I wondered when someone was going to turn the weapon around.

Not something I really agree with, but I guess it needed to be done.

Not that I want it sued at all, but I'd like to see (in some sick schadenfreude way) it turned against CTV for the Knuckle dragger comment...

Nothing like a journo whose own ox is being gored to generate a little outrage.

Perhaps you can also file a duplicate complaint with the Ontario OHRC , on the grounds that the book is sold or advertised in Ontario.

It would be interesting to follow the OHRC logic given that there are claims Islamic fundamentalists are employed by the OHRC.

" ..Not something I really agree with, but I guess it needed to be done. .."

Wrong ... It is the principle of the issue , and filing such a complaint will expose the various HRC's for what they are.

"Its a poor road that doesn't go both ways."

I renew my call for a return to trial by combat for human "rights" complaints. I wanna see this Imam jerk stick up for his sh1t on the field of battle.

In the mean time, it will be nice to watch the CHRC contort itself out of this one. Coral snake on crack, anyone?

As to the name thing, this guy probably never speaks to a non-Arab for weeks at a time, he lives in downtown Montreal right? Why bother? Besides, he can probably sue you if you get his name wrong. Nice income source there.

As our old friend Thomas Sowell stated:

"What 'multiculturalism' boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture - and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture."

Hammaad Abu Sulaiman Al-Dameus Hayiti, I'll just call you Al for short -- call me a "koufar" will ya...you hurt my feelings! Good Luck Marc

"Wrong ... It is the principle of the issue , and filing such a complaint will expose the various HRC's for what they are."
Brian @ 9:43
Right on Brain. If the only outcome is more exposure on the waste that the HRC's are, this will be a good exercise. If more is accomplished then we can get on with being Canadians and not looking over our shoulder to see who is ready to pounce on us for what we say.

I'm still hoping former victim's of Warman and the HRC's will come forward.

(hope it is safe to say "victim's of Warman")

Oh , just in case anyone wishes to sue me over the comments about the OHRC and Islamic extremism, here is the original statement by Tarek Fatah as quoted by the National Post.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=433915

".... "There are within the staff [of the Ontario Human Rights Commission], and among the commissioners, hardline Islamic supporters of Islamic extremism, and this [handling of the Maclean's case] reflects their presence over there," Mr. Fatah said, identifying two people by name. ..."

Brian's comment is valid, however I think the OHRC has their loophole, they do not govern publishing, only service.

But it would be interesting if Ms Hall choose to publish her "I have no jurisdiction and havent heard both sides but if I did" verdict. It would have the same effect of showing the sham that it is no matter which way the verdict came down, either they remain clowns or they show themselves as hypocrites. either works for me.

BTW I see Warren is saying he is reasonable and only wants reform. I know he has stated it before but it isnt it late now that he has polarized the debate, as he usually does. Or is this triangulation at its best/worst (you know what the Clintons do).

Polarize, to marginalize, then move to compromise to get what you really wanted and keep the other side from being part of crafting the solution. Clever amoral squirrel that Warren is.....

I cheered when I read the post above. Yes I think it will be interesting to see what the gander does when there is some sauce put on them. You'd think this is a suit even the speech deniers could get behind.

This seems appropriate...especially at 9:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcr-V_G6B4o

"" ..Not something I really agree with, but I guess it needed to be done. .."

Wrong ... It is the principle of the issue , and filing such a complaint will expose the various HRC's for what they are."

As may be, but I still worry about justifying these abominations.

My guess is that the CHRC will slither out on the grounds that the speech of the Alphabet Imam, contains no references to the 'official categories of discrimination'.

You see, in Canada, according to the Human Rights Act, not every discriminatory act is..discriminatory. It's only defined as such if the 'victim' fits into a category defined by the HRAct..as 'victim'. This is Section 3.1.

"3.1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."

If you are a member of any other 'group', you're out of luck. Attacks against you and your group aren't defined as 'discrimination' and the HRC only deals in 'discriminatory acts'..against its defined victims.

The only category that might be admissable here are the imam's attacks against other religions or Quebec women. Certainly, his attacks against democracy etc are a matter of free speech.

Now, if the CHRC refuses to hear the case, as I suspect they will, then we have the grounds to insist that we non-Muslims have the right to criticize and even 'make hateful comments' about Muslims. Tit for tat, so to speak. I think the CHRC ought to think veeeery carefully about their role in this.

Looks like my last comment was 'filtered/rejected' because I used the 'W' word...no prob Kate...I totally respect that.

"Wrong ... It is the principle of the issue , and filing such a complaint will expose the various HRC's for what they are"
brian @ 9:43
Right on.

Exactly.

Unless the guy is actually doing harm, in which case presumably he would come under actual law, WHO CARES WHAT HE SAYS??
If there were actual journalists, the guy would get what's coming ,through a normal exposure to the public of his hateful rantings.
Free speech. He says what he says, and we say what we say. The media won't be intstruments of democratic debate , partly because of the threat by 'agents for repression of normal discourse and debate' - the CHRC. (Partly because there are only a handful of them with the intellect and nerve to confront reality.)

This is a mistake. The attempted use of the HRC's by the right tends to legitimize them.

"whatever happened to that perfectly sensible convention of changing one's surname to something pronouncable when arriving on our shores?)"

Yes, but this type isn't an immigrant. At least not in his mind. He's here for conquest and to colonize on behalf of allah. Many don't bother learning the english language sufficiently. Anything other than Arabic is inferior and haram.

"This is a mistake. The attempted use of the HRC's by the right tends to legitimize them."

I understand where you're coming from Tex, and sympathize with that position. But the problem is this - the CHRC's are "legitimate", in that they have the backing of the force of law. Nothing we can do can "legitimize" the process - that's a done deal.

So, this represents a useful development. It may be time to go seeking for more of these cases and keep pushing.

The only other solution I can see to delegitimize them is for every Canadian summoned to refuse to show up for their day in monkey court. Complete and total civil disobedience.

That would be impossible to organize, I'm afraid.

"(Speaking of which - whatever happened to that perfectly sensible convention of changing one's surname to something pronouncable when arriving on our shores?)"

Exactly. Who would carry around a name like Hammaad Abu Sulaiman Al-Dameus Hayiti when they could have a sensible one like mine?

It's about time something like this happened.

This is what average, thinking-for-themselves, realistic people have been calling for for a long time.

Finally someone decides to take action to force the state apparatus to prove it truly believes in and enforces equality and human rights as it pompously claims... or not.

Today, we take the Islamic fascists to the HRCs.

Tomorrow, the GLBTs. The day after, the FemiNazis. These groups have spewed tons of utterances of shocking hatred against other groups like, for example, Christians...

Eventually, the whole Left will get its just desserts, too. How bloody dare they brainlessly, maliciously, hatefully defame us as "racists", "bigots", etc., every time we dare express a differing opinion on anything?

Either we scrap those stupid "hate" laws and let everyone say what they want as long as it's truth or opinion based on truth, or no one will be able to speak freely anymore.

Scary, but it's a war we didn't really choose, but one we must fight and win to preserve our right to freedom of expression, the right to presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Not to mention all rights we already have via our constitution. After all, such rights are already threatened by speech such as that of the long-named Islamic fascist who's the subject of the complaint in question. (But don't expect the Left to agree that Islamic hate speech threatens our rights, as it's an inconvenient truth they'd rather ignore whilst plugging their ears and singing "lalalalala").

Too bad the lunatic left doesn't understand what I've just said and will, out of stupidity and insanity, probably call me a "Nazi" or something like that. Of course, I'll be watching for that, as the more of them who do that, the richer I'll be. Hmm... wonder if I'll be able to afford the new, 700-horsepower, leather-swathed-interior, Corvette ZR-1 after all?

Ya but ......

William Arthur Philip Louis Mountbatten-Windsor

AKA

Billy Windsor!

No problemo

canadian sentinel - just a minor point, but opinion isn't 'opinion based on truth'. It can be and usually is, just opinion. It's very hard to presuppose a basic truth for everything. That's what radicals presuppose and of course, they consider that they have found that 'basic truth'.

Either we scrap those stupid "hate" laws and let everyone say what they want as long as it's truth or opinion based on truth, or no one will be able to speak freely anymore.

And what if it's not truth or opinion based on truth; how do you propose we handle that type of speech?

Heh, that's brilliant.

Nothing would show the "usefulness" of HRC's more than a flood of complaints.

Being an Atheist, I'm sure there's plenty that I could complain about...

We mock the stuffing right out of you, and your idiotic-nazi-ideas!
We destroy your leftarded thoughts with critical thinking and logic.

And every once and a while someone comes up with
"Now go get your shinebox"
And we laaaaaaugh!!

When does the legislative campaign start? I've been waiting for Canadian bloggers to start really taking this fight to their MPs and demanding straight answers and proposed legislation to take these HRCs out at the knees, but I haven't seen it yet. Have I missed it?

Bloggers can't do that alone - only their constituents can. This week quite a number of MP's received notes that the political contributions they usually receive went to support one of our legal defense funds instead.

Money talks, as they say.

Long drawn out names and titles are nothing but superficial vanity. McCelland that is what the real courts are for.

Robbie the Retard pompously spouted: "And what if it's not truth or opinion based on truth; how do you propose we handle that type of speech?"

We treat it the same way we treat the sorry crapola you scribble, Robbie. We ignore it.

The social and personal cost of having hate speech laws is demonstrably greater than having hate speech. Or is that cost/benefit thing too big to fit into your tiny little mind?

BTW don't even think of talking to me about the Nazis. We've just been treated to the history, the Wiemar Republic did everything possible to suppress them and they took over the country. Probably the censorship helped them.

Maybe if their ideas had been discussed in the cold, searing light of day under a big fat magnifying glass they'd have shriveled up from the heat.

Like yours do, Robbie. You abject, hopeless retard.

This is a useful case for the reason that it adds to the people who are against the commissions.

The islamofascists love the commission right now because they can uese it against those who think islamic terrorists are bad. Once it's turned against them, they won't be so quick to support them.

As we know, once powerful special interest groups turn against something, their sock puppets in the NDP/Liberal circles will crawl on their knees prostrating themselve in front of the offended promising to deal with it.

We should also complain to the HRC's about Kinsella for anti-Christian "hate" speach if we can dig enough of it up from his Day-bashing era.

If Kinsella loves thought police, lets give him some.

In fact, lets add "f**k the Jews" McClelland to the list of targets for complaints.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest crass anti-semitism is on the radar of some of the HRCs...

William Arthur Philip Louis Mountbatten-Windsor: how about we just call him Wills?

And, like many other posters here, I'm ambivalent about this. But, as the HRC will likely not "convict", exposing the utter hypocrisy, arbitrary nature, and decadence of this bunch might well be worth it.

That said, this idiot imam should have a right to express his hateful opinions--just as anyone else should. Perhaps McClelland could Google "defamation" for an answer to his little question.

Well, Kate, I do not intend to rain on the parade but I was hoping for just a little more on this one, if you please. There are links provided to Marc's complaint and why he is making it but as I read through everything I could only find this one article that actually quotes the Imam in question. This is a 371 page pdf document that has been translated into French from Arabic - the Arabic is present as well as the French. As it is quite an effort to extract contents from a pdf that contains 2 languages, I have not copied the essay into the Google Language tool; in short, I do not have a copy of any statements from the Imam in question with which to form an opinion.

I think we all know that there are radical Imams around and there well maybe something to Marc's complaint. Yet, I like to make up my own mind. In view of the current state of what you have posted, I suggest the argument is lacking - it is lacking not because of poor information but because of a lack of good information. I will attempt to elaborate.

I think we all know that the defining lines of polictical correctness are a moving target over time. Yet some large abstract ideas remain the same. Women are favoured over men, non-whites over whites, certain religions over others, certain sexual orientations over others, liberals over conservatives, etc.

I think it is fairly obvious that this is about one of the favoured religions of the day: Islam. I also think there is an implicit suggestion that if a conservative Christian were to say similar things, the result from the CHRC would be different. Perhaps.

I move in rather conservative Christian social circles - Historic Fundamentalism (which is, for the most part, simply the older Evangelicalism that defined Evangelicalism up until the mid 20th century). I use the terms non-Christian and unbeliever in my speech rather frequently. I use them without emotion, as freely as I would use Chev or Ford. I do not use the word infidel, but I have no issue with its use because I know its meaning. The word infidel has within it the Latin fide (pron: fee'-day) which means faith. An infidel is simply a person without faith. Bona fide (good faith), Sola Fide (one of the five Solas from the Reformation), hi-fidelity (used to market high quality/faithful sound playback devices), and infidelity (within a marriage) are still in common use today. Misogynistic. I could write a lot about that one but I hope I have made my point. I view myself as one of the least favoured demographic groups (from the CHRC perspective), and yet even someone like Barbara Hall would only be able to wave a PC finger at me (Steyn and Macleans). A member of a more favoured demographic group would probably spared the PC scolding but the conclusion would be the same without more data.

The only word in Marc's statements that catches my attention is hateful. All the terms (including hateful) without supporting data are simply accusations. I am open to considering the conclusions to which other commenters have extrapolated, yet I simply would like to see some raw data from the Imam. Or did I miss something?

Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was "destroying our country and imposing its acts."

I put a somewhat long comment in requesting more data on the post and it got caught in the filter.

Perhaps McClelland could Google "defamation" for an answer to his little question.

But the people here don't believe that is a solution either (see Warman vs McMillan, Levant, Shaidle, Kay, Fournier). So if HRCs and libel aren't the answer to dealing with speech that isn't based on truth, what is?

My opinion is that this is a dumb move. Let the radicals preach their filth as much as they wish. Its good education for the dimwitted brain washed Trudopian morons.

Speaking of which - whatever happened to that perfectly sensible convention of changing one's surname to something pronouncable when arriving on our shores?)

Why should they? It won't be necessary for when they take over...part of their plan of
'CAIR international'.

Conservatives should embark on a campaign to launch one counter-suit for every suit launched against them.

Can't agree Shawn too many are doing this already and that's why it's at this point!
Appeasers already rule our justice system, backing off now will only weaken the freedoms WE'VE already EARNED and they are already slipping away from us!

THEY, ordering US to SHUT UP about THEM or ANYTHING they claim hurts THEM?

Screw that, time to beat them at their own game.
Beat them back and don't let up.

The jihadi imam has a right to express his opinion, unless of course that opinion promotes violence, hate and other illegal activities against non-Muslims. In which case he should be arrested, tried, convicted and booted out under common law, presided over by an actual judge in a real court.

What the west needs are specific laws to undermine and stamp out radical, political Islam. The laws we have are insufficient to deal with the ideology and those who act on it. If such laws were suggested, Muslims would have no recourse but to agree. Otherwise, what would they say - we have a religious right to hate and to be violent, misogynistic, racists?

Kate says: "I understand where you're coming from Tex, and sympathize with that position. But the problem is this - the CHRC's are "legitimate", in that they have the backing of the force of law. Nothing we can do can "legitimize" the process - that's a done deal."

So, if a governmental agency were publicly flogging conservative bloggers for the crime of "blogging," you would file a complaint against liberal bloggers, asserting that they too should be flogged?

This makes little sense to me. An abomination of justice should not be fought by pursuing an abomination of justice against others.

Additionally, suppose the complaint is accepted and the Muslim is rebuked by the HRC. You will put them in position to say "Look, we are even-handed; quit whining."

texan - if, as some of us say, that the actual system is corrupt, then how do you suggest we deal with this corruption?

Simply claiming that it is corrupt doesn't seem to have much effect. Look at the latest example. The Ontario HRC acknowledged that it didn't have the mandate to judge the Maclean's-Steyn case, and then, in the same public announcement where it acknowledged that it didn't have the legal right to make a judgment - it did! It announced, publicly, under its official letterhead, without any due process, without any chance for the defense to state their case, that Macleans was indeed 'Islamophobic'!!!!

So, our complaints that the HRCs operate without criteria, without due process are dealt with, not by consideration of our concerns but by yet another example of their corruption!

So, we must continue to complain publicly about their corruption and also, use practical tactics to show, beyond our words and our opinions, exactly how corrupt they are. If they refuse to deal with this case - they will be showing bias.

Idd

This Imam spouts what our progressive MSM won’t have the balls to report in their news papers. In Sweden the corrupt journalists won’t report the rapes by Muslim immigrants on native Swedish women or the gun in the face hold ups of the Swedish Euros. Also the racist motivated attacks on white Euros’ are also not reported. Almost all these incodents are reported by independent bloggers. Lionheart went and is still going through some rough times in England because he has blogged about the drugs and crime carried out by Pakistani Muslims in his own communtie.

The radical Imam is the messenger. Why shoot the messenger?

McC. should be in grade school. The fine people he mentions aren't happy about being sued, but they're not denying due process.

We shall see what comes of the suit. At least three differences from the HRCs are that the defendants are innocent, unless RBW can prove them guilty; all parties, including RBW, need to hire lawyers; and, if RBW is wrong, he'll be out of pocket, big time. There's no free ride here or shoo-in outcome: RBW's now playing with the grown-ups.

I can agree with this statement by the Imam,

population is "stupid and ignorant."

I hope you didn't file it as a two-sided fax, we know how that doesn't work.

ET say: "texan - if, as some of us say, that the actual system is corrupt, then how do you suggest we deal with this corruption?"

Yep, the system is corrupt. No doubt about that.

The way to deal with this particular corrupt system is through the political process. You organize campaigns designed to motivate your MP's to correct the problem. They are the only ones who can make the problem go away. So, I sugggest campaigns revolving around the proposition that you will not support any MP for re-election who has failed to demonstrate a staunch stand against continuation of the HRC's.

It's mind boggling to me that your MP's seem oblivious to the problem. What are they good for, if they won't address an impairment of fundamental freedoms?

In the US, any federal court would enjoin the action of the HRC's on First Amendment grounds, but resort to the courts isn't, as a practical matter, available to you. So, the only avenue (short of armed revolution or separation) is through Parliament.

Of course, the root of the problem is your pissant Charter which fails to afford REAL protection of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. You might also pursue a modification of the Charter along the lines of the US First Amendment.

"3.1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."

If you are a member of any other 'group', you're out of luck.........

What group are you a member of that has no race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation [???] et al ?

This law would have been applicable to the old western "No Englishmen need apply."

"Hammaad Smith" or "Hammaad Jones" more like.

Second Amendment, Texan. Without the Second, the First can't live.

Robbie the Retard still playing his one note samba. "So if HRCs and libel aren't the answer to dealing with speech that isn't based on truth, what is?"

I covered this back at 12:21pm, Retard. Try to keep up.

dizzy - in practice, the groups are understood only as minority groups. 'Being Canadian' would not be understood as a category of discrimination.

texan - Yes, the stupidity and cupidity up here is mind boggling.

First of all, being very shallow thinkers and navel gazers, as well as stuck on "nice is good", most Canadians are under the altogether mistaken impression that a Charter "of Rights and Freedoms" actually gives one rights and freedoms. The average Canadian, who thinks the Charter is just dandy, couldn’t string a sentence together to explain how, actually, it’s been beneficial to all but a few coddled groups, who gain “rights” at the considerable expense of the rest of us. (E.g., Why, once gay marriage became lawful, can one be persecuted and prosecuted for even voicing an objection to it? Laws are not carved in stone—that’s the point of democracy, I thought. But laws changed via Charter challenges seem to make any conscientious objector some kind of criminal.)

Secondly, most of our MPs are also pretty shallow thinkers. Their main object it to get re-elected. Even if they know the Charter’s seriously flawed, if most of their constituents, brainwashed by our substandard public education systems and the MSM etc., seem OK with it, they’re OK with it too.

However, on the MPs’ side, much as I’d prefer not to be, the amending formula for changing the Charter makes doing so virtually an impossibility: the octopus-like reach of Trudeau, that ferret.

We seem to be stuck on stupid up here.

Shawn I see we agree on some things but my point is that it lends credence to his cause not call him on his words if 'he' is calling on the ones who are only practicing their right to free speech as well - with their words.
Shoot him? Heck no, but lets not them propagate 'their' lies at our expense any further.

(sorry for the ranting CAPS, slightly to agitated to mess with tags at that moment in time...)

Lookout says: "We seem to be stuck on stupid up here."

I've been following Canadian politics, more or less as a hobby, for four or five years, now, and over that time, I've come to see that the populace (speaking generally) has a tone different from what I see in the US. Here, there's a much stronger resistance to "authority." There's more of an attitude of the: "Who the hell do these people think they are? What do they think gives them the right to tell me what I can say and think and do?" Canadians seems more complacent, more unwilling to rock the boat. The general drift in Canada seems to be: "Who the hell am I to decide what's right and wrong? The authorities will handle all of that."

I'm not sure you can right the ship until a lot more Canadians express a willingness, at the ballot box in particular, to take control of their own lives.

in canada, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others. and we "nice canadians" wonder why the u.s. is trying to barricade their borders?

Finally -- positive proof of global warming:
http://tinyurl.com/56fq57

I beg to differ Linda. I think it shows clearly the drastic effects of inflation. Cost of goods and all that, tut tut...

You've got it, texan. I'm now more pro-American than -Canadian—as would be my proud and patriotic ancestors, who arrived here more than 200 years ago. Like me, they'd be altogether ashamed of the present day complacence and appeasement of a cowed and often cowardly populace.

(Note the pathetic performance of the weedy John Cruickshank of the CBC. I thought he might be American: he’s not, and altogether behaves like the toady, sycophantic Canadians one expects of our “ruling class”. What utter dolts most of them are.)

Tex is right about this being a bad idea. The principle of protected free speech is the only ammunition that we have against HRCs. Demonstrating that HRCs are biased accomplishes what? Does it demonstrate that opinion crimes should be abolished in Canada, or does it simply demonstrate that a few HRC officers show poor judgment?

Section 13 human rights complaints contradict the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the reason why we have a problem is that 3 out of 5 Supreme Court judges ruled that while acknowledging that this is true, this is okay because "hate propaganda" has nothing to contribute to Canadian society.

HRC injustice is only a symptom of the underlying problem, which is that Canadians have tolerated having their freedoms and responsibilities overtaken by our "intellectual betters". This proposed scheme sacrifices the latter for the sake of the former.

That's great! People must complain about hateful Imam's preaching and articles more and more. This is why Saudi Arabia recently voted against the 'Defamation of Religions' resolution. They finally realized it could be used against Islam's own hate speech.

I bet American, European and Australian bloggers can mock Warman right into a straight jacket. Everyone in Canada must hear about this!

This fellow in the HRC, Richard Warman, sounds like a totally wonderful human being who doesn’t have a huge chip on his shoulder or one evil bone in his whole fair-minded body.

He doesn’t at all sound like a sick and demented bastard who is angry and bitter because he got his butt massively kicked in those elections years ago.

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe likes
human rights commissions

that violate human rights
while claiming to protect them

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe hates
real freedom of speech

an American concept
which is NOT for Canada

.
Why Does Canada Allow This?

http://www.richardwarman.com/

http://haltterrorism.com

:)
.

Actually, I believe that, with arguments for and against aside, they (HRC) won't even bother to give this complaint the light of day.

And the farce will go on.

Texan is very observant WRT the difference in American thinking vs. Canadian. I consider myself libertarian...get the government out of the business of making laws to 'correct' every irritating problem.
The HRC's were established with the Canadian mindset...'we all get along 'cuz we are so open-minded but if someone upsets the apple cart we should take him to court and then he'll think like us'...baloney...
We are reaping the results of those 'corrective laws' now.

I have started asking muslims in public why they worship a pedophile. I also suggest to them that that kind of thinking doesn't belong in MY country. None of them has said anything to me, they just slump there head's and walk away. Don't be afraid of these sicko's, stand up and show them the way back to the middle east where they belong.

Is that you, Lucy?

I think so Phantom, the level of putridness is about the same.

ET -- "in practice, the groups are understood only as minority groups. 'Being Canadian' would not be understood as a category of discrimination."

Most individuals in any of the minority groups are also Canadian. Here's a note from a recent case, which --
"involves a complaint by Sally Wade that her employer, DFAIT discriminated against her on the basis of her marital status and family status by denying her a three bedroom staff quarter pursuant to the Foreign Service Directive. The Directive is part of the collective agreement ...
http://tinyurl.com/6ohd7t

Don't like hearing the truth?