Private school gender politics, Part II - Names are named

Christie Blatchford: Posh Vancouver school places staff under gag order after teacher fired

Fraser Academy, the expensive Vancouver private school where last month a teacher was fired after making allegedly “triggering” remarks to a Grade 12 law class, has put its staff under a gag order.

Maureen Steltman, the school head, told Postmedia in a brief emailed statement the school “does not comment on personnel issues, even when we take issue with public inaccuracies.”  ...

Christie documents a history of similar abuses by this tyrannical school head-mistress, closing with:

... As for the teacher who was dismissed last month, he received a notice this week from the Teacher Regulation Branch, telling him the Fraser Academy has “provided a report about your conduct.”  He is so crushed and distraught, he said, he may voluntarily surrender his teaching certificate.

Nice! I hope that teacher can summon the nerve (and cash) to take Fraser Academy to court for wrongful dismissal and publicly expose their insanity.   If he identified himself perhaps he could get some crowd funding from, say, The Rebel.  I'd be willing to chip in.  Or, (I hate to even suggest such a thing) failing that take the bastards to the BC Human Rights Tribunal (no cost for complainants) - on second thought, those 'social justice' morons would likely side with the school.

Janice Fiamengo, anti-feminist, is being hauled before Ontario's "Social Justice" Tribunal

"We are witnessing a powerfully malevolent force in ascendance" [academic feminism]:




And, in a demonstration of an equally powerful malevolent force working in lock-step with academic feminism:

Janice Fiamengo is being hauled before the Ontario "Social Justice" Tribunal:

A former student has accused Janice of a human rights violation which will go to trial before the Social Justice Tribunal of Ontario. The University of Ottawa is a co-defendant in this case and is of course represented by their own lawyer. Recent cases have demonstrated quite clearly that universities are quick to throw their employees under the bus in order to appease the Social Justice mobs so the university of Ottawa cannot be trusted to protect Fiamengo. The university of Ottawa lawyer is payed to protect the University of Ottawa NOT Janice Fiamengo. Any deal offered or struck will consider only the interests of the university, the social justice tribunal, and the student. Janice Fiamengo will be considered expendable throughout this process. 

The proper name for this "Social Justice" Tribunal process is "tyranny".

Her "trial" begins in six to eight months.  Her legal fees have already been successfully crowd-funded.

Government joke critic fines comedian $42,000

The Quebec "Human Rights" Tribunal ruled that Mike Ward's humor was offensive and fined him $42 grand, thereby boosting his already high popularity.  This will probably make him a millionaire, and good for him.   Here's Mike Ward with Gavin McInnes shortly after the ruling:



As always the truly offensive joke in these cases is the "human rights" bureaucracy.

Jacques Frémont - another of Islamism's useful idiots

Barbara Kay:

[We can defend ourselves against Islamists] so long as we exercise our freedom of speech to denounce Islamism and shame those who support it. Which is why Islamists invented the myth of Islamophobia in Western countries to justify their call for a tightening of the noose on this precious freedom. They certainly can’t do it alone, but they have “useful idiots,” ...

One of these useful idiots, Jacques Frémont, president of the Quebec Human Rights Commission (QHRC) and president-elect of the University of Ottawa, is the father of Quebec’s Bill 59, which will give offended individuals the power to have writers they perceive to have criticized Islam censored and punished by onerous fines. This dreadful initiative marks a Canadian watershed in Islamist appeasement, but attention paid to it in English Canada has been shamefully sparse.

Another strike against Peter MacKay

In March of this year Justice Minister Peter MacKay appointed Marie-Claude Landry, Ad.E., as the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for a seven-year term.

Since then it has become increasingly apparent that she is little more than partisan activist who has little understanding of either "human rights" or her own role as an appointed government employee (aka "hack").  Immediately following boy-Justin's big victory she proved this beyond a doubt by releasing this partisan affront to common sense.

Ezra Levant elaborates:


Imagine the damage that will be done by this nimrod with the Trudeau Liberal nimrods in power!

Were the choices of possible conservative appointees completely non-existent?  And even if that were so could Peter MacKay not have found even one Liberal with half a clue?  Horrible judgement, Peter!  We lose! Big time!

George Jonas on Alan Borovoy

George Jonas: When my old leftist friend, Alan Borovoy, saw the light

A few days ago I reminisced about an old friend in this space, the founder and General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, A. Alan Borovoy, who passed away last weekend.

... I noted that he and I agreed on almost nothing, except the importance of liberty.

... Central to our debates were Canada’s human rights commissions: The laws and institutions Borovoy and like-minded civil libertarians, mostly leftwing activists, created, or at least played a major role in creating, ... Alan and his friends couldn’t imagine how civil liberties had anything to fear from laws and organizations they themselves, champions of civil liberties, were bringing to life.

... In the 1980s, with civil liberties already halfway down the throat of the voracious state, Alan was still dismissing the slippery slope as a shopworn myth. It took him another decade and a half to change his mind.

... By 1998 he did. “Ever since the government embarked on a course of trying to outlaw expressions of hatred, it’s shown that there is a slippery slope. One thing has led to another,” he said in relation to a proposed “hate speech” legislation in British Columbia. ..

... once he saw the light, Alan didn’t pull his punches. He was as outspoken in defending freedom against his own creation, the human rights bureaucracy, as he had been defending it against its traditional enemies. 

Nova Scotia's awful cyber abuse law

The Nova Scotia law defines cyberbullying:

3(1)(b) "cyberbullying" means any electronic communication through the use of technology including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, computers, other electronic devices, social networks, text messaging, instant messaging, websites and electronic mail, typically repeated or with continuing effect, that is intended or ought reasonably be expected to cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other damage or harm to another person's health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation, and includes assisting or encouraging such communication in any way;

Jesse Brown summarizes the law and his objections:

... Ultimately, bullying is in the eye of the bullied. For many, cyberbullying is equal to a negative thing said about them on the Internet. I’ve met restaurant owners who feel they’re being cyberbullied by Chowhound critics. 

... [Referring to the above definition] If this is the standard, I don’t know a person who isn’t a cyberbully. 

[...] 

Nova Scotia’s Cyber Safety Act is in clear conflict with our Charter rights to free expression, and I can’t imagine it withstanding a legal challenge on those grounds. But that will take time. 

Until then, watch what you say in Nova Scotia, and be very careful not to hurt anyone’s feelings. [And no doubt coming soon in your province.]

It looks like Human Rights Commission/Tribunal kangaroo justice Mark II.

Jerry Agar with Anthony Furey:

Section 13 ('hate' speech provision) removed from the Human Rights Act.

Senate approves bill:

... A private member’s bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is known as the “hate speech provision,” passed the Senate this week and received Royal Assent.

... The bill from Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth passed the House of Commons last summer, but needed Senate approval. It will take effect after a one-year phase-in period.

Good riddance!

Comedian Guy Earle loses appeal of BC "Human Rights" Tribunal ruling

National Post:

In a ruling that could carry implications for comedy clubs across Canada, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has upheld the right of a bar patron to receive five-figures in damages from a comedian whose performance she alleges gave her post-traumatic stress disorder.

... ruled Justice Jon Sigurdson, while comedy clubs may swirl with “offensive, irreverent and inappropriate” language they are not operating in “zones of absolute immunity from human rights legislation.” [You mean "fake human rights" legislation, don't you judge?]

... In addition to Mr. Earle’s $15,000 penalty, the restaurant was also ordered to pay $7,000 to Ms. Pardy on the grounds that since the owner had given Mr. Earle a small bar tab to host the event, the comedian was legally an employee. Restaurant owner Salam Ismail had already spent at least $13,000 in legal fees defending himself before the tribunal. ...

Thereby, sadly, upholding the fake "human right" not to be offended, strengthening the mandate of "Human Rights" Commissions and Tribunals to continue punishing those who allegedly hurt others' feelings, and encouraging sensitive souls and opportunists to file more complaints.

Update:

Earls caves to BC "Human Rights" Kangaroo Tribunal

Earls Restaurant decided to drop its Albino Rhino labelled beer in response to a "human rights" complaint from a thin-skinned albino immigrant from Nigeria.  Sadly, according to this report, Earls, rather than fight, caved in with a whimper:

Communications Manager Cate Simpson said it was never their intention to offend anyone, but agreed Earls had come to appreciate people with the rare genetic condition struggle with discrimination.

"We did give thought to the fact we were offending a group of people and to that end we decided to move forward and remove the word albino from our beer branding."

I can understand Earls dropping the label rather than waste time and money fighting this ridiculous nonsense, but did they didn't have to buy into the idiot complainer's bullcrap.

Here's Ezra Levant:

Thin skinned "albino rights" activist files complaint with BC "Human Rights" Tribunal

Kelly McParland:

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear a complaint against a restaurant chain that sells a beer called Albino Rhino, because a woman who suffers albinism considers it offensive.

... Ikponwosa Ero, a 31-year-old immigrant from Nigeria, says Earls restaurants Albino rhino and wings combo is no different than offering an “Alzheimer’s appetizer,” or “Down syndrome daiquiri.”

... Earls [has] been selling Albino rhino beer for 25 years without complaint

This is beyond ridiculous. Though it's no surprise that the BCHRT is hearing the complaint.  They're just doing what grievance mongers and enablers are inclined to do.

Both Ero, a professional albino rights activist, and the BCHRT deserve maximum ridicule.  And judging from the comments on McParland's column they're getting it.

Not a bad column by McParland but he's way too accomodating:

... both parties in the dispute have valid enough arguments [No they don't.]

... Earls also has a reasonable case. [... ie. Ero has a "reasonable" case.  No she doesn't.]

... could Earls have maybe avoided some bad publicity and needless legal expense by agreeing to quietly relabel the suds “white rhino” over an extended period? Would it have been so difficult? [B.S. Why should Earl's modify a perfectly respectable brand of 25 years to satisfy one professional complainer's unreasonable complaint.]

Kudos to Earls for not knuckling under.

Loathsome atheists

Enabled by loathsome "human relations" commission:

... a Pennsylvania-based restaurant ...has been offering a 10 percent discount for individuals who bring in a church bulletin on Sundays.

... Citing this action as discriminatory, John Wolff, a local atheist, filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). Now, the restaurant will be forced to offer discounts to any individual who brings in a pamphlet involving religious faith — including atheism.

"Discriminatory"? Sure the restaurant was being discriminatory.  That's its right and no business of the bleeding government.

Note that the PHRC polices human 'relations' rather than human 'rights'.
Note also that the PHRC designates atheism as a "religious faith".  The atheists can't be too happy with that.

Hatred and contempt

Those were the emotions I felt on watching Ezra Levant’s show this week covering the 1998 conviction of Mark Harding (see also) for his "hate" crime. I felt visceral hatred and contempt towards:

- politicians responsible for Canada’s laws criminalizing ideas and emotions;
- Muslims who took offence and had Mark Harding charged under these “hate” laws;
- the “justice” system (especially the judges) that enforced these laws, and;
- the mainstream media who ignored Mark Harding’s persecution (until SunTV arrived).

Each of these groups is “identifiable” and the events surrounding Mark Harding’s persecution has “incited my hatred against” them. And while I may not be so inclined, who knows how “likely” it might be for other hot-heads to “breach the peace” in response.  I suspect no less likely than was Mark Harding’s “hate” crime.

So, if I read the “publicly communicated” criminal code correctly (at least the politically correct courts’ interpretation of it), we have an absurd situation where the “hate” crime laws have themselves incited hatred and charges should be lain - and lending new feasibility to the expression “go f**k yourself”.

Until now I thought that the “human rights” bureaucracy was the threat - that the criminal code would not be used to abuse freedom of speech. Live and learn.

A recent update on Mark Harding.

Those (well intended) “human rights” codes must be abolished

Kathy Shaidle observes that even some of their strongest critics allow that Canadian human rights codes originally had noble intentions. She thinks not, hasn’t for some time and is gratified that others are now coming round to her thinking:

[Karen Sellick]:
... bulldog ... Ezra Levant describes the human rights system as "a beautiful idea -that failed." He credits it with the "noble goal of eliminating real discrimination ..."
Wrong.
Human rights codes have fabricated a phoney "right" to be free from discrimination and used it to override a panoply of genuine human rights, including: freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of contract and control over one's private property. There can be no such thing as the right to violate someone else's rights. It's a contradiction in terms. The only solution to this seeming paradox is the complete repeal of the human rights codes, not mere changes to the enforcement mechanisms.

[Chris Scafer]:
Now that Tim Hudak, leader of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party, has backtracked on his plan to scrap the province’s Human Rights Tribunal if elected, the focus of debate has turned to reform.
[...]
... if history has taught us one lesson, it is that a government that is powerful enough to outlaw discrimination by individuals is also a government powerful enough to compel discrimination when the public mood of the majority changes. This is why Ontario’s human rights system must be abolished.

Couldn’t agree more. Though I still think, like Ezra, that the meddling liberal social engineers responsible for enacting the “human rights” codes actually did have good intentions. They always do, don’t they? Good intentions are what mesmerize liberals - to the point that they are incapable of thinking them through to their logical, very often rotten conclusions.

Another "Human Rights" travesty

Standup comic Guy Earle has been fined $15,000 by the dumbass BC "Human Rights" Kangaroo Tribunal  (full 107 page decision, summary).  The BCHRT found Earle (along with Zesty's Comedy Club owners - $7500 fine) guilty of violating lesbian Lorna Pardy's pseudo human right not to be offended. What a joke.



Earle's web page. 
Charles Adler's interview with Earle (April 21st p3).
Mark Steyn.

Religion of Peace vs Pastor Jones and free speech

Lorne Gunter's take on Afghans' Islamo-murderous reaction to Pastor Terry Jones' Koran burning:

... Jones should be ignored. ... Politicians should denounce him, and editors and producers should deprive him of the oxygen (media coverage) that stokes his demented brain. But those who suggest Jones is a bigger villain than the rioters who have taken lives over a book burning – any book burning – are looking at this issue through the wrong end of the telescope.

I agree with much of  Gunter's column.  But that last part (Jones should be ignored, etc ...), good advice though it may be, is somewhat weakened by having spent his first three paragraphs publicly denouncing Jones.

Meanwhile, others see Jones' actions as a free speech issue and take Republican Senator Lindsay Graham to task for saying of Jones:

"I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable."

From the comments: "Jones is an idiot and Graham is competing with him for the title."

Mark Steyn weighs in:

"... Lindsey Graham is unfit for office. The good news is there’s no need for the excitable lads of Mazar e-Sharif to chop his head off because he’s already walking around with nothing up there. ..."

... A society led by such “men” cannot survive, and does not deserve to.

And again to Graham's "embarassing" response to the above criticism:

... The guy “putting the troops at risk” here is Senator Graham, and General Petraeus and the other advocates of the one-way multiculti danse macabre. They’re telling our enemies the more you tread on our toes the more we’ll pretend not to notice and try to waltz you gaily round the floor one more time.

Pre-emptive capitulation only invites more and more provocations. Like the Arabs say, a falling camel attracts many knives.

Dispensing injustice

Good editorial today in the Post highlighting yet another "human rights" travesty:

... Following a four-day hearing in 2009, a tribunal adjudicator sided with [the complainant] and ordered Ms. Telfer to pay her former employee $36,000, a sum Ms. Telfer says she does not have.  ... When she failed to pay, the plaintiff's government paid lawyers placed a lien on the home of Ms. Telfer.

... At the hearing, [the compainant] was represented by governmentpaid lawyers, while Ms. Telfer represented herself because she could not afford counsel (and no government aid was offered to her). During the proceedings, a key witness for Ms. Telfer was prevented from giving evidence, while no such exclusions were made from [the complainant's] witness list.

... Sadly, these are all-too-common tactics employed by federal and provincial rights commissions and tribunals ...

The good news is:

Last week, a three-judge Ontario Superior Court panel struck down the adjudicator's decision in Ms. Telfer's case, saying it was "fatally flawed" and explaining that it was "simply not possible to logically follow the pathway taken by the adjudicator" to arrive at his conclusions.

Which was promptly followed by some more bad news:

The court ordered another hearing before a different adjudicator...

Along with some slightly better news:

... and told [the complainant] to pay for Ms. Telfer's lawyer.

 But:

Naturally, the Ontario human rights tribunal has already said it will pay on [the complainant's] behalf ...

Arrrggghhh!

In conclusion:

["Human Rights" Commissions] have evolved into modern-day Star Chambers. Commissioners and investigators all too often act as though they have -- or should have -- the same authority as judges. Yet given their biases and the lack of safeguards for defendants' rights, they seldom dispense true justice. It is long past time that politicians found the courage to rein them in. [Amen!]

Dear Mr. Prime Minister and provincial Premiers:
Please get together on this, use some common sense and try to locate your gonads!

Jennifer Lynch Live!

J-Ly is testifying lying before the Justice Committee today (live streaming bullcrap began 12:30 PM PST).

Thanks to Blazing Catfur for the notification.

Joe Comartin just asked whether defamation suits would pursued against Levant and Steyn ("Stain", I think he said) for their allegedly false allegations against CHRC employees. Lynch denies that there was any wrong-doing by her employees but that if they wanted to pursue legal action they were on their own.

So far, all I can say is that "I hate that smug bitch!" And I'm not too keen on some of the Bloc and Lib (eg. Jennings) committee members either.

Ezra Levant here and several posts prior.

Update: Deborah Gyapong provides some interesting observations and photos:

Canadian Human Rights Commission head Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. ... literally made my jaw drop. ... her Cheshire Cat grin was wide enough for me to see her upturned lip. She came across as the smiling school marm, patiently explaining to everyone about how equality and freedom of speech need to be balanced.

Richard Warman was there. ... strikes me as quite young, young enough to be Jennifer Lynch's son [I think Deb meant "evil spawn"].

Ezra and Mark went up the Hill

Today Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn were witnesses before the Justice Committee hearings into HRA Section 13. I missed the live video action from the Hill but it was blogged by Maclean's Kady O'Malley and also here's Deborah Gyapong's take (with some nice photos). Unfortunately, what stands out most from both is the impression that the Committee is largely populated by MPs who have a weak grasp of the issues, which leaves the further impression that scrapping Section 13 is not something they're likely to recommend any time soon.

More links at Blazing Cat Fur who dubs Ezra's and Mark's performances a "tour de force".

Update: Now, having viewed the proceedings (here and here) I'll agree with BCF that Mark's and Ezra's performances were superb, a "tour de force". Hopefully their powerful testimony will get through the thick skulls of some Justice Committee members. See also Mark's and Ezra's subsequent remarks.

The CHRC presses its assault on free speech

Blazing Cat Fur alerts us to the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission's application for a Judicial Review of the CHRT's recent Lemire v. Warman decision, and rallies the troops.

Related and, and also.

Let the games begin continue!