Talk About Weird

Shehbaz Saleem Gets No Love at the Ontario HRC

Ever wonder why the Ontario HRC hears some of the ridiculous complaints that come to them? Me too.

Shehbaz Saleem, a Pakistani citizen, former resident of the US, and a Muslim believes that he was discriminated against in the area of housing based on race, citizenship and disability. His case was adjudicated on November 3, 2009 and was reported here.

However, the person alleged to have discriminated against him, Muzammil Parkhani, is a recent immigrant to Canada with his family from India, and wait for it is also Muslim.

Just to make matters better, the adjudicator for the Ontario HRC was Faisal Bhabha, a vice chair of the HRTO and himself a Muslim, and a member of the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association. Bhabha is a grad of Queens Law and holds a Masters from Harvard. Reading the case, I wondered why Mr. Bhabha had to sit through this one at all.

So, Shehbaz claimed as a Muslim that he was being discriminated against by a fellow Muslim. Mr. Saleem's only testimony was his own, and included such meanderings as:

"In terms of direct harassment by the landlord, the applicant testified that the respondent threw loud parties that caused a significant disturbance, played loud music and used psychotronic devices to implant noises in the applicant’s head, and forced the applicant to park on the street where parking is not allowed, resulting in parking tickets. "

Now, in that the Respondent lives with his parents in the house, the loud parties thing should be kind of moot. But, you can see into the mind (if there is one) of the Complainant when he accuses the Respondent of using psychotronic devices on him.

In his defence, the Respondent said he did not know what psychotronic devices were. Lest you think the Complainant is a nut bar, to which I would agree, you should read a little more of his testimony:

Shortly thereafter, the applicant testified he came to believe that the respondent was co-operating with security officials both inside and outside of Canada. He accused the respondent of fabricating a complaint to the police leading to the applicant’s false arrest. He also testified that the respondent colluded with the applicant’s former landlord in the United States to harass him, and took steps to prevent the applicant from obtaining employment in Canada. Further, he alleged that the respondent was involved in an attempt to steal his identity and drive him out of the rental unit.

Either the Respondent is a spy, and possibly a "00" with the authority to kill as required to defend crown and country, or the the Complainant is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. I vote for the latter, and so did the Vice Chair of the Tribunal, Mr. Bhabha.

Although his Decision is more detailed than the following, it can be summed up as Mr. Bhabha saying "Baa, baa bad seed. Get thee to a nuttery," or words to that effect.

There is no evidence of tin foil being used by the Complainant to protect himself from the psychotronic intrusions in his head, but maybe since losing the case, he had moved on to that.

What a waste of our tax dollars. I just wonder why a man as well educated as Mr. Bhabha is wasting his time on such baloney.

Just one burning question. How did Saleem ever get admitted into this country? Are we as nuts as he is?

An Innocuous Little Blurb From CHML in Hamilton

Does Barb Hall Have an Interest in a Technology Company?

I am sure she doesn't, but she missed a good windfall of her own creation.

From CHML these words in their news section:

The city has started testing a new automated stop announcement system on its busses.

The result is that voice and visual announcement of all stops on all HSR routes, will be in place by the end of the year.

The system was purchased by the city at a cost of three million dollars, and is required to comply with a ruling by the Ontario Human Rights Commission .

You may recall that I wrote once or twice about the transit call-out ruling by Ms. Hall's gestapo last year. I mentioned it in this posting here. I prophetically called the piece "Is there a Bottom to this pit?"

The original case, turned into an Ontario universal human right, was about a blind person on the TTC who whined because he couldn't figure out where he wanted to go, and got the hopey changers at the Ontario HRT to support him. But, Barb Hall took him many better and got to command all transit systems in Ontario to install call out systems.

Hamilton - $3,000,000 for a call out system, because of a handful of blind people who won't ask for help from the driver or another passenger, in a recession.

I explained in one piece how that discriminated against me, and my brain injury, since I can't ride public transit because of the noise and confusion added to the existing noise and confusion by call outs. No way, am I giving those clowns at the Ontario HRC a shot at trying to fix that one. By the way, every time I have ridden on a transit system, there has been at least one person with an aversion to noise disability (me), but I have rarely seen a blind person.

So, if it cost Hamilton $3 mill, what do you think it cost the other 16 transit systems in Ontario to pay for Barb's perfidy?

These are the types of hidden costs that we can get a handle on that come from the human rights industry. It is hard to imagine the scope and size of the costs to our society of such perfidy happening in all provinces, plus J Ly's special horror show.

The mind boggles, but you can do something about it. You can open your own mouth and complain about the nonsense, and get our governments to stop all this political correctness and return to some measure of sanity. We all voted for this, you know.

Smoking As A Disability

I Can't Believe I Wrote that Title

An article that I read a little bit ago about the cause and effect of smoking on campus from The Manitoban got me to digging a bit.

There have been some wonky screeches around, presumably from smokers. At least, I would hope so, but I might have heard Barb Hall's voice in the background. She is always looking for the Big Discrimination, you know the systemic one, so she can hop on Roxinante and go tilt at another windmill. Problem of course is that Dalton Dolittle is standing behind her nudging her on to glory. We need a Premier with stones. Too bad its so hard to topple a monopoly, at least for now.

But, in BC they are way ahead of her, so she's going to have to pick up her game. I kid you not, that over on the left coast there is a case before the BC HRT (Big Crazy High fallutin' Rootin' tootin' Tribunal) of a woman who believes that she was refused a job because she is a smoker, saying that her smoking "disability" was the reason.

The Vancouver Sun picked it up last February here. Roxanne Stevenson has taken the City of Kelowna to Kangaroo Court over her disability and their failure to accommodate her by giving her a job that someone else was qualified for, and got ahead of her. I mean, it's all about her right! Or, I mean it's all about her rights.

Lest you think that I jest or that I have made this stuff up, I assure you fact has once again proven itself weirder than fiction. Enid Marion, the tribunal member who heard the first whiffs of this case has rendered a Preliminary Decision on the Application to Dismiss by the City of Kelowna here, and says "On with the show."

I am less concerned about what they do on the left coast where we on the right side of the mountains have those majestic peaks for protection from their political and legal meanderings on the wild side.

What I am more concerned about is that our globe trotting head of the Canada HRC (Her Royal Censorness), J Ly Lynch might catch wind of this, and make a cause celebre out of it. Or, she might give a nudge to her fellow left wing nut, Barbara Hall with our delightful Ontario HRT (Herd of Rabid Toadies).

I hear that Barb is still miffed that she lost a chance to advance new rights for transgendered females in the Fulton case, when the transgenderee in this case, bailed on her. You can read the case decision on that one here, and my pearls of whatever on it here.

Have you not all had enough of this insanity. Kill Political Correctness, and bring back the Truth. I never read "You shall know how to be politically correct, and political correctness will set you free." No, I'm sure it goes: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Truth Is Trouble - A Pregnant Pause

Jessica Maciel and Fashion Coiffures Ltd. and Crystal Coiffures Ltd.

I saw an ad for a show called The Foundation TV Show recently, and that is all I know about the show. In the ad one actor says: "Truth is trouble", and it stuck with me.

A young girl applying for her first job after completing a diploma course from Metropolitan College, got hired as a receptionist for 2 beauty salons in Erin Mills Town Centre about August 1, 2008. Miraculously, on August 9, 2008 her first day of work, she turned up for work and was 4 months pregnant. She told her new employer that she was pregnant when she started work, and was summarily dismissed.

She lied by omission, which she was allowed to do by law, as I understand. The employers tale of what happened was not believed by the Ontario HRT. It was unable to hold water, though Ms. Maciel would have been unable to hold her own water a few months into her job.

The HRT says that the salons discriminated against Ms. Maciel on the basis of sex. Clearly she had engaged in sex, resulting in the baby on the way. That was very much in evidence and getting more so.

The salons had presumably bypassed other qualified applicants, since there is really no qualification requirement for a receptionist job at a salon, to hire Ms. Maciel. And by law, you are allowed to dismiss without cause in Ontario, new employees who have not completed a probation period, which is currently legally 3 months, again as I understand.

However, you can't dismiss a protected one like a pregnant one, a disabled one, or a gay one, or a black or yellow skinned one, not a Muslim one, or a Jew, though you can turf a Christian.

Truth is trouble, isn't it? She omits to tell her employer an important detail about her short term availability to work, which means that they will have to train another person to do the work while she is away on maternity leave, while having to protect her job for her return, which is a more difficult task to fill. They then play loose with the truth about why she was let go, because the real truth won't fly in kangaroo court.

The result: $35,000 for one hour's work. I wonder if Jessica Maciel can hold her head up. She can certainly afford to.

We are a society so used to stretching the truth, that the truth has become troublesome.

The case decision is here.

(Com)Passion and Power

What Are Society's Motivators?

A friend pointed out to me the other day that I was operating with Passion, but not Compassion in a particular discourse. Truth be told, it is easy to drop the Com from Compassion in day to day life. But really, gentle readers, aren't we all called to walk with Compassion for our fellow man?

For my wife and me this has meant that we do our charity locally more than just sending cheques to organisations. We do support our local Church, and charities that we believe are doing good work, but much of what we do is more hands on now. We can do this in part because we have nothing but time on our hands, but also because we realise that it is the right thing for us to do.

Today, we are working on a quilt because a member of one of the quilt guilds that my wife is a participant in, challenged members to make quilts for youngsters who through no fault of their own are forced with a parent to find refuge from abuse in a shelter.

But, what of goverment? Take Human Rights, for example. OK, I will. We have government bureaucracies in charge of ferreting out human rights wrongs, and making them right. That just seems so wrong to me. It is, to me, and example of "Let the government do it." Why? Do they have a passion for this work? Sure doesn't look like it to me, if you take the shenanigans of J Ly and her band of cronies at the CHRC as an example? Ditto, Barb Hall and her folks at the OHRC. And don't get me started on Alberta, or BC for that matter.

While J Ly chases after pretend Nazis, and publishers, she does so at the expense of free speech in this country. Ask Marc Lemire how it feels to have his life put on hold for 6 years, and his back account empty, while the J Ly bunch pillory him and lie about him along the way to get a conviction, which in the end was hollow and opens doors to real freedom of speech in this country.

Ask Stephen Boissoin over in Alberta how it feels to be gagged by the Alberta HRC because what he said was not politically correct? It doesn't matter if he can prove the truth of what he says, because as we have all learned, truth is not a defence at the HRCs.

And in Ontario, the Barb Hallers are chasing after landlords, transit systems, and the like to bring "equality" to us all. Did anybody ask us if we wanted it or believed it was even real? See what George Jonas said about the elusive equality. He called it a Chimera with good reason.

Is there any Compassion in their work? Sure isn't any visible. They are paid to bring people down for discrimination of some sort or other, and are in marketing to make sure they have enough business to justify their sinecures. They even invent new human rights beyond the Charter along the way.

Is there Passion in their work? Maybe, but hard to tell. No, I think it is about Power, political power. I have seen too many cases that have no basis in the fundamental rights and freedoms that our Charter guarantees us.

The Barb Hall's of this world live for power, the ability to enforce made up rights is a good place to have power, because you make it up as you go.

Let's have a revolution, you and me. Let's work at treating our family first, then our neighbours, then the rest of our community with respect and dignity. Let's us stand up for Charter fundamental human rights, not hopey changey ones that are being thrust on us. Some wag said long ago: "Charity begins are home." So, let's try it. Let's make government redundant in areas of helping others. Let's care about one another without regard for religion or political, or other beliefs.

Oh, for this to work, we need a new attitude shift as well. Forget taking offence when someone says something against your beliefs. As one friend said to me more than once: "Suck it up Buttercup." Instead of filing a Form 1 with Barb or whatever the form is in another province or federally, spread love. Why, because "Love Does Not Take Offence."

Stop letting the government do it. Do it yourself. If you want to reduce taxes, get rid of the government meddling in your life at every turn. Make it only some turns, where they can do a better job than we can. They cannot look after our neighbour better than we can. Make them leave, because they are not needed.

Weaning away from government intervention everywhere we look won't be easy. They don't want to shrink, and we are usually too lazy to stop them.

Wake Up folks. It's our turn now.

A Touch of Irony

But Will Jim Corcoran Get It?

Dear Readers:

You may recall that I have published a number of posts on Jim Corcoran going after the Bishop of Peterborough, Bishop De Angelis, and the "12" from Cobourg over his being asked to step down from serving on the altar at St. Michael's Cobourg. I started here and went on after that.

Mr. Corcoran and partner are in England and Spain on vacation. All was well except this item he noted in his blog:

The only depressing event has been a rather poor review posted on Ste. Anne´s by a recent guest on TripAdvisor. If you are a true fan, please take a minute and post something positive for me. After 20 years of investing love and sweat into a business, it really hurts when someone takes their best shot at ruining your reputation. Why don´t they just call me when they aren´t happy? Oh well.

He got a bad review and read it if you must, it was a bad review, and also unusual for the spa, as far as I can tell. Surprisingly scathing, I think.

But, to paraphrase Mr. Corcoran, after Bishop De Angelis has invested so many years in his priesthood, and in nurturing and caring for people in his charge, it really hurts when someone takes their best shot at ruining his reputation. Why didn't Jim Corcoran just call when he wasn't happy? Oh Well! There's always the HRT.

You see, the person who complained against Jim's spa isn't from a protected group, so can't go to the HRT to complain and ask for $260,000 for pain and suffering, and of course a public apology. A call would have been nice, or an email first and then a call.

This is why I hate the HRCs/HRTs. They like to help victims with hurt feelings. They are in the victim mollification business, not in the healing business. Now Bishop De Angelis is in the healing business. Mr. C. you knocked on the wrong door. Try door number 2.

Why Do They Lie To Us?

Worse Still - Why Do We Believe Them?

I am sure that one or two of you, fess up, more than one or two of you, have had some tiny anxiety pangs over the Swine Flu, you know H1N1. I mean, it's a pandemic, right?

You may recall the August, 2009 report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology with its "plausible scenario" of "30,000 - 90,000 deaths" peaking in "mid-October." By my reckoning that was 4 days ago.

H/T small dead animals for this item.

Michael Fumento reports in Forbes.com that The Pandemic is Political. As he begins his article:

As evidence continues to mount that swine flu is more of a piglet than a raging razorback, why isn't curiosity mounting as to why the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic? And definitions aside, why does the agency continue to insist we're going to get hammered? The answers have far less to do with world health than with redistribution of world wealth.

As of the other day flucount.org reported that there have been 1,000 deaths in the US, and 5,559 worldwide. Oh, by the way, that pandemic has claimed 81 lives here in Canada, out of over 12,000 cases.

As you read the article by Mr. Fumento, you will probably notice a fear mentality being propagated by the World Health Organization, that has a bigger budget feel to it, along with power to the WHO. That looks a lot to me like Barb Hall and the Ontario HRC and their style, and even more like J Ly and her cronies in Ottawa. Make them afraid for their very lives, and then we can increase our power base, yadda, yadda, yadda.

So, to the WHO I say, Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire. To you all, I say, "Wake Up Sheeple!"

But, the lies told to us about swine flu might pale compared to the lies of Stem Cell Research. If you are a Catholic Christian, then Stem Cell Research is a very dirty word. To get Stem Cells, you have to fertilize a human egg. In other words, you have to create and kill a baby, even if it is done at ground zero in that baby's life cycle. The Catholic Church has been yelled at for Stem Cell phobia by those in favour of the technology.

As Mr. Fumento's article in Forbes.com from July 15, 2009 starts out:

An age of medical miracles is dawning. Obama administration federal funding rules for embryonic stem cells, or ES cells, will open wide the money floodgates for "the most remarkable potential of any scientific discovery ever made with respect to human health." It has "the capacity to cure maladies of all sorts, including cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's," and spinal cord injuries. Or so says Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., among others.

Sounds great, but is it. Mr. Fumento is not sold, and in fact is not able to be bought either. If it is such a great idea when will we see results:

"The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence," embryonic stem cell research advocate William Haseltine and then-chief executive officer of Human Genome Sciences ( HGSI - news - people ) told Agence France Presse in 2001. "The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest," he added.

Some ES cell researchers believe "three to five decades" is a realistic timeline, while British fertility expert Lord Robert Winston said in a 2005 lecture, "I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody's lifetime for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will."

20-30 years out. or 30-50 years out, or who knows when. Hmm, as in not imminent.

How is that happening:

The Imperial College, London University professor insisted research "should be conducted, and I believe is totally ethical." But, he added, "One of the problems is that in order to persuade the public that we must do this work, we often go rather too far in promising what we might achieve ..."

Well, at least he is honest, if belatedly.

This is all about regenerative medicine and so:

That's especially so given that E(mbryonic) S(tem) cells are hardly the end-all and be-all of regenerative medicine, with stiff competition from adult stem cells (AS cells) and what are called "induced pluripotent stem cells." These iPS cells, engineered from mature human skin cells, are considered to be just as flexible as embryonic ones. But as with AS variety, they have neither the health concerns nor moral baggage of the embryonic ones.

But, ES cells are sexier than AS or iPS cells. So, why is President Obama supporting Stem Cell research:

In justifying his stem cell research executive order, President Barack Obama cited "a consensus of "the majority of Americans." Actually, the polling responses vary tremendously depending on the questions asked. But no decision is better than the information upon which it's based. What might Americans think if they knew the ES cell research "decades away" secret?

Lied to again. But only because they're doing what's best for us. As Jack Nicholson's character said to Tom Cruise's character in A Few Good Men: "You can't handle the truth." I not only can handle the truth, I demand the truth. I am sick and tired of being lied to for my own good, by people who are beneath my dignity, if they think that lying to me is going to make me support them in further lies.

I wonder what else Michael Fumento has uncovered. Hmmm!

To HRC or Not to HRC

Responding to Comments

I wrote a piece back on May 30, 2009 about an HRC case that did not occur, where a young woman, who is my second cousin, has a rare mildly disabling disease that is visible and causes her discomfort. She was fired from her job as a server in a local restaurant and got on with her life, refusing to get into the HRC schmozzle of process. I lauded her forbearance and determination.

Well, the other day I got a comment to the post that I responded to and another response back from the Anonymous commenter. Because the comments were thoughtful, I felt they warranted being part of another post and here we are.

Here is the first comment:

It is great that this women eventually found a great place to be employed. However, the purpose of a human rights investigation is not limited to that individual (the young women in this case). Instead it involves all members of society, those who have a disability and those who would discriminate against them.

I do believe that each indivdual should do what is best for them but feel the ones that should be applauded are the ones who are willing to go through that grueling human rights investigation process to hold people accountable for discrimination.

This article seems to suggest that rolling over rather than standing up is what is the way to go...to that point I would have to disagree.

But I would still agree with the last line "Good for you, Lizzie"!!

I responded as follows:

There is no gruelling human rights investigation process for the Complainant. It is only gruelling and expensive for the Respondent.

I have a disability. Today, I cannot leave my house because of it. With my disability it is not practical for places of work, or institutions to accommodate me. I don't need them to accommodate me, and I do not need to play victim because they don't or can't. I don't even intend to tell them that I am disabled.

I would rather live my life as free as I can than be a victim.

To think that the government is any "victim's" friend is a fallacy. The HRCs run a sausage making machine, not a justice machine, and it stacks up rights as it makes them up and as it chooses, so that my rights as a disabled person would trump my rights as a Christian. I refuse to give them the chance.

And Anonymous responded back to me again with more thoughts here:

Asserting your rights is a far cry from becoming a victim and I would argue It is empowering. The Duty to Accommodate only extends so far. And if you simply can't work then of course they cannot accommodate you.

I am stunned that you, as a disabled person could be anti-HRC(now HRT) they advocate on behalf of individuals who are routinely discriminated against in all aspects of society, especially employment. I am working with a woman who has a disability and was fired for taking 6 month Medical Leave of Absence to receive treatment and to recuperate...yes fired for being disabled. Instead of rolling and 'living her life' she is standing up for her rights and demanding to be treated fairly. This women works with people with disabilities, and so do I, and find her determination inspiring. She is standing on principle. And this process is gruelling when you have the issues to deal with that she has. The way you talk of it being gruelling for the Respondents makes me think that you were one. I am glad it is exhausting to those who would strip the rights and dignity from the disabled Canadians.
I would think that someone with a disability would condemn the businesses and individuals who rob others of their Human Rights. Keep in mind that HRC stands for Human Rights Commission or as it is now referred to the Human Rights Tribunal. Instead of targeting them for trying to protect Canadians from Human Rights Violations why not call out the people who are continuing to discriminate against the disabled and other groups.

Don’t Shut Up....Stand UP!!!!

Well, I think the thoughts of Anonymous are meaningful and worthy of further thought and comment. So, it being my blog, I get the last say, even if I have to wait out Anonymous (tongue in cheek).

I have contended since I started writing this blog that I am more interested in the TRUTH, than in being right. Hence, I take what Anonymous says seriously.

"A" suggested that I have been a Respondent. To date that is not the case, and I hope it never will be. But, I have seen the process up very close. Two friends of mine have been victimized by the process, one in Ontario and one in Alberta. I have never disclosed the name of the friend in Ontario because her case is ongoing, but my friend in Alberta is Stephen Boissoin. You can read what I have written about both cases, as it is voluminous.

"A" is stunned that as a disabled person I am anti HRT here in Ontario. You bet your sweet ?ss I am anti HRT, and I have made my reasons pretty clear about that for the last several months.

But "A" pointed out the story of a person he/she regards highly who is disabled:

I am working with a woman who has a disability and was fired for taking 6 month Medical Leave of Absence to receive treatment and to recuperate...yes fired for being disabled. Instead of rolling and 'living her life' she is standing up for her rights and demanding to be treated fairly. This women works with people with disabilities, and so do I, and find her determination inspiring. She is standing on principle.

I know nothing about the case so cannot comment on specifics. However, if there are grounds for fighting the dismissal, the HRT is not the place to go. There are good laws in this province to protect us against illegal hiring and firing practices. "Demanding to be treated fairly" is an interesting perspective, because it is only in the eyes of the one who thinks he/she is not being treated fairly.

You may recall my posting on ADGA, back in May 2009 where a new employee lied when being hired about his disability, on which basis he would not have qualified for the job he applied for. He went over the wall, was fired and the Ontario HRC/HRT gave him a bucket full of money for being a disabled liar. That to me was not principle, but lying to get what you want. I could do that to get a job, knowing that I would get an HRT tax free pay check in the end, but that is immoral and I cannot participate in something like that.

ADGA is one example of many cases I have reviewed where the liberals at the HRT beat the stuffings out of Respondents, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their cause, do not use any meaningful evidentiary procedures to come to their determinations and then find in favour of the Claimant if the Claimant fits into one of their discriminatory boxes. I do not want to be a party to that.

But, I am not saying I am rolling over and playing dead either. My employer did not fire me, and has not fired me after almost 6 years of disability, because they are a good company. I also receive benefits from an insurance company that supplement my very reduced wages, and my wife and I are living within our means. We have a court claim in against the driver that hit me, and it has not settled in the almost 6 years, and may take another year or 2 to be finished as well. My lawyer has been in touch with my employer as needed, and if they had terminated me, I would not have laid down, but on legal grounds not on grounds of some cooked up discrimination.

But A's concluding comments are important ones to think on and to respond to:

I would think that someone with a disability would condemn the businesses and individuals who rob others of their Human Rights. Keep in mind that HRC stands for Human Rights Commission or as it is now referred to the Human Rights Tribunal. Instead of targeting them for trying to protect Canadians from Human Rights Violations why not call out the people who are continuing to discriminate against the disabled and other groups.

Don’t Shut Up....Stand UP!!!!

Well, A, I have now about 300 posts on my blog, most of which are about HRC/HRT incompetence, and meddling into our society. So, I am standing up, not shutting up, just not agreeing with you.

I do not see businesses and individuals robbing others of their Human Rights. I see people that make mistakes innocently, or sometimes at the behest of, or behind the guise of a corporate veil. We have courts to protect us from illegal activities, and abuse of others.

But mainly I see HRCs/HRTs redefining human rights far beyond our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and denying me my rights so you can have yours, not you particularly, but the collective you that is politically correct for the moment.

I do not trust the government to protect my interests. I accept that they will operate to their own agenda, which is self protection and then expansion.

When it comes to dealing with government directly I agree with author P.J. O'Rourke:

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Smoking is a Human Right - Shhhh

London Topic.ca Writer Looking for Next Career Move

Before an hour ago, I had never heard of London Topic, although I live here in London. The company motto is "If you're on . . . you're in!" If you're on what, you're in what? I don't get it, but then, I had never heard of it either, so my not getting it has not been a problem for either of us.

As London Topic says about itself:

We're London, Ontario’s daily online local news source.

With two solid years of existence, LondonTopic.ca has proven to be one of London’s most credible, timely news sources in the city. LondonTopic.ca’s local news content has shown time and again they can and will continue to deliver the news London readers want and have grown to trust.

Sure coulda fooled me, but I don't want to burst their bubble. I mean it has been two solid years, not two shaky years.

In an article entitled "BEYOND THE ONIONS: London trucker's human rights violated by smoking fine", Ross McDermott, the editorial director of London Topic, makes a pitch to Barb Hall for a job on her staff. It seems that London Topic's attempt to get cash from Dragon's Den last year flopped, so a little resume work has been in order, maybe.

McDermott weaves a tale about a butt smoking truck driver's minor legal tangle:

Last week (Oct. 6), a London truck driver was stopped by OPP in the Windsor area and was ticketed $305 for smoking in an enclosed workplace under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, after an officer spotted the 48-year-old man rolling down the 401 in his truck with a cigarette dangling from his lips.

It was the first time the OPP had enforced the Smoke-Free Ontario legislation since it came into effect in May of 2006.

McDermott is not satisfied to report the news. He then went on to make it up:

So, for the sake of argument, although I'm sure there are those who will still argue the fact, let's say that cigarette smoking is an addiction to a drug.

Now, the Ontario Human Rights Code provides for equal rights and opportunities, and freedom from discrimination. The code recognizes the dignity and worth of every person in Ontario and applies to the areas of employment, housing, facilities and services, contracts, and membership in unions, trade or professional associations.

In the workplace, employees with disabilities are entitled to the same opportunities and benefits as people without disabilities. In some circumstances, employees with disabilities may require special arrangements or "accommodations" to enable them to fulfill their job duties.

In the code, the word "Disability" covers a broad range and degree of conditions, some visible and others not. A disability may have been present from birth, caused by an accident, or, and here's kicker #1 – developed over time, like the addiction to cigarette smoking.

The word "Disability" includes physical, mental, and learning disabilities, mental disorders, hearing or vision disabilities, epilepsy, environmental sensitivities, other conditions, and here's kicker #2 – drug and alcohol dependencies.

Tobacco is a clearly a drug that creates a dependency in those who use it.

Also under the Ontario Human Rights Code is the term "Accommodation" which, in a nutshell, states that an employer can not simply dismiss someone based on a disability, but must make efforts, together with the employee, to "Accommodate" within the workplace that disability.

Now, this London truck driver was in his place of work, and was therefore violating the Smoke Free Ontario Act. But for many truck drivers, their rig is also their home. This truck driver is self-employed and under the Ontario Human Rights Code he could be seen as "Accommodating" his disability – cigarette addiction.

By imposing a fine on this man for smoking in his workplace, a workplace where only he is exposed to the dangers of second hand smoke (and first hand smoke, for that matter), could be seen as a violation of his human rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

This is just too much. I might fall off my chair. Too funny:

Today, right now, somewhere, someone is looking at a "smoker" in disgust. Someone is making a public comment and a judgment against someone with the disability of cigarette addiction.

Smokers are a minority. A minority with a serious addiction that is a detriment to their health, and a possible detriment to the health of others, yet to discriminate against a smoker is acceptable in our society, despite the fact that for years cigarettes were publicly promoted on billboards, at sporting events, in many forms and mediums, and the actual addiction can be seen as being a result of the influence of this promotion of what is still today a legal substance. Not too (sic) mention the fact that cigarettes are taxed to the hilt with the money greedily collected by the same government hands that wiggle a finger at us and say smoking is bad.

I wonder if he believes this stuff, or if he is really applying for a job with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and is padding his resume. His conclusion is priceless:

To that London trucker who was ticketed for smoking in his rig, I say get a good human rights lawyer and fight it, if for nothing else, as a matter of principal (sic).

To Ross McDermott, I say, if you are going to be a reporter, or even if you are prepping your resume for Ms. Hall, learn proper English. "Not too mention" should have read "Not to mention", and "a matter of principal", should have read "a matter of principle." Kids these days.

Before I close though, I found an interesting dichotomy when I saw a separate article from 9/29/09 on the same site with the title "Ontario files $50 billion lawsuit against tobacco companies; Bentley announces".

That article starts out:

Ontario's Attorney General and London MPP Chris Bentley announced that the Ontario government has filed a $50 billion lawsuit against tobacco companies, Tuesday (Sept. 29).

The lawsuit seeks damages "for past and ongoing healthcare costs linked to tobacco-related illness," said a media release from the Ontario government.

"Ontario is taking the next step towards recovering taxpayer dollars spent fighting tobacco-related illnesses," Bentley said. "We are joining British Columbia and New Brunswick in initiating a lawsuit to recover health care costs from tobacco companies."

But, it raises a question for London Topic. I wonder if they should be advising the tobacco companies that smoking is a Human Right, and so they should fight the lawsuit as "a matter of principal". Just asking.

No Guide Dogs Allowed

Xanthippa Speaks Out

I wrote a post yesterday here, about a guide dog for Annika Merner, of Windsor who has Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism. My view, coloured by my dread of Barb Hall and the Ontario HRC was negative. Though the school board has taken an inordinate amount of time to come to what probably will be a reasonable resolution to a situation that is again probably new to them, I felt that the parent's going to Barb and her ilk is a precipitous action, that will result in no real good, but a new cause for Barb.

Xanthippa's view was different here, and quite valid, I think.

I wouldn't take my worst enemy to Barb Hall and the Ontario HRC, on principle if for no other reason.

Having just read an article in another periodical that I get where a guide dog was being used for multiple autistic children in a classroom to help them retain focus, and also to help a deaf teacher, I see that the end objective is good, but I have never questioned it.

It is too bad that the parents of Annika had to deal with one government body, a school board, and don't think that school boards are anything but government bureaucracies, and now is willing to get it on with another. Of course, from her side, once she has filed the Complaint, she can sit back and let the fur fly, literally, and figuratively.

There just has to be a better way.

I Want What I Want When I Want It

Barb Hall Will Have A New Cause Celebre

This week, Battlin' Barb Hall gave us 50 Ways to Screw Your Landlord. Last week, she told us that Access is a Human Right. The Windsor Star reports today on a new windmill that she can tilt at, and my money is on Barbie. I bet she will tilt this one, and beat it to death.

Annika Merner, of Windsor has Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism, and as such gets easily stressed and distracted. For the last 3 years she has had a legally licensed service dog. But, for only a little over a year, her parents have been campaigning for her to be able to bring the dog to school with her. She, of course knows the battle they are fighting and so asks them regularly: "when can Cargo come to school with me?" I love when a beat writer tries to tug at your heart strings.

As the Star reports:

One year and three months later, the Education Committee of the Greater Essex County District School Board has approved in principle a policy allowing properly documented service dogs into school classrooms.

Sharon Pyke, superintendent of special education, said Friday she expects trustees will consider the recommendation at the next full board meeting in two weeks.

After an orientation period for principals and school staff, she said, service dogs could be welcome in the classroom.

But, Mama Bear is not so easily mollified, and wants blood (probably sees a free shot at blood money). She calls it principle. I call it principal, and I don't mean the guy at the school. I mean cold hard cash, you know for pain and suffering.

Here's her side:

But Chantal Merner, the girl's mother, insists the board's recommended policy comes too late.

"For over a year we've been fighting to have our daughter's service dog go to school with her," said Merner.

"We've given them two deadlines that weren't met.... My daughter went all last year without her dog and is still without the dog. So we've decided to go the Ontario Human Rights Commission."

Despite the fact the situation may be rectified in a matter of weeks, she insists they will continue with their case on principle.

She said the board had no right to deny access in the first place.

She said the right to have a service dog is guaranteed by the Ontario Disabilities Act.

"The board can't go above the provincial law and it clearly states service dogs are guaranteed access," said Merner.

"The board is not as transparent or as proactive for special needs children as it's made out to be."

There we go. The Board had no RIGHT, no RIGHT I tell you. How dare they not give me what I want when I want it, even if I waited two years to ask them for it, they should have jumped right on it. If they were really smart, they would have anticipated my RIGHT before I even expressed it.

So, Mama Bear is really a guard dog, protecting her young, so to speak. If they had allowed the service dog earlier, they wouldn't be getting bitten by the guard dog now, I guess.

Here's a telling line in the story:

She is also concerned the dog may be disallowed because of possible allergies.

Sort of the chink in the armour as it were. Seems that the board had to validly, I would think look out for other children in the school as well as little Annika. Some kids are allergic to animals, like dogs. I can see that the board might not want a child dropping dead on the school yard from allergies, sort of gives education a bad name, don't you think?

Well, as the article draws to a close, we see that Mama Bear, or Guard Dog, whatever you call her is the least reasonable person in this thing:

Pyke (Sharon Pyke, superintendent of special education) said the board put together a committee to study the issue last November and that several considerations had to be satisfied, including setting protocols for service dogs.

Those protocols require parents to provide documentation establishing the need for the animal and that it is certified and well trained.

She said there has been more demand for service dogs in recent years because they are being trained now to work with a variety of disabled people, rather than only with the visually impaired.

The dogs are trained for children who suffer seizures, the deaf, the blind, people with physical disabilities and, most recently, children with autism.

"This is not Fido coming to school," she said. "When the harness is on, they're working."

But, Barb will take this on. She always does, when she sees a new constituency she can pick up, or an old one to pick on. She has been on School Boards a number of times, and is looking for ways to take over education in this province. Why not, she's got the landlords, transit systems and restaurants under her belt now.

Fellow Ontarians. Have you had enough yet? If so, tell McGuinty. If you don't tell him now, remember to tell him next time we go to the polls. Tim Hudak and the Conservatives are more than happy to start cleaning up Barb Hall's liberal Liberal messes, if McGuinty won't, and from the sounds of it, he won't.

My Wife and I Were Discriminated Against The Other Night

And Frankly Scarlet, We Don't Give A Damn

Last week, our noble Head of the Ontario HRC was chronicled as she bayed at the moon or thundered at the bay, by the Thunder Bay Chronicle, as she railed on about Access as a Human Right. Let's not quibble folks. It's right there in the Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

See in the teeny, weeny fine print, after d. "freedom of access." Well, maybe you don't see it, but Barb Hall and her minions do, along with several other made up rights, but I digress.

Well, the other night, my wife and I attended the Toronto Raptors exhibition game against the Philadelphia 76er's at the John Labatt Centre in London, and there we were discriminated against. First, we qualify as disabled people, been that way for almost 6 years now, me from an auto accident, and she from autoimmune diseases. For me, the challenge is from the brain injury I incurred making it difficult to filter out noise, and to concentrate for lengthy periods of time. For her, the pain she endures is arthritic in nature, and pervasive.

But, we wanted to see the game that was in town, for our first time.

Here is the Barb Hall victim version of our trip to the JLC, and encountering unmitigated discrimination against our persons.

Our daughter had to drop us off in front of the JLC a half hour before game time, because parking in the area is not close or sufficient for my wife's needs. We worked our way to our seats in advance of many of the fans to avoid the jostling, and the noise.

The crowd was fairly raucous during the game, and it made it difficult for me to concentrate much of the time. Meanwhile, the proximity of the seats in front of us to ours, made sitting for the duration difficult for my wife. With all the confusion that occurs in the concourse, we were unable to leave our seats at the intermission to get refreshment, and so had to remain in our seats at that time.

After the game, we had to wait for the area to clear before leaving our seats to avoid risk of injury. We then had to phone our daughter for a ride home, and on arrival at home immediately went to bed. The next day was largely a write off for us as we attempted to recover from the fatigue of the game.

I'm sure that I could whine more and find enough to make a complaint about if I were inclined.

However, I am not, so here's what really happened.

Yes, my wife and I are disabled, not a condition that we chose, but conditions that we learn to live with and adapt to. Accordingly, our daughter offered to drop us off and pick us up at the gate to make it easier for us to enjoy the game. She is very thoughtful and we appreciated her assistance. So, we were off to a very good start, specially since it was raining cats and dogs.

We went early to avoid the crush that can happen, and to get seated with more ease than a little later. I get confused by noise and my wife is challenged to climb stairs so we accommodated our needs by arriving a bit early.

There was lots of excitement in the game, and lots of it around the game, with the Dance Pack, and the Raptor doing their thing, as well as the scoreboard action. The crowd got into the game, as we had expected and so it got noisy from time to time.

At the intermission, we stayed in our seats, but should have gotten up and stretched as my wife had significant pain in her legs by bedtime, as a result of not moving much for about 3 hours.

By the end of the game, we were both fatigued, but had enjoyed the experience of a basketball game. The only disappointment was that the Raptors lost.

Our daughter picked us up and we got home shortly thereafter. It is London after all, and we live only about 3 miles from the JLC.

Conclusion. We enjoyed ourselves, though we are not as likely to go again for some time to an event at the JLC, not because of anything the JLC should do differently to accommodate us, but because it was fatiguing.

I don't want Barb Hall making venues like arenas or restaurants have to change their way of doing business to accommodate us. I don't have to go there, and I don't have a right to go anywhere and do anything that pops into my head.

Barb Hall, stop giving me rights because some group of left leaning gimps are making noise at you. Use your head for more than a hat rack. You move with every breeze that blows over your bow, and find a new cause celebre to crow about. Last week, it was Access. This week, Tenants Rights. Next week, I cringe to think what you have up your sleeve for next week.

Landlords Screwed in Ontario

Take it From One Small Landlord to Another

My friend, Scary Fundamentalist, on Canada's left coast has taken the time to look at Barba Hall's insane human rights rental housing policy, and has thoughts on the Landlord perspective particularlyin this post, Scary Fundamentalist: Impending Ontario Housing Shortage: What Landlords "Should" Do.

Barb Hall and her advisers have shown just how much out of touch with reality they are over on the liberal side of nonsense as SF notes here:

The policy makes some “suggestions” to landlords under the heading “You [landlord] can advance human rights in housing”. The same heading is not present in the instructions to victims tenants.

Obviously, the OHRC considers that only tenants have rights, and not landlords. It does not recognize a landlord’s right to his own safety, security, and self-determination of his own property, most likely because the type that draft these policies don’t believe in private ownership of property to begin with.

It, of course gets worse for the landlord, who is about to become an endangered species in Ontario, so get one while you can. Where landlords could properly screen their prospective tenants, Barb says this is now discriminatory. you want to see discrimination. Watch the rental units come off the market. That is still a valid way of discriminating. SF says this:

Does a landlord have a right to the income derived from his property? Obviously not – (s)he is forbidden to determine whether a tenant has enough income to pay the rent (other than a ridiculous 100% threshold).

Does a landlord have a right to keep his premises safe by screening out potential troublemakers? Not according to the OHRC. Landlords cannot consider a lack of rental history or past references as a negative. Someone who has a bad rental record only needs to refuse to disclose it. There are no other “acceptable means” by which unsavoury tenants can be refused accommodation.

And, now once you have them, how do you get rid of them. it was tough before. It will now become impossible. Read on:

Can a landlord remove “disruptive” tenants? Nope. As a landlord, you “should assess your role to see if there are things you can do as a landlord to help the situation”. In other words, disruptive tenants are the landlord’s fault. As I pointed out earlier, the OHRC says that a disruptive tenant may be acting that way because (s)he is already a victim of discrimination, and it is incumbent on the landlord to rectify the situation. Get the picture? Tenants are victims, while landlords are obligated to solve all their problems.

Barb will be issuing landlords with red capes as they go forth and solve the problems of the world while they do the following:

Landlords are “encouraged” to develop anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, which, of course, cannot be enforced against anybody of a “protected” group because that would be discrimination in housing. Landlords are also “encouraged” to “remove barriers”, which will invariably throw up barriers to others, giving the OHRC even more opportunity to use punitive measures to figure out which “barriers” are higher up on the victim hierarchy. Not to mention, any anti-harassment or anti-discrimination policy could constitute a barrier, right?

Landlords are also responsible to “maximize integration”. At the same time, landlords will also have to deal with complaints of harassment from tenants who resent such attempts to integrate. Oh joy, even more complaints generated for the OHRC.

So, what's a landlord to do? Ignore the policy. May as well. Who can afford it, certainly not the tenants in increased rent, and not the landlord in loss of peace of mind. As SF says:

All of these “suggestions”, including inclusive design, education and training programs, and further Human Rightsish generalizations, would cost any landlord dearly if they were fool enough to carry them out. Either such costs would be passed on to the renters, driving up the cost of housing, or landlords would go broke, reducing housing supply. Is that what you really want, Barb?

Maybe it is what she wants. As supply diminishes and rents skyrocket due to OHRC regulations, it will become obvious that the only way to operate affordable rental property for low/no income earners under such rules is for the author of those rules, the government, to nationalize the housing market and subsidize everything.

As Barb moves us all to the left, with new rights, we can learn to do the Barb Hall Goose Step.

Ontario Housing Shortage Predicted

Scary Fundamentalist Hits Nail On Head

Read what he has to say here: Scary Fundamentalist: Coming Soon: Critical Housing Shortage in Ontario

However, for those who have skipped hopping over and just want the Reader's Digest version, read on. SF as a small landlord had this to say about the Barb Hall Housing Policy promulgated yesterday:

"If Barbara Hall’s housing-rights policies are ever emulated out here in BC, you can bet that as soon as my current tenants move out, I will be shutting down my rental properties for good. I would imagine there are many in Ontario who are thinking the same thing as I am, which would engage the law of unintended consequences: a housing shortage in Ontario."

This is what I predicted the other day when I read that Her Highness was going to release her policy.

As SF says:

the new housing policy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission continues towards its ultimate goal of the abolition of private property. It is a draconian set of do’s and don’ts that crushes any remaining freedom of landlords, all in the name of fabricated human rights that bear little resemblance to the legislated Code.

He notes one of the stupider things in the policy that could only be written by bureaucrats who have no sense of the real world, and have no sense of even current events let alone history, like the current recession we are in. Read this:

For example, there is nothing in any legislated statute that prohibits discrimination based on income. The OHRC adds that ground, specifying that it is prohibited to refuse accommodation based on a “30% rule”, in which it is assumed that a person can afford the house if the rent equals 30% or less than their income. Considering that banks utilize this rule when approving mortgages, will Babs be mandating the NINJNA loans that ruined the economy in the States?

SF, being in the know specifically, tackles the advertisement discrimination part of the policy:

Another idiotic measure is the PC-sterilization of the phrases used in rental ads. A friend of mine advertised his basement suite, stating it “suited a working person”. This is now contrary to Barb’s Code, with the newly minted made-up right not to be discriminated on the basis of employment. The reason it suits a working person is because my friend lives upstairs with three young children, and the soundproofing is not very good – ergo, it would suit a person who is away during the day.

Duh! Barb and her Boobs just don't get it, and McGuinty obviously doesn't either. Him, we are stuck with for a few years. How can we get rid of her and not get worse?

I was almost bilious when I read the policy provisions about “Accommodating tenant needs” which contained this paragraph:

Sometimes a tenant who is unwell or who disrupts others (either because of a disability or due to that person being the target of discrimination themselves) may need help. You should assess your role to see if there are things you can do as a landlord to help the situation.

As SF responds with a landlords angst and concerns for his own family and livelihood:

Help the situation? Like turfing a “disruptive” tenant as fast as the Tenancy Act allows? No, that would be depriving a “disruptive” tenant of their human right to your property. Now it falls upon a landlord to determine if a disruptive tenant is doing so on the basis of a “protected” ground? Do they also have a duty to determine if rent non-payment is also caused by a “protected” ground, such as the new one recently invented: income?

He also points out this gem in the policy:

Landlords have a legal duty to accommodate tenants when legitimate concerns arise based on Code grounds. If tenants have special needs related to, for example, a disability, landlords may need to make changes to units, a building entrance, sidewalks or parking areas to accommodate the tenant’s situation. These types of changes can also improve accessibility for other people, including families with small children or older persons.

Hall billed this as letting landlords and tenants know what their rights were. Here is the skinny, short and sweet. Tenants can do what they want with your property. Landlords have NO RIGHTS. Start with that and you pretty much have the lay of Barb's land, and how Barb will lord it over you.

As SF says:

This, Hall says, is subject to “recourse” under a “undue hardship” clause. But you and I know who administers that “recourse” – the OHRT – and you and I know how much sympathy they have for landlords – ranking somewhere below a rodent’s posterior. Add to that the likelihood that a landlord would get his challenge funded – zero – and the likelihood that the tenant would be represented by the taxpayer-funded OHRC – quite likely.

He has a little bit more to say, and you can pick it up at the link at the top. I think I get what he really was feeling about this thing. He didn't hold back on this one. He's temporarily happy to be living on the Left Coast, but you know how things can change with the weather. Wait for it.

Human Rights for You Not Me

How to Screw Your Potential Landlord

Press Release today from Barb Hall and her gang at the OHRC on rental housing in Ontario here:

New guidelines will help improve equal access to rental housing for all Ontarians. The Policy on Human Rights and Rental Housing, Canada's first comprehensive look at how barriers to housing can be identified and eliminated, was released today by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC).

The policy follows extensive research and consultation with tenants, housing providers, decision-makers and other partners. Its aim is to provide tools, practical scenarios and information that can be applied to everyday situations, so that human rights problems can be eliminated quickly or prevented from happening in the first place.

"The evidence is very clear," said OHRC Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall. "Discrimination occurs in many forms in rental housing across Ontario. Vulnerable and marginalized people have a much tougher time getting the housing they need because they face a number of barriers. This new policy is just part of a wider effort to break down those barriers to fair rental housing."

Under Ontario's Human Rights Code, tenants and housing providers have rights and obligations. But the Code does not spell out what these protections and duties mean. The policy gives practical advice on how people can exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations.

"There is an undeniable link between affordable and adequate housing and quality of life," Barbara Hall said. "Secure housing is a starting point for access to good employment, strong community resources and supports, and educational opportunities."

Housing is a strategic priority for the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Today's policy release will be followed by a report on the progress of recommendations made last year in the OHRC's consultation report, Right at Home as well as new public education "e-learning" tools and other materials to help build awareness of human rights protections in housing.

As Barb tells the Star here, Housing is a human right. Last week it was access. Next week, who knows.

Says here:

Vince Brescia, president of the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario, talked of his concern that accommodating people who are physically disabled could bankrupt small landlords. Hall said the policy is flexible enough to give them a recourse if they prove an elevator in a single four-storey building, for example, would be too expensive for a landlord.

Wanna bet that it works that way. I don't.

Landlords can do the following while vetting prospective tenants:

They can ask for rental history, credit references and do credit checks

They can ask for income information and use that together with other important income information

They can only use income information to decide if a person has enough money to cover the rent

They cannot use the "30 per cent rule" — whether rent is 30 per cent or less of the person's income — to turn down a tenant

They can ask for a guarantor to sign the lease, but only if all tenants are asked.

I see disaster on the horizon for small landlords. The UN saw a housing crisis on the horizon for Canada. Well, it is now a guarantee for Ontario.

It is discrimination for a landlord to want to rent to the tenant of his/her choice, if the rejected tenant is from one of the target discrimination groups. It's OK if the prospective tenant is white though. That still flys. So, for landlords, I recommend that they use a blind screening agent.

HRC's - To Serve and Protect?

Nope - "Controlling Human Emotions in General and Extinguishing Hatred in Particular"

I have taken a few days to read and digest Dr. Barry Cooper's "Canada’s “Schauprozess” —Show Trials, Free Speech and Canadian Human Rights Commissions", a report he prepared for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is at the U of Calgary, since 1981, and hold degrees including a PhD from Duke University. He has been around the block, and has published 25 books and about 150 articles on various political science related topics.

So, his 22 page expose of HRCs in general and the Canadian HRC in particular here, is worthwhile reading, though no surprise in either context or content to those who value free speech, and follow the blogs. He echoes Ezra Levant's words, quotes bloopers from Dean Steacy about free speech as an American concept, and details some of the actions of He Who Will Not Be Named In my Blog. His distrust for J Ly is also documented inside, including her "reverse chill", and her file of 1,200 things.

But, in that he is published by the Frontier Centre, it will be read by people who have had no idea of this until now, which is good news, and we sure could use a little good news today, or any day for that matter.

One thing I had missed back in 2008 was an article of Mark Steyn's that Dr. Cooper quoted, and references to Barbara Hall and new in the summer of 2008 policies of the Ontario HRC.

Here is some of what Mr. Steyn had to say in his April 23, 2008 article:

Beginning on July 1, under Ontario's "human rights" reforms, Commissar Hall will have far greater powers to initiate prosecutions against all and sundry. Under the new proposals, " 'hate incident' means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members." "Act or omission"? Of course. The act of not acting in an insufficiently non-hateful way can itself be hateful. Whether or not the incident is a non-incident is incidental. I quote from "Concepts Of Race And Racism And Implications For OHRC Policy" as published on the OHRC website:

"The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered 'other.' "

This, of course was part of the splitting of the HRC into 3 disparate parts, so they could appear to be at arm's length from each other.

Dr. Cooper was called by the Alberta HRC to opine on the Boissoin letter, and I will look that up soon to see what he had to say, though he makes a general reference to his testimony in the document.

Rental Housing Shortages to Start in Ontario on October 5

Will Coincide with Release of Barb Hall's policy on human rights and rental housing.

Press release information as follows:

On Monday, October 5, 2009, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall will release a policy on human rights and rental housing. The policy, a first of its kind in Canada, is the result of a two-year research and consultation process that included tenants, housing providers and decision-makers.

On releasing its consultation report in 2008, the Commission committed to create a policy on human rights issues in the area of rental housing. The new policy provides tenants and housing providers with information on rights and obligations under the Code. It will also serve to help government and other responsible institutions and service providers address discrimination, and improve equal access to adequate rental housing for all Ontarians.

Access Is A Right

Barb Hall Says So

The Thunder Bay Chronicle chronicles more of Barb's thunder by the Bay. You gotta stop giving this lady a stage, folks. Of course in this instance she was playing to the crowd as a guest speaker at the Recreation-Able Inclusive Recreation Forum in Thunder Bay.

Herself had this to say, while tooting her own horn:

“Many restaurants in Ontario have been made accessible because people have filed complaints and they have complied voluntarily or have been ordered by tribunals to do that,” said Barbara Hall.

Hall said the Human Rights Code should not be confused with the AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with a Disability Act).

The code deals with individual discrimination while the AODA is about transforming the whole province.

“There may be a whole pile of restaurants in Ontario that no one in a wheelchair has ever gone to,” said Hall.

As a brain injured individual, I am largely unable to go to places where there is a lot of noise. So, about once every year or two I suck it up and go anyway. Then I pay for it for the next few days. I attended one Memorial Cup game to see Sid the Kid in London a few years ago, and will attend a Raptors exhibition game next week, because my dear wife bought us tickets. So, if I were to complain to Barb that I am unable to do things and go to places that I formerly enjoyed because of my disability, like sporting events, maybe she could make them accessible for me.

For example, take a basketball game. That would require that fans show their appreciation or derision quietly, and that refs use hand signals instead of whistles. So, if she could muzzle the fans, and quiet the refs, that would help. Then if she could make the players wear non squeaky shoes, and wave their arms quietly when they want a pass, that would be good too. Cut out the music and the fireworks. Dance Pack has to go at Raptors games. This should be made into HRC policy for all basketball games in all venues, down to grade school, in case there is somebody like me at some grade school in Kenora, or Horne Payne.

Pretty much the same for hockey. The wave has to go, unless it can be done quietly, as it makes me seasick, when accompanied by noise. And slap shots would have to be outlawed because they are too noisy. Ditto for wooden boards. Maybe they could be made of Styrofoam or marshmallows, and the loud plink when a puck hits the pipes of the net is bothersome too. Fix that also. Pucks should probably be made of sponge rubber to deaden the sound. This needs to go all the way down to Tim Horton league hockey. Get 'em started young so that my rights and the rights of the other 4 or 5 folks like me in Ontario are preserved. I do have rights, you know.

As for football, You can probably use most of the above, tuned to football. And other sports should not be immune, including badminton. Ever heard how loud the bird being thwacked by a racket is?

While you are at it, Barb, I used to be a musician, and had extensive training and experience in keyboards and guitar, but am no longer able to play, due to the frequency of the sound and how it hurts my head as it arrives there. So, the age old tuning of A 440 hz might have to change. But, since you know all and see all, you can figure it out. Since I have always enjoyed music and was good at it prior to my disability, I HAVE A RIGHT to enjoy music again, even if nobody else on the planet will be able to after you fix it for me.

On second thought, I am okay with things the way they are. I enjoy my life, even though it is different than it was before. I don't do some things I used to enjoy.

I can't go to many restaurants because they are too noisy for me, as well. So what!!

Does anybody out there think that much of this nonsense is way OUT THERE?

Racial Profiling An American Perspective

American Renaissance Speaks Out

American Renaissance is a US group that focuses on what they call race realism. Here is how they describe themselves:

Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society — language, religion, class, ideology — it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century.

The problems of race cannot be solved without adequate understanding. Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse. Progress requires the study of all aspects of race, whether historical, cultural, or biological. This approach is known as race realism.

They reproduced a Toronto Star article from the 30th of September 2009 titled "Racial Bias Exists on Police Force, Chief Says". The whole thing of harping on police officers for racial profiling is so repulsive and left wing to me that it makes me almost ill, so I had paid the original article little heed. I am reminded of how Constable Michael Shaw got his ashes hauled by the jerks at the Ontario HRT while we all stood back and said very little. Well, I have had a lot to say, and I meant every word of it. I am so sick and tired of the liberal BS that is behind our so called human rights, and the rhetoric and gestapo tactics being used in this province by Barb Hall and her minions that I want to scream.

This was just one other example of it. But, I did not have to say a word. I can just cut and paste the comments from Americans who are just as intelligent as we are and know a real human right when they see one, and want to see Truth prevail.

Here is a good comment:

“Our responsibility as police officers is not just safe communities. We have a role in social justice as well,” said Blair.

Wrong, Chief Blair, entirely wrong. Please stop with the “social justice” claptrap. Just get the bad people (and you know as well as I do who they are) off the streets of my city. Please. That’s all that normal, law-abiding Torontonians want you to do. Oh, and don’t discriminate against white male applicants while you’re at it.

It’s bad enough when your school system or your city hall gets taken over by diversity loonies — but when your Chief of Police starts talking like a guilt-ridden social worker in a fuzzy cardigan and a “Save the Whales” button, I figure it’s really time to worry.

How many good police officers will get screwed over in this politically correct amuck running?

Tweets from History

Chris Bentley is Much Smarter Than This

Here is a tweet from Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley a few months back that just showed up in the Google Alerts this morning:

Human Rights speech. 1948 Hugh Burnett started 7 year struggle to be served in cafe. Led to Code. He was black. Must remain vigilant today.

Hugh Burnett was a black carpenter in Dresden Ontario. He was part of the National Unity Association formed in 1948, an anti-discrimination group to counter the refusal to serve blacks in restaurants and other stores.

The NUA was actively engaged in getting Premier Leslie Frost to to support passage of two pieces of legislation against discrimination the Fair Employment Practices Act, and the Fair Accommodation Practices Act.

However, discrimination in Dresden did not come to an end, so Burnett staged an illegal sit in at two restaurants in town. The NUA won, ending overt discrimination, but Burnett ended up leaving Dresden as people boycotted his business.

That's the history behind the Tweet of our Ontario AG. It was not the key factor in us getting a Human Rights Code in Ontario, though it was a contributing one. The case of Drummond Wren that I reported on some months back was also significant, because it affected another minority group, Jews.

His conclusion "Must be vigilant today" though is liberal as well as Liberal clap trap. That was then. This is now, and Barbara Hall vigilance is not my idea of a good thing.

Minister Bentley is my MPP, and a good man. He serves his electorate well. However, his Liberal ideology, as it relates to human rights in this province, puts blinders on him to the reality of where vigilance is required.