I’m sitting here waiting for basecoat to dry, which seems a perfect time to direct you to this dissection of the reasoning in the Knights of Columbus BC Human Rights Tribunal complaint, by Bob Tarantino.
I’ve now read the decision and it’s a freakin’ travesty. If anything, I was too kind in my initial reaction. The three panelists furrowed their brows, quoted a whole bunch of irrelevant caselaw, contradicted themselves about a jillion times and then, when not even that mash-up could get them to the result they wanted, they just made it up.
Seems to me that the judges made about as good a decision as possible. If the K of C folks had been paying attention at the beginning, they wouldn’t have ended up in this situation.
For the life of me I can’t understand how come the majority of “normal”, healthy, hetrosexual, white Canadians need to bend over backwards to accomodate the fringe groups.
End of rant!
You should try reading the Brockie case that the BCHRT used in their reasons. In Brockie, a publisher denied services to a GLBT activist group. The Ontario HRT held that Brockie had to publish the material, had infringed their rights, and could only refuse to publish material, the message of which went to the core of his religious beliefs. Sound familiar? Same reasoning in the Knights case.
At the end of the day, the message is it’s okay to be religious, just leave that part of yourself at home and don’t bring it out in public.
Nat: except the Knights were found to be free to refuse.
The rest of the finding was typical of these tribunals, all about judging table manners and inventing rules of ettiquete on the fly.
courts and rule of law: good
tribunals: 100% marsupial
these tribunals should be shut down. brockie was deprivedof fundamemtal liberties without due process.
Tribunals are kangaroo courts, a legacy of Trudeau the commie, etched into our joke of a constitution. In the olden days, they would lop off your head in the guillotine. In today’s kinder, gentler society, they just take your capital, and ridicule you in the press.
yyc,
The Knights are not 100% free to refuse. They must still accommodate people such as the claimants by being “nice” and even going so far as helping them in finding a substitute venue.
At the end of the day, it amounts to a heirarchy of rights, with religion being trumped. For example, who is going to judge what is someone’s core values? If it goes to a tribunal, what is stopping them from making such a finding? Not too much, and the only recourse is to get judicial review of the decision.
so if I wanted to have my Fundamentalist Christian Bible Reading Club meeting in a Gay club, they would have to “nice” to me and incur expenses finding me an alternate location ??
or . . .
More proof that the liberano’s have got to go!
What we truly need is a revolution so we can wipe the books clean and start from scratch. End the liberanoization NOW!!!
Actually, Mike, and this is something that’s always bothered me about these tribunals, the members of the BC human rights tribunal aren’t judges. None of them ever have been. One of them doesn’t even hold a law degree. Can’t even tell how much experience any of them have in actually arguing cases before judges. I’m not surprised in the least that such members come to such poor decisions on these tribunals, but then I tend to think of human-rights tribunals as nothing more than lib-left social-engineering tools anyway.
http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/tribunal_members/default.htm
This particular case should’ve been a contract dispute, no more, no less. The Knights signed a contract and then broke it. That gives rise to a claim for damages. The rest is window dressing.
The point is the lesbians rented the hall, fully knowing that the K of C are a Christian organization opposed to SSM, with the intention of creating a media event, after all one of them declared that this is war. The queer contingent is bent on trying to force their interpretation of things on the majority who opppose it. They can start their own church and build their own halls, this is a free country in that respect.
yyc,
The Knights are not 100% free to refuse. They must still accommodate people such as the claimants by being “nice” and even going so far as helping them in finding a substitute venue.
At the end of the day, it amounts to a heirarchy of rights, with religion being trumped. For example, who is going to judge what is someone’s core values? If it goes to a tribunal, what is stopping them from making such a finding? Not too much, and the only recourse is to get judicial review of the decision.
I definitely agree with your take on tribunals. The scary thing is who gets appointed. In Ontario, former Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory is on the HRT. There is another judge too and a woman that worked on the Pay Equity Tribunal, amongst others.
Sorry about the double post. Wanted to add the last bit, and it’s hard to balance blogging and taking notes in class.
New definition of a minority: a white, Christian, non-gay, non-lesbian, non-HIV, no criminal record, of European extraction.
Does that cover it?
Mike: For the life of me I can’t understand how come the majority of “normal”, healthy, hetrosexual, white Canadians need to bend over backwards to accomodate the fringe groups.
Actually it’s the forced bending over forwards that’s the real problem.
Yeah, as we say in the business; BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again)
Bruce Randall totly agree with you. I f you want to start a club with no gay weddings, so be it, isn’t a free country. They should have been a bit more carefull before signing the contract with them though.
nat: i’ve added the missing words:
[LIKE BROCKIE] except the Knights were found to be free to refuse [EVER]”.
I characterized the caveats as: “judging table manners and inventing rules of ettiquete on the fly”
If you missed my irony, surely you didn’t miss my conclusion that we must abolish all such tribunals.
Ok I’ve had enough! I’m gonna fire up my Playstation and start shooting zombies, and I’m gonna pretend they’re all Lefties and Liberano$!
EPW
Human Rights Tribunals are the gender & identity-driven political go-to place for whiners and crybabies who’d not win their day at court.
How about this for an idea: what if the K of C required its prospective clients to fill out a questionnaire that’d cover things like intent and use of the hall? That way, they could politely decline situations such as this, and the potential complainants would be unable to show financial “damages” as they’d not be out cash, nor have a reneged contract to whine over. And of course, the contract would stipulate that in the case of anybody lying about the purpose of their hall rental, the Knights would have the option of cancellation. And the contract language would state that the prospective client would hold the K of C harmless from contract termination or litigation in this case.
Or would the Tribunals go after the K of C anyways, for not being “nice” or sufficiently “tolerant”?
How far does this nonsense go? If I put my house up for sale, and some tattoed & bearded Hell’s Angel offers the best cash offer & I refuse to sell (& screw my neighbours) on the basis of his personality/appearance/beliefs, can the Outlaw Biker-Canadian community take me to a Tribunal to force my selling hand?
sjd(at)cogeco(d0t)ca
I hate to be cruel here but these two women are clearly misfits that were just looking to lash out at the world in any way they can. Both of them are unattractive and tip the scales at over 200 lbs so their relationship is likely based on the fact that nobody else wanted either of them and they have sort of paired up out of convenience. Nothing wrong with being on the fringes of society but lets not make the whole country alter their behavior/philsophy to meet their pet peeves.
This whole gay marriage thing is a crock. Nobody would suffer or be disadvantaged if we ban it – but philosophy trumps practicality and we have to hear endlessly about how poorly this minority group is treated.
What about the rights of the most disadvantaged minority in Canada – those that pay a disportionate amount of tax and have not say in how the country is run
Steve L.
uh, uh, uh. Watch out you guys or you could be charged with hate speech…..
Critique the queer crowd and it’s hate speech. Radical queers denouncing the God-fearing folk at the KofC and it’s free speech. Blatant double standard methinks.
yyc,
I didn’t miss your conclusion. I agreed with it. Tribunals such as these are perhaps the most dangerous form of patronage positions. These tribunals have great powers to effect the lives of individuals, and yet, few are aware of the legal ramifications of their acts, beyond the instant case.
Regarding your caveats – frankly, isn’t that what provincial human rights legislation in application become? It goes deeper than the tribunals themselves but the underlying policies being put in place by commissions and legislatures.
I support gay marriage as long as both chicks are really hot.
I thought religious groups and affiliates were supposed to be protected? Mind you, this is the same group that gave a shopper’s drug mart clerk $34,000 for the pain and suffering of having to put up a christmas treet. he was muslim.
“Bruce Randall totly agree with you. I f you want to start a club with no gay weddings, so be it, isn’t a free country. They should have been a bit more carefull before signing the contract with them though.”
I presume the Knights didn’t know they were queer when they signed the contract.
The queers, knowing the Knights and Catholic Church are opposed to SSM, missled the Knights to get the contract. Therefor the Knights should sue the queers for missrepresentation.
Horny Toad
Check out http://www.nsheplink.dal.ca click on abstracts…nazi Nova Scotia ot what….Hugh Human Rights violations…using Human Beings without their knowledge or Consent in unethical-illegal medical research…and David Dingwall and “Associates” are connected to at least one Bioscientific Firm
Badumm Boom:
LMAO at your thoughts above. Hilarous!
Want to REALLY piss off a femilesbo? Ask why all the women in these test cases are 300 lb candidates for the WWF, and no hotties need apply.
The two ladies’ lawyer claims they never heard of the KofC, let alone that they’re Catholic and forbidden by religion to have anything to do with SSM. No one should believe such a huge improbability. Yet the “Tribunal” found in favor of the two ladies?
What if they went to an Islamic place and were refused? Would they then have won the case?
Has such a case even happened?
The HRC courts are quasi-judicial star chamber tribunals where an accused has neither charter legal rights nor the rights of evidence from the legitimate law practiced in queen’s bench courts.
It wouldn’t take much to have this network of witch hunt tribunals outlawed on charter/constitutional challenge…why people submit themselves to this farce I’ll never know….legallt, standing on your charter rights you should simply ignore them and their mewlings
They may not have heard of “KofC”, but given the girth of these diesel dykes, I’m sure they are well aquainted with K.F.C.
If you ever go to the Gay Parade here in T.O. the only really mean looking tough guy acts you see are the bulldykes.
They hate everybody.
They especially hate it when you look at their hot topless girlfriends.
They try to give you their rendition of a tough guy stare down.
Very funny and truly ugly.