Showing posts with label British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Show all posts
Friday, April 09, 2010
Guy Earle "Trial" - Part 8
I attended the closing oral arguments this afternoon and will post something at Covenant Zone over the weekend. It was largely Ms. Cousineau counsel for Lorna Pardy going through her legal and factual arguments for 1.5 to 2 hours, and Sam Ismail for Zesty's spoke for about ten minutes in a disorganized manner. Sam had started the afternnoon asking for more time and the Tribunal gave him another week to hand in his written arguments and then Pardy's new lawyer (since Cousineau is going on maternity leave) will have a week to reply. And then who knows when the decision will come. Tribunal entertained arguments on the question of jurisdiction but Cousineau basically argued it is not for the Tribunal to make constitutional rulings and so that should just be left for any appeal to the BC Supreme Court. More later, when I unpack Cousineau's legal arguments...
Friday, April 02, 2010
Brian Hutchinson's wrap-up on the Pardy-Earle "human rights" hearing
Funny business at B.C. human rights hearing
See also Hutchinson's report on day two of the hearing.
Two lawyers, a lesbian, a gay-positive Iraqi-born Christian restaurateur and a bunch of comedians walk into a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing. The punch line? There isn't one. Not in this scenario. What transpired this week inside BCHRT Hearing Room Four might have been unintentionally funny, but it wasn't comedy.
See also Hutchinson's report on day two of the hearing.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Guy Earle "Trial" - Part 7
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal hearing into the Guy Earle-Lorna Pardy incident at Zesty's has adjourned until Friday April 9 when closing arguments will be presented.
Just a few notes for now on the last witness, Samantha, whose last name I arrived too late to catch. She was a waitress at Zesty's on the night of the incident, May 22, 2007
Just a few notes for now on the last witness, Samantha, whose last name I arrived too late to catch. She was a waitress at Zesty's on the night of the incident, May 22, 2007
Witnesses for Zesty's Defense - Guy Earle Trial Part 6
I arrived at the BCHRT after the first witness of the day - see report of Bulleproofcourier. Again, my report paraphrases the witnesses with my comments in parentheses (...)
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Lorna Pardy did heckle: witness - Guy Earle "Trial" Part 4
(Drawing of BC Human Rights Tribunal Hearing Room 4 - by Bulletproofcourier)
The pathetic thing about the BC Human Rights Tribunal is that they provide little room for public access to their "hearing". Normally, there probably isn't much of a demand and all kinds of "powerful" people can be run through the ringer by "victims" without the public ever knowing much about it - that's what I mean by pathetic. But the Lorna Pardy - Guy Earle - Zesty's case is receiving a lot of media attention. And since the BCHRT only provide 18 seats for the public AND the media, if the merely curious show up to take the seats, there are no seats for those intent on reporting the event. So far I can only find two reports on today's hearing (searching Google News and Blogs).
The Province reports:
Ismail testified that he stepped out of the eatery for brief walk when the incidents took place which escalated to a point where Pardy threw two glasses of water at Earle and the comedian took the sunglasses off Pardy’s head, broke then in two, and threw them at her.Pathetic journalism: the witness who contradicts Pardy's testimony (Pardy said she didn't heckle) isn't even named or described; we don't even know which side called him/her.
He also testified that Earle was not his employee, but rather a volunteer comedian who acted as MC.
“He was never employed,” said Ismail adding that he set up a tab of $50 for the comedians on open-mic nights.
The hearing, which continues Wednesday, also heard from two other witnesses. One testified that Pardy and her friends heckled Earle and insulted him, while another said Earle targeted the table where Pardy sat.
We don't learn much more from the discussion between Marcella Bernardo and Christy Clark on CKNW radio - audio here, starting at 37.25 minute mark. Christy and Marcella don't quite grasp the issues at stake, and they are themselves so offended by Guy Earle's words (as Lorna Pardy remembered them) that they just emotionally take the view that the "Human Rights" Tribunal needs to be around to punish him.
But we do learn one thing from Marcella's reporting: Lorna Pardy, in finishing her cross-examination today, had her back turned to both Sam (who was asking the questions) and Salaam (the restaurant owner) Ismail. I really don't know what that was about but if this were a real court and not the law-as-victim-therapy "human rights" hearing, I'd say she might have been hurting her case: would a real court take a person capable of such emotion or drama as a completely credible witness?
Bulletproofcourier and I will try to do some tag-team reporting if we can get a seat tomorrow (Wednesday).
UPDATE: See Brian Hutchinson's report on day two of the hearing to fill in the blanks.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Guy Earle "Trial" Part 3 - Lorna Pardy testifies
This afternoon at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Lorna Pardy continued her testimony, and began her cross-examination. Before giving my impressions, I'll just note what Pardy said. I am paraphrasing and adding a few of my own observations in parentheses (...)
Pardy's lawyer, Ms. Cousineau, began by asking Pardy about her contact with the police after the May 2007 incident at Zesty's restaurant and after Pardy's conversation, the day after the incident, with Zesty's owner, Salam Ismail. Pardy said she told the police what happened but asked them not to interview Mr. Ismail, as this would not get the result she wanted - what that was was left unsaid, other than that she wanted some record, an incident report. She said she preferred instead to speak to a lawyer.
She said she did not organize any boycotts against Zesty's
She did not talk about making money off this case. She filed a human rights complaint because she thought her human rights had been violated. She said this matter of factly as if we all know when our human rights are violated.
In June 2009, over two years after the incident, James Millar, Guy Earle's lawyer, sent her a cheque for the sunglasses Earle had smashed.
The incident at Zesty's took her relationship with her girlfriend to a low point. Guy Earle had taken their power away (what that is supposed to mean, I'm not sure) and they broke up in early 2008 several months after the incident.
Pardy's lawyer wanted testimony to the impact of the event. Pardy said she had felt very frustrated by a negative portrayal of her in the first media story in the paper, Xtra West - it made her feel terrible. Earle's comment/joke about her not being a lesbian, just fat and ugly, was actually directed at Pardy's then girlfriend. But the media in confusing this was making Pardy into somebody else. This was damaging her professional reputation - the appearance of being out drinking was not good for her (I didn't hear most of the morning testimony but it seems Pardy has an airport and weather-related job).
Talking next about the youtube video of Guy Earle being interviewed on the "Dave and Chuck show" - the audio portion of the video was played and the hearing room had to listen to Earle's sense of humour for 13 minutes - Pardy said that the first time she saw that video she felt sick, like she experienced the event over and over again. She didn't sleep for 2-3 days. She couldn't believe how Earle portrayed her, as if she wasn't adult enough to get his "jokes". She was devastated, sick to the stomach, sweated, ears rang, couldn't sleep, up so long she vomited next day. Physically, she felt she was back in the situation of the original incident at Zesty's.
The next summer, 2009, there was a batch of media coverage attending BCHRT Chair, Heather Macnaughton's ruling not to dismiss the complaint. That's when, said Pardy, Earle actively sought out media to paint her as a bad person, as if this justified his behaviour at Zesty's.
As she read the news stories, her feelings went lower and lower, as the deck was being stacked against her, publicly. She felt cornered and devastated given his portrayal of her provoking the incident. She wanted to hide from media even as his allegations were becoming more solid in the public mind. She wanted to crawl under a rock. She suffered the same physical symptoms as earlier and her doctor later diagnosed this as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
There was a consequent impact on her employment as she had to call her boss to take her shift at short notice; her boss warned her her behaviour could lead to firing. But she couldn't yet tell her workmates what had happened to her.
Then, Pardy's lawyer entered as evidence a medical report on Pardy. (I am a little hesitant to go into this, and I started wondering here why Pardy was going through with this complaint). Pardy has suffered from some kind of anxiety condition before the incident with Earl, related to her parent's divorce and her feeling she couldn't be with them in their moment of need since they lived across the country. Her parents' advice led her to get better in the months before the Earle incident. But panic attacks again haunted Pardy after the Earle incident and when she had to attend the Supreme Court hearing on Earle's constitutional/jurisdictional challenge.
The Earle incident caused recurring nightmares of different types; she didn't have nightmares before the incident. She socialized less and didn't often go back to Commercial Drive even though she knew this kind of thing just doesn't happen often on the Drive (known in Vancouver as a gay-friendly place).
She has since healed mentally but there hasn't been a day since the incident when she hasn't thought about it. She has occurred numerous expenses because of the incident and the complaint process.
Cross-Examination
Under cross-examination by restaurant owner, Salam Ismail's counsel, who I believe is his brother and not a lawyer, Pardy returned to discuss the incident itself.
She and two friends had been drinking on the patio of the restaurant before entering the room with the comedy stage. She had had one and a half Corona beers. They came in when the patio closed around 11 pm and sat at the first table by the door.
Did Guy Earle get upset because you kissed your friend, she was asked. She said she thought this was not right though she didn't know what Earle was thinking. Her girlfriend had simply kissed her on her cheek because she was glad to see her out as this was not a common occurrence. They were not trying to make a scene (as previously reported by Earle).
She said she thought Earle thought they were causing a disturbance when they were talking to two waitresses about their patio bill.
Pardy said they had been sitting in the booth not even for five minutes when Earle "targeted" them and started picking on them. Earle told them not to disrupt the show and called them "fucking dykes" and "cunts".
The three women were not talking loudly or saying anything to Earle. Pardy said she only booed Earle.
Pardy had only been to Zesty's one time before and didn't know who the owner or manager was.
She said that when she talked to the police after the event, she was told that throwing water in Earle's face could possibly lead to a charge of assault, but she saw it as self-defense. A big man was coming off the stage towards her and saying things and she felt threatened.
"Were you afraid of him?" Pardy was asked. Yes. So why did you challenge him? Pardy said she didn't. He came to her table, not vice versa. The fact that she threw a second glass of water in his face 15-20 minutes after the first did not mean she wasn't scared and intimidated. She was scared; that's why she threw the water. The waitresses were not to be found (for help) and Pardy didn't see anyone in the place to ask for help.
Ismail was there (she later identified him) but didn't do anything to help them, said Pardy.
She felt threatened and her party was in shock. That's why they didn't immediately leave. (She later said they stayed up to 40 minutes after the incident.) Someone came out of the kitchen, picked up her crushed glasses, gave them to her, and then left without saying anything. She said she had just been assaulted, was in shock and only thinking of getting her friends and leaving - her friends were talking to the other comedians (I assume about the incident, though Pardy did not make this clear). Her friend went to Zesty's a lot and Pardy doesn't know why the friend didn't talk to owner Ismail. Pardy said her friends were both intimidated by Earle. The friend who had been the target of the fat and ugly comment had been driven into a shell and only told Earle he wasn't funny. Pardy wasn't sure why Earle "targeted" her. Guy Earle was being booed, maybe she was just an easy target.
She didn't believe it was part of Earle's act to attack lesbians. She didn't think Zesty's was anti-gay or anti-lesbian: it was on Commercial Drive so presumably it couldn't appear so.
Ismail's counsel then asked why she was claiming discrimination against lesbians. Pardy replied she was only claiming personal discrimination based on her being a lesbian. Counsel replied this was not logical. Pardy replied the incident was not about logic. Counsel pointed out that 50-60% of Zesty's clients were gay or lesbian.
Pardy said she sent no one to picket Zesty's, nor did she engage in any propaganda against the restaurant. She didn't tell lesbians not to go to the place. But the story was all over Commercial Drive anyway (hence the boycotts).
Pardy said the next day when she contacted Ismail, she expected from him an apology. She didn't get one. She secretly taped their face-to-face conversation because after the initial phone call she felt he couldn't be trusted given his conduct the previous day and on the phone. On the phone, he told her to visit him and he would pay for her glasses. She wanted to make sure he understood what had happened and he then reneged on his promise to pay for the glasses. He told her she wasn't a nice person and was possibly to blame.
Counsel then returned to the question of why she had stayed 30-40 minutes after the (first) incident - she couldn't say if they were the last to leave. (Note that Pardy said there were two run-ins with Earle, about 15 minutes apart, and it was not always clear to this reporter just which incident was being referred to.) They had spent the time listening to another comedy act, a short set, and talking to comedians. She went to the bathroom to gather herself, and on the way back Earle at the bar physically assaulted her. (I assume this was a reference to Earle snatching her glasses and smashing them.) Her party were in shock and stayed because they couldn't get up from the table. They left around 11.30.
----------------------
That was the end of the testimony for the day; cross-examination continues tomorrow and then the first witness for both sides will be called.
My burning question is this: Pardy seems like a fairly sensitive person, so why is she putting herself through this public ordeal and invasion of her privacy? One spectator speculated she had maybe been encouraged by other lesbians to fight Earle legally, and so felt obliged to pursue the complaint.
Pardy again and again tried to convey the impression that she had been targeted and victimized. She knows how to make such a claim, evoking standard postmodern assumptions about what should not be allowed or tolerated in our society (i.e. "targeting"). This may well be sincere on her part. But it points us to consider how the Human Rights Tribunal has opened itself to consider an incident that might (I am speculating with little legal knowledge) have led to a criminal charge, but is now about, as one observer put it, "hurt feelings". Canadians need to consider carefully whether claims of public humiliations and the mental suffering that lingers after them, should be open to prosecution in a parajudicial setting where tens of thousands of dollars and much time and energy are at stake. Humiliation is a common thing, unfortunately, and a very subjective thing. Should we allow those in "protected groups" to ask for compensation? What kind of society would this encourage? Does it depend on context?
Or alternatively, if we agree with Pardy that she was physically and verbally assaulted - and whether we will hear Earle's taken on events, under oath, is now an open question after his lawyer walked out of the hearing on a point of principle, questioning whether this hearing is within the rule of law - should the Human Rights Tribunal be used to seek a remedy when the criminal or civil courts, for whatever reason, are not chosen? Is the "third way" of the Human Rights Tribunal serving justice or just the postmodern desire to claim and acknowledge victimhood, as if this is the most sacred thing to us? I discussed this in my first post yesterday.
I'm not sure I will have time to attend tomorrow. Keep an eye on the blog Downtown Eastside Enquirer for more, and also Bulletproofcourier.
See Parts 1 and 2
Pardy's lawyer, Ms. Cousineau, began by asking Pardy about her contact with the police after the May 2007 incident at Zesty's restaurant and after Pardy's conversation, the day after the incident, with Zesty's owner, Salam Ismail. Pardy said she told the police what happened but asked them not to interview Mr. Ismail, as this would not get the result she wanted - what that was was left unsaid, other than that she wanted some record, an incident report. She said she preferred instead to speak to a lawyer.
She said she did not organize any boycotts against Zesty's
She did not talk about making money off this case. She filed a human rights complaint because she thought her human rights had been violated. She said this matter of factly as if we all know when our human rights are violated.
In June 2009, over two years after the incident, James Millar, Guy Earle's lawyer, sent her a cheque for the sunglasses Earle had smashed.
The incident at Zesty's took her relationship with her girlfriend to a low point. Guy Earle had taken their power away (what that is supposed to mean, I'm not sure) and they broke up in early 2008 several months after the incident.
Pardy's lawyer wanted testimony to the impact of the event. Pardy said she had felt very frustrated by a negative portrayal of her in the first media story in the paper, Xtra West - it made her feel terrible. Earle's comment/joke about her not being a lesbian, just fat and ugly, was actually directed at Pardy's then girlfriend. But the media in confusing this was making Pardy into somebody else. This was damaging her professional reputation - the appearance of being out drinking was not good for her (I didn't hear most of the morning testimony but it seems Pardy has an airport and weather-related job).
Talking next about the youtube video of Guy Earle being interviewed on the "Dave and Chuck show" - the audio portion of the video was played and the hearing room had to listen to Earle's sense of humour for 13 minutes - Pardy said that the first time she saw that video she felt sick, like she experienced the event over and over again. She didn't sleep for 2-3 days. She couldn't believe how Earle portrayed her, as if she wasn't adult enough to get his "jokes". She was devastated, sick to the stomach, sweated, ears rang, couldn't sleep, up so long she vomited next day. Physically, she felt she was back in the situation of the original incident at Zesty's.
The next summer, 2009, there was a batch of media coverage attending BCHRT Chair, Heather Macnaughton's ruling not to dismiss the complaint. That's when, said Pardy, Earle actively sought out media to paint her as a bad person, as if this justified his behaviour at Zesty's.
As she read the news stories, her feelings went lower and lower, as the deck was being stacked against her, publicly. She felt cornered and devastated given his portrayal of her provoking the incident. She wanted to hide from media even as his allegations were becoming more solid in the public mind. She wanted to crawl under a rock. She suffered the same physical symptoms as earlier and her doctor later diagnosed this as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
There was a consequent impact on her employment as she had to call her boss to take her shift at short notice; her boss warned her her behaviour could lead to firing. But she couldn't yet tell her workmates what had happened to her.
Then, Pardy's lawyer entered as evidence a medical report on Pardy. (I am a little hesitant to go into this, and I started wondering here why Pardy was going through with this complaint). Pardy has suffered from some kind of anxiety condition before the incident with Earl, related to her parent's divorce and her feeling she couldn't be with them in their moment of need since they lived across the country. Her parents' advice led her to get better in the months before the Earle incident. But panic attacks again haunted Pardy after the Earle incident and when she had to attend the Supreme Court hearing on Earle's constitutional/jurisdictional challenge.
The Earle incident caused recurring nightmares of different types; she didn't have nightmares before the incident. She socialized less and didn't often go back to Commercial Drive even though she knew this kind of thing just doesn't happen often on the Drive (known in Vancouver as a gay-friendly place).
She has since healed mentally but there hasn't been a day since the incident when she hasn't thought about it. She has occurred numerous expenses because of the incident and the complaint process.
Cross-Examination
Under cross-examination by restaurant owner, Salam Ismail's counsel, who I believe is his brother and not a lawyer, Pardy returned to discuss the incident itself.
She and two friends had been drinking on the patio of the restaurant before entering the room with the comedy stage. She had had one and a half Corona beers. They came in when the patio closed around 11 pm and sat at the first table by the door.
Did Guy Earle get upset because you kissed your friend, she was asked. She said she thought this was not right though she didn't know what Earle was thinking. Her girlfriend had simply kissed her on her cheek because she was glad to see her out as this was not a common occurrence. They were not trying to make a scene (as previously reported by Earle).
She said she thought Earle thought they were causing a disturbance when they were talking to two waitresses about their patio bill.
Pardy said they had been sitting in the booth not even for five minutes when Earle "targeted" them and started picking on them. Earle told them not to disrupt the show and called them "fucking dykes" and "cunts".
The three women were not talking loudly or saying anything to Earle. Pardy said she only booed Earle.
Pardy had only been to Zesty's one time before and didn't know who the owner or manager was.
She said that when she talked to the police after the event, she was told that throwing water in Earle's face could possibly lead to a charge of assault, but she saw it as self-defense. A big man was coming off the stage towards her and saying things and she felt threatened.
"Were you afraid of him?" Pardy was asked. Yes. So why did you challenge him? Pardy said she didn't. He came to her table, not vice versa. The fact that she threw a second glass of water in his face 15-20 minutes after the first did not mean she wasn't scared and intimidated. She was scared; that's why she threw the water. The waitresses were not to be found (for help) and Pardy didn't see anyone in the place to ask for help.
Ismail was there (she later identified him) but didn't do anything to help them, said Pardy.
She felt threatened and her party was in shock. That's why they didn't immediately leave. (She later said they stayed up to 40 minutes after the incident.) Someone came out of the kitchen, picked up her crushed glasses, gave them to her, and then left without saying anything. She said she had just been assaulted, was in shock and only thinking of getting her friends and leaving - her friends were talking to the other comedians (I assume about the incident, though Pardy did not make this clear). Her friend went to Zesty's a lot and Pardy doesn't know why the friend didn't talk to owner Ismail. Pardy said her friends were both intimidated by Earle. The friend who had been the target of the fat and ugly comment had been driven into a shell and only told Earle he wasn't funny. Pardy wasn't sure why Earle "targeted" her. Guy Earle was being booed, maybe she was just an easy target.
She didn't believe it was part of Earle's act to attack lesbians. She didn't think Zesty's was anti-gay or anti-lesbian: it was on Commercial Drive so presumably it couldn't appear so.
Ismail's counsel then asked why she was claiming discrimination against lesbians. Pardy replied she was only claiming personal discrimination based on her being a lesbian. Counsel replied this was not logical. Pardy replied the incident was not about logic. Counsel pointed out that 50-60% of Zesty's clients were gay or lesbian.
Pardy said she sent no one to picket Zesty's, nor did she engage in any propaganda against the restaurant. She didn't tell lesbians not to go to the place. But the story was all over Commercial Drive anyway (hence the boycotts).
Pardy said the next day when she contacted Ismail, she expected from him an apology. She didn't get one. She secretly taped their face-to-face conversation because after the initial phone call she felt he couldn't be trusted given his conduct the previous day and on the phone. On the phone, he told her to visit him and he would pay for her glasses. She wanted to make sure he understood what had happened and he then reneged on his promise to pay for the glasses. He told her she wasn't a nice person and was possibly to blame.
Counsel then returned to the question of why she had stayed 30-40 minutes after the (first) incident - she couldn't say if they were the last to leave. (Note that Pardy said there were two run-ins with Earle, about 15 minutes apart, and it was not always clear to this reporter just which incident was being referred to.) They had spent the time listening to another comedy act, a short set, and talking to comedians. She went to the bathroom to gather herself, and on the way back Earle at the bar physically assaulted her. (I assume this was a reference to Earle snatching her glasses and smashing them.) Her party were in shock and stayed because they couldn't get up from the table. They left around 11.30.
----------------------
That was the end of the testimony for the day; cross-examination continues tomorrow and then the first witness for both sides will be called.
My burning question is this: Pardy seems like a fairly sensitive person, so why is she putting herself through this public ordeal and invasion of her privacy? One spectator speculated she had maybe been encouraged by other lesbians to fight Earle legally, and so felt obliged to pursue the complaint.
Pardy again and again tried to convey the impression that she had been targeted and victimized. She knows how to make such a claim, evoking standard postmodern assumptions about what should not be allowed or tolerated in our society (i.e. "targeting"). This may well be sincere on her part. But it points us to consider how the Human Rights Tribunal has opened itself to consider an incident that might (I am speculating with little legal knowledge) have led to a criminal charge, but is now about, as one observer put it, "hurt feelings". Canadians need to consider carefully whether claims of public humiliations and the mental suffering that lingers after them, should be open to prosecution in a parajudicial setting where tens of thousands of dollars and much time and energy are at stake. Humiliation is a common thing, unfortunately, and a very subjective thing. Should we allow those in "protected groups" to ask for compensation? What kind of society would this encourage? Does it depend on context?
Or alternatively, if we agree with Pardy that she was physically and verbally assaulted - and whether we will hear Earle's taken on events, under oath, is now an open question after his lawyer walked out of the hearing on a point of principle, questioning whether this hearing is within the rule of law - should the Human Rights Tribunal be used to seek a remedy when the criminal or civil courts, for whatever reason, are not chosen? Is the "third way" of the Human Rights Tribunal serving justice or just the postmodern desire to claim and acknowledge victimhood, as if this is the most sacred thing to us? I discussed this in my first post yesterday.
I'm not sure I will have time to attend tomorrow. Keep an eye on the blog Downtown Eastside Enquirer for more, and also Bulletproofcourier.
See Parts 1 and 2
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Guy Earle Trial
When people do not respect us we are sharply offended; yet deep down in his private heart no man much respects himself - Mark Twain
I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb ... and I also know that I'm not blonde -Dolly Parton
Whenever anyone has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it - Rene Descartes
My friends, being offended is one of the outgrowths of multiculturalism - Rush Limbaugh
No man lives without jostling and being jostled; in all ways he has to elbow himself through the world, giving and receiving offence - Thomas Carlyle
Men shrink less from offending one who inspires love than one who inspires fear - Niccolo Machiavelli
Justice consists of doing no one injury, decency in giving no one offense - Marcus Tullius Cicero
In seeking a Canadian community standard based on the average appreciation of art, the Court, in my opinion, is not limited to a settled national consensus. The average in community attitudes is better struck according to the range of exposure that particular art or art forms have had in the localities of Canada where art is exhibited. - Justice Bora Laskin, Canadian criminal cases, 1966, 304.
Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the degree of the offense - Magna Carta, 1215
Tomorrow marks the beginning of the Jewish festival of Passover, and Guy Earle's quest to free himself from the comedy- and wallet-killing bondage of three years of waiting and preparing to go to trial on claims being made against him at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. As time allows, I will attempt to do some reporting on the Lorna Pardy v. Guy Earle HRT hearing this week; and so I thought I might preface this now with some accounting of the interpretive bias I bring to the event, if anyone is interested.
To this untrained legal eye, it seems that what is at issue in the Pardy vs. Earle/Zesty's case (background here and here, and here, and here) are potentially two quite different things: a claim of "discrimination" attending the alleged "jokes"/insults of Guy Earle, and a claim of "discrimination" attending the altercation that followed from the parties' heckling/jokes/insults and that, if the reports we have had so far are correct, turned violent.
Ostensibly, this is a case that turns not on that now-famous part of the "Human Rights" Code that aims to ban "hate speech", but rather on that part that aims to ban discrimination in the provision of a commercial service. I have no idea how previous cases in "human rights" law have played out in determing what qualifies as discrimination in the provision of a service. As far as I can tell, the plaintiff in this case was not refused service at the restaurant in question. Rather, in the perfomance of the service, a comedy "act", she claims to have been treated in a "discriminatory" manner. Now, one might easily ask, as I imagine the defendants will, isn't the very point of comedy to "discriminate" to make jokes? (bad or good, does it matter?) If so, can one make a claim of "discrimination" against a comedy act if one in fact has been the butt of a joke (good or bad)? And, I imagine the Plaintiff will argue in response that the humiliation she received was not part of any legitimate comedy routine: it just wasn't funny (in her eyes).
As for the question of the violence and destruction of property that allegedly flowed from the nasty exchange of words, I have seen it stated, though I don't know how true this is, that the police investigated the matter before declining to lay criminal charges. The question that thus arises: what claim on justice is being made when someone is allowed to pursue a matter outside of the criminal (or regular civil) law, almost as a concession, given that the case does not meet the standard for a criminal charge?
I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb ... and I also know that I'm not blonde -Dolly Parton
Whenever anyone has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it - Rene Descartes
My friends, being offended is one of the outgrowths of multiculturalism - Rush Limbaugh
No man lives without jostling and being jostled; in all ways he has to elbow himself through the world, giving and receiving offence - Thomas Carlyle
Men shrink less from offending one who inspires love than one who inspires fear - Niccolo Machiavelli
Justice consists of doing no one injury, decency in giving no one offense - Marcus Tullius Cicero
In seeking a Canadian community standard based on the average appreciation of art, the Court, in my opinion, is not limited to a settled national consensus. The average in community attitudes is better struck according to the range of exposure that particular art or art forms have had in the localities of Canada where art is exhibited. - Justice Bora Laskin, Canadian criminal cases, 1966, 304.
Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the degree of the offense - Magna Carta, 1215
Tomorrow marks the beginning of the Jewish festival of Passover, and Guy Earle's quest to free himself from the comedy- and wallet-killing bondage of three years of waiting and preparing to go to trial on claims being made against him at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. As time allows, I will attempt to do some reporting on the Lorna Pardy v. Guy Earle HRT hearing this week; and so I thought I might preface this now with some accounting of the interpretive bias I bring to the event, if anyone is interested.
To this untrained legal eye, it seems that what is at issue in the Pardy vs. Earle/Zesty's case (background here and here, and here, and here) are potentially two quite different things: a claim of "discrimination" attending the alleged "jokes"/insults of Guy Earle, and a claim of "discrimination" attending the altercation that followed from the parties' heckling/jokes/insults and that, if the reports we have had so far are correct, turned violent.
Ostensibly, this is a case that turns not on that now-famous part of the "Human Rights" Code that aims to ban "hate speech", but rather on that part that aims to ban discrimination in the provision of a commercial service. I have no idea how previous cases in "human rights" law have played out in determing what qualifies as discrimination in the provision of a service. As far as I can tell, the plaintiff in this case was not refused service at the restaurant in question. Rather, in the perfomance of the service, a comedy "act", she claims to have been treated in a "discriminatory" manner. Now, one might easily ask, as I imagine the defendants will, isn't the very point of comedy to "discriminate" to make jokes? (bad or good, does it matter?) If so, can one make a claim of "discrimination" against a comedy act if one in fact has been the butt of a joke (good or bad)? And, I imagine the Plaintiff will argue in response that the humiliation she received was not part of any legitimate comedy routine: it just wasn't funny (in her eyes).
As for the question of the violence and destruction of property that allegedly flowed from the nasty exchange of words, I have seen it stated, though I don't know how true this is, that the police investigated the matter before declining to lay criminal charges. The question that thus arises: what claim on justice is being made when someone is allowed to pursue a matter outside of the criminal (or regular civil) law, almost as a concession, given that the case does not meet the standard for a criminal charge?
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Dykegeld?!
Trust Mark Steyn to write a bloody funny post about a deadly serious matter: the Canadian state's utterly banal destruction of Guy Earle's life in a fit of bending over to the narcissistic self-righteousness of those who have discovered power in claiming victimhood. Follow the link for the jokes, here's the more serious stuff:
...It's interesting to me how all those promoters who claim to be committed to producing "edgy", "transgressive", "provocative" comedy wilt like pansies in the face of one "human rights" complaint. But it's invariably the case that the self-congratulatory left, forever hailing itself for its courage in speaking truth to power, is never there when real courage is needed - even if, like Guy Earle, you're essentially one of their own. This shouldn't be difficult even for the myopic politically correct bores who run most comedy clubs. As I wrote here:Once again the public needs to get involved in standing up to this evil, not just telling the BCHRT to f-off by picketing while the Earle "trial" is under way, but also the politicians who so far decline to shut them down. The "perfect" Utopian vision (e.g. "a world without discrimination"), since it can only be implemented through tyranny and thus cannot really ever exist, is necessarily always the enemy of the good. When are we going to learn this lesson, that Mama McNaughton cannot save us from ourselves? Might it one day be imaginable to say, No lesbian has greater friends than those who truly help wean her from mother state?Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils, and, if it’s a choice between offensive gags or massive expansion of state power, no self-respecting citizen should find it difficult working out which is the lesser evil and which is the greater threat.And yet Mr Earle's professional colleagues do seem to be finding it difficult, if not impossible. Strange that.
[...]
The trial on March 29th will be a disgrace. You don't apologize, you don't donate, you put the system on trial.
That's really the only insight you need: It's about them, not you.
PS Kathy Shaidle says: "Just tell them to **** off." I would guess he doesn't want to have his bank accounts frozen or be rendered unemployable in British Columbia. Also, I don't believe, under BC law, you can appeal to a real court if you don't acknowledge the process in the most minimal way. That's why, as I did, you should show up in Heather MacNaughton's courtroom, guffaw occasionally, and in the scrum on the steps aside denounce her as a statist thug and buffoon. In other words, if you're going to tell them to f**k off, do it to their faces.
Under BC's shitty "human rights" code, Maclean's and I were, as a point of law, guilty. So we dared them to convict. And, like all bullies when someone stands up to them, the gutless pussies wimped out. I understand Guy Earle doesn't have as deep pockets, but he needs a support network that will make the political price too high for Commissar MacNaughton. The freespeechy bloggers fulfilled that function for me. The radical comedy crowd don't seem to be stepping up for Mr Earle. In the end, one Kathy Shaidle is worth a hundred guys who do lame-o Stephen Harper gags.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Head Scratcher: fake "human rights" make the world go batty
I'm still trying to figure out this choice of headline for a letter to the editor making fun, I think, of the BC "Human Rights" Tribunal and a popular BC restaurant chain that was founded in the 1920s: Some Muslim challenges to democracy won't go away
Saturday, October 11, 2008
How dedicated are the people at the Canadian Human Rights Commission?
UPDATE: The claim made in this post about a visit from the CHRC may be incorrect; it may have been a visit from some other branch of the civil service: see the discussion at the Post-Darwinist blog. I don't keep a regular eye on who is visiting this blog. Daily Bayonet, who pointed out the possible error, notes in an email: "I hope you didn't interpret my message as defending the HRC's, I don't. The visit that BCF got was definitely an HRC goon, but Covenant Zone could have been from anywhere. I only wanted to make that clarification. I've been getting visits from HRC's for months, especially the BCHRT after I followed the Steyn/Maclean's trial closely. So far I've not been disap....."
Still, one might ask: how many non-CHRC civil servants are likely to want to read this blog at 6.24 on a Saturday morning?
---------------------
Still, one might ask: how many non-CHRC civil servants are likely to want to read this blog at 6.24 on a Saturday morning?
---------------------
Well, one of their number was at our blog, at 6.24AM Ottawa Time, using the (surely tax-payer funded) CHRC blackberry service, apparently checking for our take on the BC Human Rights Tribunal ruling (pdf) on "Elmasry v Steyn/Maclean's". Blazing Cat Fur points out in emails that the CHRC are regular visitors at her blog. Denyse has the latest evidence, with also our site meter record of the recent visit:
Post-Darwinist: Intellectual freedom in Canada: So Mark Steyn was acquitted - what about the rest of us?
I don't mind being transparent to our democratic state, when it is in turn transparent in its procedures and arguments. But today, our state is neither transparent enough, nor decidedly democratic. It belongs too much to a bureaucratic elite who are not entirely in service to the wishes of the people or their proper representatives, though the latter are in good part to blame for downloading their responsibilities for conflict management to, e.g., shadowy courts of "human rights". Accordingly, our bureaucrats follow an often imperial, post-national, NGO/UN code of "human rights" and political correctness.
It is no accident that the present national election campaign in Canada has been witness to endless "gotcha" journalism and scandal mongering. This is the kind of political culture, devoid of much serious debate on on how to renew the national political culture, that one should expect when politicians shirk responsibilities and talk up the courts and the "human rights" commissions as the proper arbiters of properly political conflicts.
One thing that is obvious about the BCHRT ruling (pdf) - based on my yet cursory glance - is that, notwithstanding its normative engagement in legal analysis of precedents, it relies on some pretty arbitrary assumptions about how to draw the line around what is and is not acceptable speech. It also relies on banishing certain questions from its argument. And these are assumptions and forbidden questions that reveal the very interested nature of the BCHRT, or of a post-national bureaucratic class, in the ruling. This is not what the law should be.
But then no law can be properly disinterested if it sets itself the task of deciding what is and is not "hate" speech. We all "hate", to some degree, because we are all inevitably resentful beings, to some degree. Yes we can have, in abstract metaphysical terms, a legal definition of "hate" that surpasses mere resentment. But when you pass a law that outlaws something we are all inclined to do, the task of proving that someone has (or not) crossed the line where the unacceptable extreme of hate is distinguished from the more ordinary resentment of humanity, will inevitably require more than abstract metaphyics: one must dabble in the arts of some kind of political correctness and scapegoating, in the more or less arbitrary designation of (bad and good) victims.
I hope to read through the ruling and have something to add to the conversation in the next few days.
Post-Darwinist: Intellectual freedom in Canada: So Mark Steyn was acquitted - what about the rest of us?
I don't mind being transparent to our democratic state, when it is in turn transparent in its procedures and arguments. But today, our state is neither transparent enough, nor decidedly democratic. It belongs too much to a bureaucratic elite who are not entirely in service to the wishes of the people or their proper representatives, though the latter are in good part to blame for downloading their responsibilities for conflict management to, e.g., shadowy courts of "human rights". Accordingly, our bureaucrats follow an often imperial, post-national, NGO/UN code of "human rights" and political correctness.
It is no accident that the present national election campaign in Canada has been witness to endless "gotcha" journalism and scandal mongering. This is the kind of political culture, devoid of much serious debate on on how to renew the national political culture, that one should expect when politicians shirk responsibilities and talk up the courts and the "human rights" commissions as the proper arbiters of properly political conflicts.
One thing that is obvious about the BCHRT ruling (pdf) - based on my yet cursory glance - is that, notwithstanding its normative engagement in legal analysis of precedents, it relies on some pretty arbitrary assumptions about how to draw the line around what is and is not acceptable speech. It also relies on banishing certain questions from its argument. And these are assumptions and forbidden questions that reveal the very interested nature of the BCHRT, or of a post-national bureaucratic class, in the ruling. This is not what the law should be.
But then no law can be properly disinterested if it sets itself the task of deciding what is and is not "hate" speech. We all "hate", to some degree, because we are all inevitably resentful beings, to some degree. Yes we can have, in abstract metaphysical terms, a legal definition of "hate" that surpasses mere resentment. But when you pass a law that outlaws something we are all inclined to do, the task of proving that someone has (or not) crossed the line where the unacceptable extreme of hate is distinguished from the more ordinary resentment of humanity, will inevitably require more than abstract metaphyics: one must dabble in the arts of some kind of political correctness and scapegoating, in the more or less arbitrary designation of (bad and good) victims.
I hope to read through the ruling and have something to add to the conversation in the next few days.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Andrew Coyne always said he wanted to lose
(HT: Blazing Cat Fur who will have lots of updates) Aw nuts, we won : Andrew Coyne's Blog : Capital Read : Macleans.ca Blog Central
be clear on this: it is no victory to be told by a shadowy government agency that you will be permitted to publish. This ruling only preserves the tribunal from utterly discrediting itself, and as such keeps alive the possibility that some other complainant can drag Maclean’s or any other media organization through yet another travesty half-a-continent away, at great expense of time and money. It also prevents Maclean’s from appealing the tribunal’s decision to an actual court, wherein it might have had the relevant section of the B.C. human rights laws thrown out on constitutional grounds — the only way freedom of speech and the press will finally be preserved. (A thought: can you appeal when you win?)
So the real fight, that of returning our human rights laws to their original purpose, and permanently clipping the wings of the human rights commissioners, will have to be won in the political arena. Until that day…
Kangaroos Chicken Out - Maclean's-Steyn Free, Free, at Last
Free until the next trial: evil law stands, Steyn and Maclean's let off, this time (full decision not yet available): SteynOnline - Home
The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified because the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. Therefore, pursuant to s. 37(1) the complaints are dismissed.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Latest BC Human Rights Scandal: Tenant Offended By Landlord's Use Of Parenthesis
More erosion of common sense, using the BC Human Rights Tribunal as an etch-a-sketch to redefine what it means to be an adult:
Woman offended by noisy children takes battle to human rights tribunal
I sympathize with the tenant's unfortunate hearing condition, but this account of her behavior reminds me of this:
(watch as of the 1:50 mark...)
Woman offended by noisy children takes battle to human rights tribunal
An Abbotsford woman who suffers from a rare hearing disability has filed a
discrimination suit against her property manager before the B.C. Human Rights
Tribunal.Anne Faulkner, 56, alleges Leona Watts, property manager for Lynn Haven Society which runs the 40-unit complex she lives in, treats her in a "degrading" manner that "engenders a feeling of hopelessness."
Faulkner was diagnosed with hyperacusis, a severe intolerance to sound, in 2003.
...
The complaint stems from an incident in the spring when kids in the house next door to Faulkner but not owned by Lynn Haven Society, were playing outside and blowing a whistle.
...
Faulkner complained to the family, who then contacted Watts.
On April 3, Watts wrote a letter to Faulkner saying while she is "compassionate" with regards to her disability, her behaviour - which was "angry and unpleasant and came off intimidating to the point of frightening" - was "unacceptable."
Further, it said: "It is possible that this style of residence will lead to more discomfort for you as it is not possible to expect all to keep silent in order for you to be comfortable."
The letter ended: "If you have any questions please contact the office (in a calm manner)."
Faulkner claims the bracketed phrase was pejorative. However, Watts said Faulkner has been loud and confrontational in their five conversations.
"She's never spoken to me in the manner she wants me to speak to her."
Watts has also received complaints from other residents about Faulkner's "unpleasant" behaviour.
She said she hasn't treated Faulkner any differently then she would another resident, but "granted, if somebody comes at you and yells at you, would you get your back up?"
Watts said Faulkner's residency in the complex isn't under threat and maintains what she wrote in the letter was reasonable.
"I would tell that to anybody if their living situation is not comfortable. You can't change things around you, you can only change where you live."
...
Her lawyer applied to have the complaint dismissed, but the tribunal has denied her application.
Watts said it's a frustrating and costly ordeal.
"It doesnt cost her a dime, but it costs us because we have to have a lawyer," she said.
"It seems to me that anybody with any kind of vendetta can use the human rights tribunal as their outlet and that's wrong," said Watts.
"I'm not saying it shouldn't be in place, but if there's a cost for both sides then maybe they'll think twice before they want to make a . . . point."
I sympathize with the tenant's unfortunate hearing condition, but this account of her behavior reminds me of this:
(watch as of the 1:50 mark...)
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Two months after Maclean's magazine subjected to Maoist show trial by the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal, at Robson Square, Vancouver...
Does Premier Campbell pay attention to the news and what actually happens in our province?
Covenant Zone is considering joining the growing boycott of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, to be lifted only when Canada does away with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and its equivalent in the provincial "human rights" codes. Dear Readers, do you think that a good idea?
Premier Gordon Campbell stopped by Beijing's Main Press Centre Tuesday to sell his message about the state-of-the-art media centre the province is building in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Games.Campbell fires back at Chinese critics
Instead, he found himself in a political discussion with reporters from some of China's government-run media who wanted to use his press conference to focus on problems affecting the Vancouver Olympics.
But the questions seemed to have more to do with political positioning than with eliciting information.
When one reporter from the China Daily, considered by Westerners to be a government mouthpiece, zeroed in how Campbell will handle "anti-Olympic groups such as the Anti-Poverty Coalition," Campbell gave a political lesson of his own.
"In Canada we will be open to opportunities for people to express whatever views they have," he said. "There will not be opportunities to break the law, [but] we will make sure there will be full and equal expression throughout the 2010 Olympics."
[...]
It clearly wasn't what he was expecting when he announced that the new media centre, which will be built at a cost of $2.5 million, will serve upwards of 3,000 reporters and editors who can't get International Olympic Committee accreditation to the 2010 Winter Games.
In fact, none of the questions he received dealt with the 2,600 square-metre facility, which will be built at Robson Square.
He gave a terse "no" when asked if he was surprised that government-run media would zero in on the issues of poverty and free speech in Canada.
But the premier also didn't shirk from answering the questions, even though he knew that these issues would overtake his good-news message.
Covenant Zone is considering joining the growing boycott of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, to be lifted only when Canada does away with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and its equivalent in the provincial "human rights" codes. Dear Readers, do you think that a good idea?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The fight moves to Burnaby
Good to see the local paper, the Burnaby Now, is picking up the "human rights" fight:
Tribunal not about 'rights' at all (via Blazing Catfur!!)
It's also good to see that it's a lawyer, Mike Sporer, voicing his disgust with the "human rights" tribunal. When we were out demonstrating on day one of the Maclean's/Mark Steyn "trial" at the BCHRT, I tried to draw the attention of some of the lawyers walking by on their way to court. It has always seemed to me that it is the legal profession that should be in the lead in this fight since it is their profession that is brought into disrepute by the abuses of natural justice, such as the lax rules of procedure and evidence, that are part of the "human rights" political show trial. But in response to my provocations that their profession was being thrown into disrepute, I received blank faces and a couple of cynical "what's new" responses.
That's why, even when we hear of a federal cabinet minister showing up to support Guy Earle, we need to mark Mike Sporer's words:
Tribunal not about 'rights' at all (via Blazing Catfur!!)
It's also good to see that it's a lawyer, Mike Sporer, voicing his disgust with the "human rights" tribunal. When we were out demonstrating on day one of the Maclean's/Mark Steyn "trial" at the BCHRT, I tried to draw the attention of some of the lawyers walking by on their way to court. It has always seemed to me that it is the legal profession that should be in the lead in this fight since it is their profession that is brought into disrepute by the abuses of natural justice, such as the lax rules of procedure and evidence, that are part of the "human rights" political show trial. But in response to my provocations that their profession was being thrown into disrepute, I received blank faces and a couple of cynical "what's new" responses.
That's why, even when we hear of a federal cabinet minister showing up to support Guy Earle, we need to mark Mike Sporer's words:
It is a mistake to blame the complainants who have tried to take advantage of Canadian laws that encourage the use of state power to silence others.
The blame falls squarely on the state actors involved and the legal system they enforce, a system that increasingly promotes - at various levels and in various ways - the expansion of state power and the erosion of a free society.
[...]
The name of the tribunal is carefully chosen.
And the very name of the human rights tribunal, like that of the Ministry of Love in Oceania and the Department of Defence in the United States, serves to blur and shade the real and true nature of the state action involved.
Ultimately, Canadians will have to decide if they want to be government subjects or if they want to be citizens of a free society.
Those diminishing few who would prefer to be citizens had better awaken from their slumber.
Friday, July 18, 2008
What is a human right in today's British Columbia?
Compare and Contrast:
1)
It might seem so. This would suggest that "human rights" have become in good part a question of our capacity to feel guilt for those being claimed as victims.
Guilt is an irrational, potentially delusional, form of "thought" because even where guilt may be appropriate, we are not able to reflect rationally on our feelings of guilt when we are feeling guilty. We have to snap out of the feeling first to truly judge our feeling of guilt and, when necessary, to decide on any appropriate course to redeem our guilt.
But in today's society, we are more and more encouraged to dwell in and use our feelings of guilt as a true guide to reality. Pathetic looking dumpster diver, or barely cogent addict panhandling and making tourists feel guilty and scared? at what point along the way were his human rights violated? Expensively-dressed and obnoxious young men with an expensive sports cars eating steaks? when are we going to stop them and let the rest of us live in peace?
Resentment, you see, is the flip side of guilt and equally delusional: you can't think rationally about whatever you resent, at the time when you are feeling resentful.
Because guilt and resentment are delusional states of being we should always struggle against thinking about "human rights" claims when under their influence. We can't avoid seeing the scenes that make (some of) us feel guilty or resentful. But we must attempt to view and judge them from within the framework of a larger discipline of real thinking that does not allow our so-called "emotions" to rule.
Because if we reduce "human rights" to mean whatever makes a successful claim on victim status, whatever makes us feel guilty, we likely make victim status more and more desirable and create a positive need for it. Then, on the one hand, we may well become cynical towards any victim claim because we have become aware that it's a way to game the system (are we now to think people who look like gangsters have a right to eat in restaurants???) and are less able to identify genuine human rights victims. Or, on the other hand, we may become so enamored of victimary thinking that we fall in love with the heavy hand of the state (I'm taking you to the Human Rights Tribunal, you nasty business owner, you) as part of some Utopian dream of overcoming "victimization". This, of course, only has the unintended effect of creating a whole new kind of victim of the heavy-handed state. In Vancouver, it seems the povertarians and workplace victimologists are always looking for ways to use moral blackmail, a kind of extortion, on the business owners and taxpayers.
"Human Rights" needs to mean guaranteeing the freedom of any and all to access and play out their lives on our various public stages, when they agree to play by the rules that maximize freedom for all. To do this, we need to avoid giving some the power to manipulate the scenes that we "play" out (the more they are manipulated, the less free we are to play them out), by giving them the power to appeal to our guilt and resentment, which is ultimately an appeal to enforce a form of closure on our freedom. Those who think of human rights in terms of equality of outcome and not equal rights and opportunities under law, are people who will restrict all freedoms, because any freedom when exercised will have the effect of making differences among people. And social differences even when part of a rational economy that attempts to maximize wealth and exchange can make us feel guilty and resentful.
We should only care about keeping these differences in constant circulation and exchange, that people may have the chance to work their or their family's way out of a bad situation. We should not try to eliminate differences in some Utopia where no scene will make us feel guilty or resentful. Utopia can't be done, and the attempt only makes things worse. It creates a dependent class, people willing to play their part in "guilting" and blackmailing the successful. And no system can do that for long and remain free and successful.
Of course, for all I know, maybe the Downtown Ambassadors are doing something wrong in respect to the homeless and the addicts. It would be nice to have a real court of law with real rules of evidence where such claims could be played out. But in our victimary culture, I'm not likely to take the word of povertarians or the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal for it. And that's the problem. Civil suits with respect for our legacy of Common Law and torts don't seem to be in fashion among lawyers for "victims".
Nor can we be sure that the police understand "human rights" either.
1)
A program to remove panhandlers and homeless people from streets and parks amounts to "systemic discrimination," says a complaint filed Thursday with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.2)
The complaint, put forward by the Pivot Legal Society, the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users Society (Vandu) and the United Native Nations Society, takes aim at the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association's Downtown Ambassadors Program.
The program employs ambassadors to patrol parts of downtown, dispensing information to tourists and trying to deter petty crime, vandalism and aggressive panhandling.
The complaint says the ambassadors order people who are sitting or sleeping on the street to move along, prevent persons from searching for recyclables in garbage cans, identify people as undesirables, take pictures of them and tell them they are not allowed in certain areas of the downtown.
That amounts to harassment and discrimination against the homeless and the poor in Vancouver, it says.
The complainants ask for $20 in damages for every person affected by the Ambassadors' conduct, to a maximum of 1,000 people.
The city's police department has unveiled a safety program for restaurants in the hope it will deter gangsters from frequenting their establishments.AND:
Modelled after the successful Bar Watch program, Restaurant Watch encourages staff to call police if they spot someone who fits the criteria of a gangster, gang associate, drug trafficker or violent person.
Police officers then take on the responsibility of deciding if the suspicious person should be removed from the restaurant.
[...]
Police said uniform and plainclothes officers will also do periodic walk-throughs of the 40 restaurants.
"We're not going to tolerate violence from these criminals," VPD superintendent Warren Lemcke said in a news release. "They're not welcome in our city."
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association dismissed the program as "bloody odd," with the easy potential to threaten the rights of restaurant patrons. Micheal Vonn, BCCLA policy director, wondered how restaurant staff will be able to tell people with gang-like appearances are actual gangsters with violent tendencies.So... if you use drugs, and generally look pathetic, are you more likely to be seen as having your "human rights" violated than if you are a gang member making good money from dealing drugs?
"It certainly raises a very serious question about what these people look like. On the basis of what possible criteria do you determine someone has a 'propensity for violence'?
"This is a very different thing than saying someone is causing a disturbance, which is always a justification for seeking police involvement," Ms. Vonn said.
"It is completely bizarre to assume there is some kind of behavioural or appearance profile that is going to effectively make this work. The slippery-slope notion would be how long before we say, 'We're going to scan your ID before you come into a restaurant.' "
Supt. Lemcke said that he is mindful of civil-liberties issues and that he and his officers would act within the law.
Restaurants have always been free to call police, but Restaurant Watch is being touted as a more visible and organized alliance between police and restaurants.
Ian Tostenson, president of the British Columbia Restaurant and Foodservices Association, said the effort will take the guesswork out of calling police on gang issues.
"If the restaurant is somewhat uncertain and not quite sure and detect something but they are not feeling good about it, it puts the onus on the Vancouver Police Department to make that determination. That's really key to this program," Mr. Tostenson said.
It might seem so. This would suggest that "human rights" have become in good part a question of our capacity to feel guilt for those being claimed as victims.
Guilt is an irrational, potentially delusional, form of "thought" because even where guilt may be appropriate, we are not able to reflect rationally on our feelings of guilt when we are feeling guilty. We have to snap out of the feeling first to truly judge our feeling of guilt and, when necessary, to decide on any appropriate course to redeem our guilt.
But in today's society, we are more and more encouraged to dwell in and use our feelings of guilt as a true guide to reality. Pathetic looking dumpster diver, or barely cogent addict panhandling and making tourists feel guilty and scared? at what point along the way were his human rights violated? Expensively-dressed and obnoxious young men with an expensive sports cars eating steaks? when are we going to stop them and let the rest of us live in peace?
Resentment, you see, is the flip side of guilt and equally delusional: you can't think rationally about whatever you resent, at the time when you are feeling resentful.
Because guilt and resentment are delusional states of being we should always struggle against thinking about "human rights" claims when under their influence. We can't avoid seeing the scenes that make (some of) us feel guilty or resentful. But we must attempt to view and judge them from within the framework of a larger discipline of real thinking that does not allow our so-called "emotions" to rule.
Because if we reduce "human rights" to mean whatever makes a successful claim on victim status, whatever makes us feel guilty, we likely make victim status more and more desirable and create a positive need for it. Then, on the one hand, we may well become cynical towards any victim claim because we have become aware that it's a way to game the system (are we now to think people who look like gangsters have a right to eat in restaurants???) and are less able to identify genuine human rights victims. Or, on the other hand, we may become so enamored of victimary thinking that we fall in love with the heavy hand of the state (I'm taking you to the Human Rights Tribunal, you nasty business owner, you) as part of some Utopian dream of overcoming "victimization". This, of course, only has the unintended effect of creating a whole new kind of victim of the heavy-handed state. In Vancouver, it seems the povertarians and workplace victimologists are always looking for ways to use moral blackmail, a kind of extortion, on the business owners and taxpayers.
"Human Rights" needs to mean guaranteeing the freedom of any and all to access and play out their lives on our various public stages, when they agree to play by the rules that maximize freedom for all. To do this, we need to avoid giving some the power to manipulate the scenes that we "play" out (the more they are manipulated, the less free we are to play them out), by giving them the power to appeal to our guilt and resentment, which is ultimately an appeal to enforce a form of closure on our freedom. Those who think of human rights in terms of equality of outcome and not equal rights and opportunities under law, are people who will restrict all freedoms, because any freedom when exercised will have the effect of making differences among people. And social differences even when part of a rational economy that attempts to maximize wealth and exchange can make us feel guilty and resentful.
We should only care about keeping these differences in constant circulation and exchange, that people may have the chance to work their or their family's way out of a bad situation. We should not try to eliminate differences in some Utopia where no scene will make us feel guilty or resentful. Utopia can't be done, and the attempt only makes things worse. It creates a dependent class, people willing to play their part in "guilting" and blackmailing the successful. And no system can do that for long and remain free and successful.
Of course, for all I know, maybe the Downtown Ambassadors are doing something wrong in respect to the homeless and the addicts. It would be nice to have a real court of law with real rules of evidence where such claims could be played out. But in our victimary culture, I'm not likely to take the word of povertarians or the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal for it. And that's the problem. Civil suits with respect for our legacy of Common Law and torts don't seem to be in fashion among lawyers for "victims".
Nor can we be sure that the police understand "human rights" either.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The politics of the rule of "human rights" "law".
At our Thursday night Covenant Zone meeting we had a discussion of the latest thought crime: 'Anti-lesbian' remarks send comedian to human rights hearing.
While some Covenanters think the public won't be receptive to the victim claims of some lesbians who apparently went to a comedy club and obnoxiously heckled a comedian who returned fire with some nasty lesbian jokes, I argued that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is betting they will. I said there is no way the Tribunal didn't take the Mark Steyn affair into consideration when deciding whether to take the anti-lesbian comedian case. My take is that they figure this case will not win them much more criticism (though it should) but will give them promise of winning sympathy for their ridiculous regime of speech policing. I believe there are many people, in Vancouver at least, who will take the side of the lesbians who had to find some strong arm to take care of them when their world turned ugly.
I am now more convinced that this case is an attempt to deflect the great deal of criticism the failed lawyers on the "human rights" tribunal have recently been facing. This is because the Canadian Human Rights Commission has just announced it will not hear the Mark Steyn/Maclean's case; and I find it very hard to believe that the BC Tribunal did not receive advance warning of this news. (HT Catfur)
While some Covenanters think the public won't be receptive to the victim claims of some lesbians who apparently went to a comedy club and obnoxiously heckled a comedian who returned fire with some nasty lesbian jokes, I argued that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is betting they will. I said there is no way the Tribunal didn't take the Mark Steyn affair into consideration when deciding whether to take the anti-lesbian comedian case. My take is that they figure this case will not win them much more criticism (though it should) but will give them promise of winning sympathy for their ridiculous regime of speech policing. I believe there are many people, in Vancouver at least, who will take the side of the lesbians who had to find some strong arm to take care of them when their world turned ugly.
I am now more convinced that this case is an attempt to deflect the great deal of criticism the failed lawyers on the "human rights" tribunal have recently been facing. This is because the Canadian Human Rights Commission has just announced it will not hear the Mark Steyn/Maclean's case; and I find it very hard to believe that the BC Tribunal did not receive advance warning of this news. (HT Catfur)
UPDATE: Ezra Levant has more.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Mark Steyn Radio Interview
Mark Steyn was interviewed on Hugh Hewitt's nationally syndicated radio show last night, fulfilling his weekly Thursday appearance on Hugh's program.
The interview adds a few new details to the absurdity of the kangaroo court inquisition underway on Howe Street:
Podcast of the interview available for downloading here. Transcript of the interview here.
The interview adds a few new details to the absurdity of the kangaroo court inquisition underway on Howe Street:
Mark Steyn: ... I’m glad to be able to shake off the fellows from the British Columbia Sheriff’s department. It’s very bizarre to me. They said they’d had, they’d been following me around everywhere in the building I go because they say there are security concerns. And it’s not clear whether it’s the security concern is that someone will try to kill me, or whether it’s me who’s the security concern.
...
Mark Steyn: You know, you mentioned this windowless basement I’m in.
Hugh Hewitt: Yes.
Mark Steyn: There’s no link with the outside world except a clock, which is stuck at 8:00. and that’s government bureaucracy for you. You know, in British Columbia, it claims to be able to eradicate hate, but it can’t get someone in to restart the clock.
...
Podcast of the interview available for downloading here. Transcript of the interview here.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The country waits and fumes... BC Separation on the rise?
Are BC's "human rights" 'roos so sure of themselves that a bunch of people can come from Ontario and get an order on what we in BC can and cannot read?
Speculation is rife that the Human Rights Tribunal is actually going to make a precedent and throw out a case against a Section 7/13 complainant, not allowing the law to be thrown into question in higher courts. Andrew Coyne has not even started live blogging yet, but there are already 28, make that 46, comments under the title for today's: Liveblogging the Macleans Trial IV: Habib and Habib Not : Andrew Coyne's Blog : Macleans.ca Blog Central
If you haven't seen it yet, yesterday's Brian Hutchinson reporting summed up the insanity of having Ontario resentments played out in a BC tribunal
As for the man himself:
However, Steyn does return to his column:
Speculation is rife that the Human Rights Tribunal is actually going to make a precedent and throw out a case against a Section 7/13 complainant, not allowing the law to be thrown into question in higher courts. Andrew Coyne has not even started live blogging yet, but there are already 28, make that 46, comments under the title for today's: Liveblogging the Macleans Trial IV: Habib and Habib Not : Andrew Coyne's Blog : Macleans.ca Blog Central
If you haven't seen it yet, yesterday's Brian Hutchinson reporting summed up the insanity of having Ontario resentments played out in a BC tribunal
As for the man himself:
Mr. Steyn, making his first appearance yesterday at the tribunal's hearings, won't testify in the case but had plenty to say outside the courtroom.
"I think we are almost certain to be convicted and then we will appeal," he said.
If that happens, he added, "We are going to have a privately owned magazine under state regulation. There are countries where that happens. And there's a word for that: totalitarian."
Mr. Steyn expressed frustration that the tribunal does not allow him to confront his accusers and does not provide him due process.
He was absent the first two days of the hearings because of an important prior commitment: He had dinner with media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
While Mr. Steyn couldn't confirm whether he'll stay until the hearing concludes, he suggested that once he leaves Vancouver, he won't be back.
However, Steyn does return to his column:
Just for the record (and before it becomes chiselled in the granite of British Columbia "human rights" jurisprudence), I wasn't aware I was being rude to my accusers after the TVOntario show. The very last words on air were me saying, "You wanna go to dinner?", and Khurrum Awan yelling back "No!" But, as the host Steve Paikin and his producers reported at some length on their website, Khurrum and I and the two gals stuck around for an hour of relatively civil conversation. In fact, I got the impression one of the ladies was growing rather fond of me, which, to be honest, was the main reason I hung about. But, now I come to think of it, that was the way it went at high school. You figure you're doing great and then next morning you overhear her telling her best friend by the lockers that she thought you were a dweeby limpet with halitosis. Unfortunately, in today's fractious legal environment, if Khurrum Awan thinks you're a dweeby limpet with halitosis who can't dance and has dried sweat rings under his cheesecloth shirt, he can add it to the long list of actionable "human rights" grievances to be laid before multiple tribunals and commissions.Tarek Fatah: "If this case can be summed up, it would be: “The Muslim Brotherhood vs. Canada.”
As legal scholars who'd attended the "trial" under the misapprehension that it bore some dim resemblance to conventional legal proceedings observed, it was hard to see what the post-show chit-chat after a television broadcast in 2008 had to do with a 2006 Maclean's cover story, which is, after all, supposed to be the hate crime under investigation. But it's even harder to see what any of this has to do with British Columbia or the "British Columbia Muslim community," on whose behalf this "human rights" suit is being brought. TVOntario is, despite its deceptive name, a TV network in Ontario. It is not broadcast in British Columbia. Khurrum Awan, the Osgoode Hall law student on the witness stand, is an alumnus of the Osgoode Hall in Toronto, not some entirely different Osgoode Hall at Fort Nelson. He lives in Mississauga, which is a suburb of Buckinghorse River. Whoops, my mistake. I mean Toronto. He works in Ontario, as an employee of the very barrister examining him in that Vancouver courtroom, fellow Ontario resident Faisal Joseph. Indeed, it is unclear whether Mr. Awan had ever set foot in British Columbia until he and Mr. Joseph and the rest of their vast Ontario delegation flew out to the coast to testify to the pain and suffering of the British Columbia Muslim community they claim to represent. When the Ontarian Mr. Awan and his fellow Ontarians agreed to appear on an Ontario TV show, there were no members of the British Columbia Muslim community present, either in the studio, the makeup room or the men's toilet (I cannot vouch for the ladies'). As they'd say in Hollywood, no members of the British Columbia Muslim community were harmed in the making of this program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)