.

Oh, I could go on. I could tell you about the case of the mother who insists on her right to breast-feed anywhere she wants - in this case, not just at a swimming pool, but in the pool. When the woman who owns the pool objected (for fear of accidental baby poop), the mother declared: "It was my human right. She violated my human right to breast-feed and I knew that." I could tell the one about the B.C. woman who failed to get a job after a manager complained that she had a hacking cough and "reeked of smoke." She also had a record of a lot of sick days. She argues she was discriminated against because of her disability - an addiction to cigarettes.

All this would be funny if it weren't so abusive to the taxpayers and the innocent. Our human-rights commissions have made it easy to exploit the system. Too many of the cases they accept are frivolous or marginal, and too many of their decisions are, to most of us, absurd. They are losing their legitimacy, and underwriting their own demise. At this rate, it can't come soon enough.

 

[chris_log]

Ahh the HRCs, Canada's own kangaroo courts with the equivalent legitimacy of the 'courts' held by the Taliban in the 1990's.

As of late I've become quite a fan of Ezra Levant and his blogging campaign against Canada's HRCs. Not only do they unfairly prosecute Canadians for imagined 'crimes' but they stick their noses into legitimate criminal cases.

They have also proven very effective (along with their allies) at attacking relatively minor bigots who are then, via these commissions, elevated to near martyr status within racist/anti-semetic circles. A good example is David Ahenakew, the man was a nobody who made an idiot comment that was then blown out of proportion. Now, the anti-semetic crowd has a new martyr for the cause, someone who should have just been allowed to sink back into the shadows from whence he came.

I'm ranting, but it angers me how ignorant Canadians are of the major threat these HRCs pose to our freedoms.

 

[tabernac]

We need to get some Ralph Klein types on these human rights councils. It might balance them out a bit.

 

[George Wallace]

It just emphasises the fact that Common Sense isn't common.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This is too freakin' rich by far......not suprising really,..but rich.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/18/pol-integrity-commissioner-report-human-rights-tribunal.html

Former human rights chief abused employees, report finds

Worst case he's ever investigated, says whistleblower watchdog

The former head of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal abused and harassed her employees, a report tabled in Parliament today concludes.
Shirish Chotalia, former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, harassed and abused her staff and members of the tribunal, a report by the Public Service Integrity Commissioner says. (shirishchotalia.com)
Public Service Integrity Commissioner Mario Dion says Shirish Chotalia is guilty of gross mismanagement, improper behaviour, and making inappropriate remarks. The investigation took almost two years to complete.

And Dion, whose role is to investigate public service workplace complaints, says Chotalia's behaviour had a serious impact on the health of workers.
MORE ON LINK

 

[FJAG]

Having served on a human rights commission I know that there have been a number of decisions which leave the average person wondering what is going on. On the other hand I know that the vast majority of the decisions are ones that are completely sensible and most often provide relief in situations where someone was patently treated shabbily.

Human rights laws exist. From the UN Charter on down and they won't go away. And that's a good thing. I think that if you were to read the basic elements of the Federal or your provincial human rights act you wouldn't disagree with them.

The laws however need interpreting and that is done by the various hearing officers appointed by governments across the country. My appointment was a political one made by the Minister of Justice--there was no election, no review, just a nice letter telling me I was in. Four years later when the government changed I dutifully resigned in order to allow the new Minister to appoint his nominees. Quite frankly that's where the thing sits: the quality of the hearing officers generally depends on the leanings of the government in power and the people who that government trusts to do the job right.

Unfortunately, every once in a while you have a bad hearing officer or a bad case. The old rule that "bad cases make bad law" all too often ring true here. Those make the news. Not the hundreds of good cases and the even greater number of ones that have been settled. Don't underestimate the number of frivolous complaints that are dismissed.

Incidentally, the complainant does not get a free lawyer. Once a case is accepted after vetting by staff and mediation fails, the case is given to a lawyer who works for the commission who has an obligation to present the facts of the case to the hearing officer. Frequently complainants will not hire their own lawyer while the respondents do but don't have to either. Unfortunately human rights law is complex--especially leading edge cases--and one would be a foolish respondent not to go in with counsel.

Its always open to the government to change the law or the hearing officers when a really bad decision comes down, but so far that hasn't happened except in very limited circumstances. Governments tend to stay at arms length of the daily fray that happens regarding human rights hearings and with what I see happening with many Republican legislatures in the States, I consider that a good thing even if it results in some bone headed decisions by the tribunals.

op: