The Kangaroos Get Cocky

I wouldn't trust Babs to interpret a McDonald's menu.

And will the courts be silly enough to allow the roos to draw a fence around human rights as their territory.

I suspect the court's own institutional instinct will kick in and tell them where to go.

That must be that there "social justice" system, I was wondering where it was going to be implemented.

Mr. Justice Weisman told that Muslim woman to unveil. That racist and intolerant Jew!

Bab's should get slapped down and 'Charged' with obstruct justice.

Who the hell does she think she is?

Here in the West we have the right to confront and examine our accusers. That means there can be no ambiguity with respect to their identity!

"Human rights"! What a vile epithet that has become!

Hey Phil, you ignorant smut. Why don't you go back where you came from and let our judges run the country as it should be without your smear bullshit.

Take the damn veil off. We aren't in arabia now.

This is bordering on bizarre.
The human (sic) rights (sic) commission is mining for something to do. Their mandate is to deal with complaints.
The commission is looking for work to justify their existence in light of tight money; they fear their end is near.
Whatever happened in this case, the accused must see the accused. How else can anybody establish that this is the injured party? Hiding behind a veil, however religious it is, is no way to establish identity. For all practical purposes it could be anybody at all that is covered.

How do we get it in front of a judge so that HRC's are ruled null and void?

The norm in western law is that you have right to FACE your accuser.

If you can't see their face, you can't FACE your accuser.

So does this gal have photo ID say for her drivers license and or passport? Wearing niqab would utterly defeat the purpose of any photo ID.
How does anyone know who you really are, short of taking a DNA sample?

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Norman Ouston in Mexico: I think Phil was being sarcastic. You're right about the veils, though. A woman wants to wear a bag over her head, fine, just not in public.

This is really bad. It's made the front page of the National Post - so that's good.

But really - where are the feminist groups? Do they really believe that the niqab is a female-designed garment with the specific purpose to better their gender??

Covering is traditional, and not a component of the muslim faith, as I understand.

This goes to show that a "Human Rights Commission" is a big waste of public money. Yet again this is a prime example of the social engineering put into place by the Nazi enamoured Vichy Pierre Elliot Trudeau. That judges, whose very essence is application of laws, would need a group of failed political hacks and would be social commissars to "interpret" the meaning of law is insane. There is the premise that all Laws of the Land are to be applied equally to everyone. In short, in Canada, everyone is "special" but NO-ONE is more "special" than ANY-ONE else. This should be the prime example needed to bury all of the so-called commissions and pull these cabbage-heads out of the public trough and set them free to forage on their own in the private sector. One could imagine that the next cloying cry will be to place these commission marsupials on the endangered socialist list. One good spot for these pariahs would be inside the fenced arena of the settling ponds in the oil-sands areas to keep the ducks from landing, if they could but save one duck it would be of more use to society than anything these self indulgent commissions have done to date. THERE put that in your pouch.

With big deficits coming there is no better time then now to pressure governments to cut the useless HRCs. Tell your politicians and media that you want your tax dollar going to education and health care and not to training programs for liberal fascists.

Maybe we do need a Depression for a few years.

Perfect cover to nuke all those civil service fartcatcher organizations like the HRC's. Get rid of hundreds of Commissions & ridiculous organizations, stop funding all the multi-culti-huggy stuff, cut off funding for all the NGO social justice groups etc.

When the "entitled to my entitlement" class of lampreys rises in up in howling chorus of "Its not fair" just say it was either a hospital or your useless organization.

A nice little Depression . . just the ticket to get us back on track.

Maybe now we'll finally see some action. It has become a Canadian tradition for the government to pass laws and then leave it up to the courts to decide what they mean and how they will be applied. Once the courts realize how much judicial power has been handed over to the HRC's that should belong to the real judicial system, maybe they'll just declare the whole thing unconstitutional. Politicians dither, courts decide.
ps, Phil: I think some members of this crowd are too literal to appreciate sarcasm.

You find references to coverings, head coverings etc in the Old Testament I believe....it gets culturally interpreted in variety of ways. I seem to remember when I was a young child in the 60's that women usd to wear hats in church, it was fashion but had roots in some scripture that indicated that women's heads should be covered....but my memory may be hazy.

Ahh found it...the interwebby thingy is a wonderful thing. It is NEW Testament

"11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. 5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. 6 For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head. 7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God."

Ok now imagine if the HRC would defend a Christian Church that prevented a woman from entering the church without a hat or a scarf....and what if she took the position that every moment of every day was worship and therefore her covering had to be in place...even when she was having her security picture taken.

I think it is time to stop tolerating cultural interpretations of a religous text that have no context in this society. Head coverings are cultural....and the culture that we are all in is a Western Secular one. You don't like it, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

It appears as though Babs Hall is now feeling she's above Judges. Are they and are we going to put up with this nonsense much longer? If we are, we may as well be hog tied, they have the power to cost us all kinds of loot and dummy down our basic rights.

Only fanatics and zealots are running to these Kangaroo courts, it's a place to placate the Leftist ideology.

"I think it is time to stop tolerating cultural interpretations of a religous text that have no context in this society." Posted by: Stephen at March 2, 2009 11:35 AM

When they are in court they claim head covering is "Religious". When in public if asked if it is an Islamic religious requirement, they say oh nooooo! it's cultural.

This will be fun. I just know that judges do as they are told. Minimum for gun crime? Naw, don't use it, nowhere to stack the bodies 'till we turn 'em loose.

Here in Ontario when renewing your drivers license they are not allowed to ask you to remove your head scarf or burka, but may ask you to remove your hat.

Next renewal....I'm wearing a burka.

Stephen - nicely put.

I resent the OHRC's presumption that the judicial system is insufficiently competent to make a decision on the matter. Obviously the Crown felt no need to consult the OHRC, and is proceeding to arguement without their "expertise."

You have to remember muslim females are like loyal dogs. If you kick a dog across the floor, everyday, it will come back to you. It is ingrained, via islam, for muslim females to be loyal dogs. They stand in line to be abused. The rag covering the head is to state they are stupid and enjoy being enslaved. It is the dangerous death cult of islam that make its females so stupid.

Muslims also believe you can marry a girl of six but cannot have sex with her until she is nine - sodomy is okay though at six years of age. So are the courts suppose to now recognize the religious freedoms of Muslims males to commit these acts against Muslim children? Hogwash! Our laws - follow them or go back to the countries that follow Sharia Laws.

Intervening in the process of the legitimate law courts is ultra vires of the commission's jurisdiction and outside their statute mandate.

I hope Kommissar Babs pushes this and the bench levels her arrogant incivility and jurisdictional trespassing.

With big deficits coming there is no better time then now to pressure governments to cut the useless HRCs. Tell your politicians and media that you want your tax dollar going to education and health care and not to training programs for liberal fascists.
Posted by: Fritz at March 2, 2009 11:22 AM

I posted a similar sentiment elsewhere on SDA. If government pork can't be cut in bad times like these, then I don't know when the hell it can be. Can government, just once, show that it has the fortitude to tighten its belt like the rest of us plebeians?

Two things:

1)I agree with many above, this is clearly a tactical error by the HRC. One thing I have learned about professionals is that they don’t like anyone pissing on their pole. Whether it's engineers arguing with architects or doctors with pharmacists, when it comes to jurisdiction, the claws come out. I can't see any judge giving up any authority for the sake of precedence.

2) Honey Pot

I sometimes forget why I care at all for the plight of muslim women. After all, they themselves don't seem to care or fight back, obviously there are no "liberal" muslim men that care in the middle east, nor “moderate" muslims in the west for that matter. Liberals don't care, feminists don't care, I could go on, but I digress.

So why should I care? Oh, that’s right, principles.

Well if she was sexually assaulted then she can't be chaste. Ask Babs if it would be OK to stone her or they could go easy on her and just give her 100 lashes.

To apparatchiks like Barbara Hall, due process and court proceedings are so yesterday. Progressive societies can get by with appointed tribunals. No need to bother with trials when the tribunal head (BH) can tell that the defendent is guilty beforehand. (MacLeans/Steyn case).
To think that this appalling woman wants even more power, over newspapers and the internet.
Can someone please tell me whether this woman even has a law degree.

The judge could say, sure you are free to wear the niquab, I'm free to dismiss the case.
This might be a urban myth, but I've read several accounts about women being paid a monthly stipend to cover. Part of the Islamic colonization process.
In dismissing the case, the judge could also say that in Islam, these courts have no jurisdiction, being man-made, instead of Allah-made law.

She could be reminded that in many Islamic countries she would be free to wear the niquab but also liable to be be stoned or at least flogged for getting herself raped. And BTW, where are those 4 male witnesses to the rape? OK no males, where are the 8 female witnesses, then?

I keep thinking all this nonsense will disappear with the financial meltdown. Perhaps it will yet. Perhaps we're in the final stages of a "stupidity bubble". Neretheless, I certainly don't have the guts to sell stupidity short! OTOH, perhaps the roos are running scared and doubling-down on the nuttiness out of survival. Beware the bureaucracy with nothing to do!

Mystery: What exactly would the political risk be of shutting these monstrosities down?

This is good news!

As any man who has been taken to the cleaners in divorce court can tell you, embracing sharia law is an excellent improvement over the current racist, heteronormative system imposed on us by our ancestors. And since the feminists are not complaining, it has the sparkly bright mark of political correctness!

I cannot wait to be able to celebrate all of the cultural traditions of my culture! Having Scottish ancestry, I look forward to painting myself blue with woad and going border raiding for cattle. My Viking ancestors used boats, and the Scots merely went by foot. Hopefully, the HRC peoples will give me some money, too.

I love this racist shithole that is Canada! Direct deposit my welfare cheque right into my bank account!

Why would you even care what the government says?
Canada's is nothing more then a elected dictatorship the last time I checked; we didnt get to vote for any Judge, or HRC. With the publication bans were no longer informed of any wrong doings within any government organizations, like the the police or RCMP.
Voting is a waste of time, wait for the man with the gun "adolf Hittler"

MND: "I keep thinking all this nonsense will disappear with the financial meltdown."

I think you're wrong. Phoney-baloney jobs, like cockroaches, can survive anything.

It not even possible for a female muslim to be raped according to islamic law. She must be just another muslim whore, and asking for it. Why in hell are we wasting time and money on these non-people according to their own creed. Let them use their shari law and just stone her to death.

Fenris, does this mean I can carry my Claymore, my dirk, and have a skein dhu in my sock when I show up for jury duty?

Hey, the Sikhs get a kirpan, I should at least get a Claymore. Goes with the kilt and the friggin' berserk look in my eye.

I don't know the details of the case, but I have a few questions:

Did this assult happen in her house? If not, where were her male relatives to escort her in public? Or are those the ones being accused? I just don't understand if they are following the religion strictly how this could happen unless they are related?

"The commission says it can assist the court in interpreting the Ontario Human Rights code and help explain issues of human rights."

Oooohhh, this should be rich. The judges who interpret the law and apply it are going to be told how to do their jobs. I hope the Judge has his copy of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms " in front of him.

I read this in the Calgary Herald this morning, (no, I didn't pay for it...)
and noted to myself, the quotation marks at "expertise" , chuckling to myself I sipped my super hot colombian coffee thinking... "has someone else actually got it"?
maybe, just maybe. 1 step at a time, others are noticing.

awhile back, Kate asked for a real drag 'em out type depression of sorts to hit our society, to hopefully knock some sense of what is really important, back into us. Is it too late to jump on board that bus Kate?

The Herald is a good 2 inches narrower this week, and with ads for work down to about one third of a page counted below the fold only. Is the end so near? Is this the year to dig up the lawn and plant potatoes?

In the years to come, if I know of a HRC officer that was starving across the street from me, would I feed him or her?
I mean, would I feed them food? or a lesson on how to collect night soil and becoming a productive gardner?

Feed 'em your boot, Mark. Steel toe foremost. That's what they are trying to do to you right now.

Posted by: Honey Pot>

“Let them use their shari law and just stone her to death.”

I’ll agree! Most Muslim women don’t want to change, or they would. It’s not our place to tell them how to live their lives or with whom.

We do have a right to protest their presence in our society, and for not conforming to our laws and ethics within it. They can keep their archaic beliefs, on their side of the fence – in this case ocean, desert and economic walls!!!!

It’s our wives, daughters and assorted women in our society that need to be afraid of what Islam will bring them.

I like that answer, feed 'em yer boot.

How would the testimony go?

"I'm not a real judge but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night..."

Whenever I see a woman in public in Canada fully covered except for her eyes, I want to yell, "take your clothes off! I want to see you!"

How do I know WHO'S under the black tent? It could be anybody. It could be a man, for all I know. Who WOULD know?

When in Rome do as the Romans do, should apply to everyone who moves to Canada from another country: Learn English, don't expect "heritage" language classes in our schools (especially when you can't even speak English), observe your particular culture's idiosyncrasies in your own home or community centre (funded by your community, not the Canadian taxpayers), and don't walk around our streets incognito.

I can't walk around with a mask on my face, nor would I want to, so why should women who have moved to Canada be given "the right" to? They don't have any such right. They should stay in their country of origin if they insist on dressing as they did in "the old country." They're in a new country now. Where photo ID is required, then all of us should be treated equally: full face showing.

In a court of law the accused has the right to see his/her accuser face to face. Although I strongly believe in our freedom of religion laws (would that they applied to Christians as stringently as they do to Muslims), in this case, this woman's "right" to wear a niqab is superseded by the accused's right to see his accuser. (As others have mentioned, the niqab is apparently not religious garb but the personal choice of the woman wearing it.)

The OHRC should totally butt out. Their activism is in direct proportion to their desire to continue swilling at the public trough. They know most Ontarians don't take people to their Commissions and they're trying to drumb up business -- all on our dime. NO WAY.

Dear Superior Court Appeals Judge
Please allow one HRC representative an opportunity to splain their lousy little place in our lives.
Then charge every single one of the little fascists bastards with obstruction of Justice and have them all locked up, as soon as they start to "interpret the code".
Hit them with your little wooden mallet just for laughs and to be sure they understand your "intent".
No parole no bond, orange jumpers and Ked Quickstarts for Barb Hall and her Kangaroo mob.

This is yet another try at a coup by progressives. Only this time they going after the courts. If Judges have any sense of self preservation or dignity they will throw them out so fast they loose there shorts. This is a take over attempt that will subjugate first Muslim Women than our own. Its stops now or it will just continue till the Ladies are nothing but chattel. Barbara Hall is Canadian Women’s worst threat for liberty.
Not Men but HER with that insidious inquisition. They know they have lost the political race now they want to pervert our justice system , Such as it has been left by Liberals.
JMO

secret till you use them.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/wanted+kirpan+kept+secret+trial+told/1270338/story.html

there must be something in the water. this agenda of subverting western society and its traditions in the name of "human rights" borders on insanity.

if an individual chooses to wear a veil in public that is their business - court is another matter altogether.

the bureacrats at the ohrc need a major cut in their budget. yesterday.

Whenever I see a muslim woman in a headscarf, let alone veil, I ask myself:

Is she doing this voluntarily? If so, she is intent on making a political point. If not, then she is making a political point, although unwittingly.

Either way, I say Liar! Wrong!

A few years back, Tony Blaire, UK PM, had, and still does have, a wife called Cheryl, or somesuch.

She is a lawyer and argued for a Bnagladeshi woman to appear in a full body-covering sack before a court of law.

Her argument was: This was her traditional costume!!! BS!!!!

Before the islamic Moghul invasion of Northern India, Bangladeshi women were not muslim and wore the typical saris, etc of all Hindu women at the time.

I puke in disgust of this dissimulation!!!