HUMAN RIGHTS GONE MAD: $10,000 PER CHINAMAN RECOMMENDED FOR HURT FEELINGS

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 25 September 2009 16:03

** *Human Rights Gone Mad: $10,000 Per Chinaman Recommended for Hurt Feelings* Across Canada, human rights commissions are out of control and utterly divorced from reality. In a recommendation, which isn't binding and must go to a tribunal, the Quebec Human Rights Commission has recommended $10,000 for each of 15 Chinamen whose feelings might have been hurt during a heated lecture by management about unsanitary conditions caused by the workers. The *Montreal Gazette* (September 23, 2009) reports:"Described as the heaviest fine it has ever recommended in a racism case, the Quebec Human Rights Commission has called on a Montreal manufacturer to pay $164,000 to 15 Chinese workers. The alleged incidents that led to their complaint happened July 11, 2006 when 30 Chinese immigrant workers were summoned to a meeting by their employer, Calego International Inc. of St. Laurent borough. They alleged that company president Stephen Rapps lectured them on being responsible for unsanitary working conditions at their workplace. *They also alleged that Rapps told them the were no longer in China, that they must wash themselves daily, and that 'You Chinese eat like pigs.' They also complained that two workers were assaulted*. This version of the meeting and what was said is challenged by Rapps, his lawyer, Julius Grey, said Wednesday. 'Rapps did call workers to a meeting, Grey noted, but all he said was that 'things were dirty, that people were acting like pigs.'” The *CBC* reports further: "Fo Niemi, executive director of the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations, which helped the workers file the complaint, said the issue dates back to a hot July day when the workers were allegedly involved in a dispute with a manager regarding cleanliness. ... '"It is important for every manager or employer to be very respectful of what they say, and how they treat employees,' Niemi said." Notice that nobody deniues that there were dirty conditions and that these were caused by the conduct of some workers. It's just that the company shouldn't have said anything or addressed its concerns to the workers responsible, even if they might have been of another ethnicity. Just one more benefit of "diverse" immigration from cultures that don't, uh, necessarily have the same standards of cleanliness as we do. It's trite but true that, across Canada, Chinese restaurants, far more than others, are cited for health complaints having do do with cockroaches, mice infestations and generally unclean and unsanitary conditions and practices. However, in the wacko world of some human rights commissions, truth is no defence. Now, more than ever is the time to save the taxpayers a bundle, put the Majority back in charge and abolish the whole "human rights" industry. *Paul Fromm* *Director* *CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESION* Discrimination damages for immigrant workers recommended Last Updated: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 | 5:15 PM ET Comments1Recommend3 *CBC News * Quebec's Human Rights Commission is recommending Montreal-based Calego International pay 15 Chinese immigrant workers $164,000 for alleged racial discrimination in 2006. The commission's recommendation, which is non-binding, could be brought before the province's Human Rights Tribunal. Fo Niemi, executive director of the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations, which helped the workers file the complaint, said the issue dates back to a hot July day when the workers were allegedly involved in a dispute with a manager regarding cleanliness. "Only the Chinese workers were rounded up and then the boss basically shouted racial slurs at them, accusing them of being dirty," Niemi claimed. "It was such an insult, and an affront to their dignity that many of them asked for an apology…. Two of them were practically shoved out by their supervisor." After the company refused to apologize, the workers resigned. The Human Rights Commission is recommending each of the workers receive $10,000, plus an additional $7,000 for those who were allegedly physically assaulted. Niemi said the recommendation sends a clear message to employers, especially those in the manufacturing sector where there are a large number of immigrant workers — workers who may be fearful of coming forward, and may not know their rights. "It is important for every manager or employer to be very respectful of what they say, and how they treat employees," Niemi said. Company denies allegations Lawyer Julius Grey, who is representing Calego International, rejects the decision. Grey said the company denies the discrimination took place — but even if it had, he called the damages unreasonable. "Assume for a moment that somebody lost his temper, and said something silly — the idea that that would cost between $150,000 to $200,000 is tantamount to a form of new totalitarianism, where on certain issues a person has to be so careful that no one will speak," said Grey Should the case be brought before the tribunal, Grey said the company would fight the allegations Rights commission recommends its heaviest fine in Montreal racism case *(**The Gazette, *September 23, 2009) Described as the heaviest fine it has ever recommended in a racism case, the Quebec Human Rights Commission has called on a Montreal manufacturer to pay $164,000 to 15 Chinese workers. The alleged incidents that led to their complaint happened July 11, 2006 when 30 Chinese immigrant workers were summoned to a meeting by their employer, Calego International Inc. of St. Laurent borough. They alleged that company president Stephen Rapps lectured them on being responsible for unsanitary working conditions at their workplace. They also alleged that Rapps told them the were no longer in China, that they must wash themselves daily, and that “You Chinese eat like pigs.” They also complained that two workers were assaulted. This version of the meeting and what was said is challenged by Rapps, his lawyer, Julius Grey, said Wednesday. “There was never any racist comment,” Grey said, adding that the amount levied was “crazy.” Rapps did call workers to a meeting, Grey noted, but all he said was that “things were dirty, that people were acting like pigs.”

 

"IF I WEREN'T A JEW, I'M AFRAID BURNY [BERNIE FARBER] WOULD TURN ME INTO AN ANTI-SEM

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 22 September 2009 12:22

"If I weren't a Jew, I'm afraid Burny [Bernie Farber] would turn me into an anti-Semite," declares Ezra Levant The Canadian Jewish Congress is embarrassing the Jews<http://ezralevant.com/2009/09/the-canadian-jewish-congress-i.html> By Ezra Levant on September 19, 2009 12:30 AM | Permalink<http://ezralevant.com/2009/09/the-canadian-jewish-congress-i.html>| Comments (22) | Trackback Here's a report in the Canadian Jewish News<http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17580&Itemid=86>about the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision to declare the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional. That newspaper -- which depends financially on the Official Jews -- is showing increasing skepticism about the OJs' decision to double down on a losing hand of censorship. The censors have been losing in the court of public opinion for two years; now they're losing in the courts of law. But Bernie " Burny <http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/jews-and-censorship.html>" Farber doesn't give a damn. He'll go down with the ship -- and take the tattered credibility of organized Canadian Jewry with him. Some excerpts (I've put some parts in bold): *A human rights tribunal last week ruled that a section of the the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) that imposes quasi-criminal penalties is unconstitutional...* *...Canadian Jewish Congress – an intervenor in the case, along with B’nai Brith Canada and Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center – called for an appeal.* *...Congress CEO Bernie Farber said “what the decision has done is confuse everybody.”* *...Ezra Levant, author of Shakedown, a critique of human rights commissions, called Hadjis’ decision “enormously significant.”* *The issues were thoroughly debated by phalanxes of lawyers and took years to be resolved. “This is a major treatment of the law” decided by the vice-chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) tribunal. Though “not technically binding [on other tribunals], it is effectively binding,” Levant said.* *Furthermore, the judgement shows how the temperament of the commission has changed since the Taylor decision. It has become “aggressive and bullying, entrapping people,” Levant said.* *The case continued even after Lemire removed the postings in question and agreed to mediation – remedies that were contemplated in the Taylor case.* *“They [the CHRC] refused,” Levant said. “They wanted to grind him down.”* *Levant was even more blistering in his critique of Jewish community organizations, which he dubbed “the official Jews.”* *Congress is making “a strategic error” in calling for an appeal, he said. “You have domino after domino falling” with pressure building in media editorials, legal opinions and even in the commission itself to end Section 13 cases.* *“Human rights commissions have been denormalized. They’re laughingstocks,” he said. * *Nevertheless, Jewish organizations continue to push for appeals, in effect calling for the censorship of expression. Jews are coming across “as whiners who want to shut you down, not debate you. Is this the image we want to project to 33 million Canadians, that we’re thin-skinned whiners?” Levant asked.* Burny says everyone's confused. But I'm not confused: the law has been declared unconstitional, by the vice-chair of the tribunal, Athanasios Hadjis. What's confusing about that? We have at least one other sitting tribunal member (Edward Lustig) who wrote earlier this year that he would abide by Hadjis's ruling. And last week, in Calgary, Alberta's censorship law was appealed from a kangaroo court to a real court on constitutional ground. Is there anyone out there who truly thinks the barbaric abuse of the law in that case<http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/what-could-mark-steyns-punishm.html>won't be overturned -- and that it won't mention Hadjis's ruling as persuasive, if not formally binding? Everyone's running away from censorship -- including Hadjis himself, who just two years ago was a brutal enforcer of it. But not the fools at the CJC. Not Burny. He's called censorship his "business" before, and he has too much invested in that lucrative business to let it slip away because of some trifle like the Charter of Rights. If you wanted to create a perfect caricature of a villainous Jew for anti-Semites to point to, you couldn't do better than Burny and the CJC. They despise our freedom of speech. They demand censorship of their political opponents. They disparage any jurist who disagrees with them. And they do all this in the name of "the Jews". *Controlling. Bullying. Censoring. Refusing to submit to the rule of law. Demanding Canada import foreign ideas of censorship. Excusing -- or even celebrating -- the corruption and abuses in the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If I weren't a Jew, I'm afraid Burny would turn me into an anti-Semite. Nobody likes a bully telling you he wants to take away your freedom. And that bully says he speaks for all Jews. If Burny didn't exist, Stormfront would have to make him up.* *In January, the Council for Israel and Jewish Advocay, the CJC's chief funder, called Burny in for a special meeting, and ordered him to stop conducting his personal censorship vendetta in the name of the CJC. And, for a brief moment, he actually complied.* But it's been eight months, and the salutary effects of that disciplinary meeting have worn off. Burny's at it again -- using money from Jewish donors for his own cause, rather than in the interests of the community. It's time that CIJA reins him in again, before he humiliates the community further. Censorship and human rights commissions are despised in Canada. Burny's job is to make Jews less hated, not more hated. He's making Jews more hated. If Burny lacks the wits to slowly back away from Canada's imploding HRC, he should be fired and replaced by someone who cares more about the community than his own sense of vengeance.

 

"PARLIAMENT NEEDS TO REPEAL SEC. 13," MACLEAN'S EDITORIAL URGES

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 22 September 2009 12:22

*"Parliament Needs to Repeal Sec. 13," Maclean's Editorial Urges* *Harper must act now to protect free speech The Prime Minister admits there’s a problem. And he says he doesn’t have a clue how to fix it. MACLEANS MAGAZINE* | The Editors on Sunday, September 20, 2009 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/20/harper-must-act-now-to-protect-free-speech/ Stephen Harper used to have very clear—and colourful—ideas on human rights commissions and what should be done about them. “Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” he said in a 1999 interview with Terry O’Neill of *BC Report newsmagazine*.“ It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” He went on to complain about the “bastardization” of the entire concept of rights in modern society. Of course, that was back when Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. Today he’s Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. And he appears to have lost his fear of totalitarianism. In an interview this past January with *Maclean’s*, the Prime Minister was asked what, if anything, he intended to do to halt the encroachment on individual freedom by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the name of regulating hate speech. It is an issue of crucial importance to this country and our strongly held traditions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This magazine understands only too well the dangers involved in putting those rights at risk. Following a 2006 cover story by columnist Mark Steyn titled “Why the future belongs to Islam,” we were visited by a group of law students from the Canadian Islamic Congress. We were given the option of handing over editorial control of our pages for a rebuttal to Steyn’s piece or face a series of human rights complaints. As the first option was anathema to our obligations to our readers, the students launched their complaints. That we were vindicated in all instances, notwithstanding the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s attempt at an unofficial smear, is beside the point. Under the guise of human rights, the ability of any news organization to produce truthful and reasoned articles was questioned by a variety of government bodies. Scary stuff indeed. So we asked Harper if he intended to correct this threat to the basic existence of a democratic society. “The government has no plans to do so,” was his casual reply. “It is a very tricky issue of public policy . . . It’s probably the case that we haven’t got the balance right, but I’m not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be.” To summarize: the issue of human rights commissions running amok over Canadians’ basic rights and freedoms is something Harper has followed—closely and with obvious passion—for at least a decade. As Prime Minister he admits it is still a problem. And he says he doesn’t have a clue how to fix it. *We do. He should repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. * A wave of informed opinion and public sentiment is in agreement that the CHRC and other provincial rights bodies have become a menace to many of the freedoms Canadians consider central to our way of life. Besides, even if we are concerned with the possible proliferation of hate speech, Section 13 is wholly unnecessary. In 1970 the Criminal Code was amended to outlaw the promotion of genocide and the distribution of hate propaganda. Penalties of fines and jail terms were established, but the rights of the accused were also protected through due process, a need to prove intent and, crucially, the defence of truth. Parliament later created the Canadian Human Rights Commission to cover a variety of potential discriminatory practices in Canada. Section 13 of the act deals with the transmission of materials “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred.” As this body was intended to be conciliatory and to rely on cease and desist orders for enforcement, its legal standards are set lower than in the Criminal Code; due process is missing, intent is not necessary to prove, and truth is not considered a defence for the accused. The constitutionality of Section 13 was tested in 1990 in the Supreme Court’s Canada v. Taylor decision. A narrow split decision found that due to the CHRC’s remedial nature, it was not a threat to free speech. A dissenting opinion, however, written by current Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, worried that Section 13 was “too broad and too invasive” and so “intrudes on the fundamental freedom of expression.” Since then, the scope of the CHRC has grown in many worrisome and unexpected ways. In particular, it can now levy fines and impose other punishments. And the CHRC staff has become fixated on aggressively pursuing Section 13 cases. Approximately 11 per cent of all complaints made to the CHRC are sent to a tribunal for a hearing. The rest are dismissed or settled “out-of-court.” Among Section 13 complaints, however, 68 per cent are sent to tribunal. This means the CHRC is now engaged in punishing offenders in ways the Supreme Court never imagined. And thanks to the lower legal standard of proof and lack of due process, the accused is often unable to mount an effective defence. McLachlin’s fears have become reality. Following widespread public outrage regarding the obvious zealotry at the CHRC, and the complaints made against this magazine, last year the CHRC commissioned academic Richard Moon for an opinion on Section 13. He concluded it should be repealed. The Criminal Code already does everything necessary to keep Canadians safe from hate speech, he said, and in a way that properly protects the rights of the accused. All Section 13 does is trample on the rights of Canadians to hold views that the CHRC disapproves of. Rather than accept Moon’s sensible recommendation, the CHRC instead released its own in-house report this June. Its review of itself called for Section 13 to be maintained. Then, this year, Section 13 came under further scrutiny from within the human rights apparatus. A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision in March cast a scolding eye on CHRC investigatory practices and, in particular, serial complainant Richard Warman, who acknowledged placing inflammatory messages on Internet sites under a variety of aliases. The tribunal found these actions to be “disturbing.” And earlier this month, another nail in Section 13’s coffin. All complaints in a long-standing case against webmaster Marc Lemire were dropped for constitutional reasons. After Warman spotted some allegedly offensive articles on one of Lemire’s websites, Lemire removed them and repeatedly offered to seek conciliation. This was refused. It became clear to Athanasios Hadjis, the tribunal vice-chair who issued the ruling, that it was the CHRC’s intent to punish Lemire, not mediate. In doing so, the CHRC had mutated far beyond what was contemplated in the Supreme Court’s Taylor ruling. Section 13 now violates Lemire’s basic Charter rights of freedom of expression. Since it’s beyond Hadjis’s powers to declare the law unconstitutional, he said he would simply choose to ignore it. A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has thus decided Section 13 is so badly flawed and abused that it will pretend the law doesn’t exist. The CHRC has remained mute on this crippling blow. To complete the demolition of Section 13, Harper must now amend the legislation. Besides reflecting common sense and current facts, it will prove to be a popular move. A proposal to repeal Section 13 received near-unanimous approval at a 2008 Conservative party conference, and enjoys support from several key cabinet ministers. It is also an issue that crosses political divides. Even the perennially left-wing editorial board of the Toronto Star has endorsed an end to Section 13, saying it “isn’t salvageable.” *While certain lobby groups courted by Harper and the Conservative party, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, are outspoken in support of Section 13, this certainly does not imply monolithic support among all minority groups. For example, many prominent Jewish advocates of human rights legislation, including Alan Borovoy, who was involved in establishing the CHRC, have spoken out about the errors of Section 13. * *And Harper himself appears to accept Moon’s point that the Criminal Code makes Section 13 redundant. In receiving the Saul Hayes Human Rights Award from the Canadian Jewish Congress last year, Harper called the Criminal Code an “effective legal weapon against naked hate-mongering, without compromising the elemental right to freedom of expression.” If the Criminal Code is so effective, why do we need Section 13? * Of course the blame for Section 13’s continued existence does not rest solely with Harper, particularly in a minority government. Michael Ignatieff has also been a profound disappointment. As a prolific writer and celebrated thinker previous to his political career, one would expect the Liberal leader to be a passionate defender of the right of Canadians to express reasoned and informed views, regardless of whom they might offend. And yet, he has shrugged off responsibility and left the issue to his backbench. Last year Liberal MP Keith Martin introduced a private member’s motion calling for the repeal of Section 13, but it languishes at the bottom of the Liberal priority list. (The top Liberal priority appears to be a motion supporting a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare.) Why has Ignatieff not adopted Martin’s position as official party policy? Or moved his motion up in significance? Academic and popular opinion is solidly behind removal of Section 13. It is an unnecessary measure for protecting Canadians from hate speech, and represents a clear threat to freedom of speech. It’s also clear the CHRC has expanded its powers far beyond the limits considered to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1990. And now even the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has declared the law unconstitutional. The only real problem left appears to be a lack of political leadership to make the change. Parliament needs to repeal Section 13.