In overturning the 2010 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to award $2,000 to each man for “violation of their inherent right to be free from discrimination and for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect,” the Divisional Court instead ordered them and the tribunal to pay legal costs of $20,000 to the librarian and to the Peel Law Association, which runs the library.
The three-judge panel found that tribunal vice-chairman Eric Whist unfairly reversed the onus of proof from the complainant to the respondent, and “placed [the librarian] in the difficult position of trying to prove a negative, namely, that her conduct in the performance of her routine duties was not motivated by race and colour.” It also criticized the tribunal’s “misconceived” comparison of the librarian’s conduct to racial profiling by police.
h/t Rita
“he acted for a youth coalition that tried in 2007 to bring New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz to Toronto to speak at a Queen’s Park rally,”
so who’s the REAL racist here?
Another race-monger trying to scam the system. Nothing to see here. Move along.
But Hudak has back-tracked from his original position that he would get rid of this mockery.
And Ontario’s PCs just gave him a vote of confidence to stay on as leader.
Here is a blog story about Selweyn Pieters which includes his LOW LSAT score and Low academic standings at Law School
stevejanke.com/archives/095110.php
Wasn’t there something lately about the alleged fact that if you are white you are racist?
“He also pursued a claim of systemic bias in the Law School Admission Test, after he was not accepted to the University of Toronto based on his score,”
That is all that needs be said.
Al Sharpton, Canuck division, we hardly knew ye!
Oh Dear, you do realise unconscious racism was their next big cottage industry? Poor HRC, about time they all went into retirement.
$20,000 in costs.
Now THAT’S an education!
Basically a real court that is not obsessed with alleged “feelings”.
“If the judges had a critical, race-based lens, they would have seen it from the perspective of an African Canadian.”
Wow, ‘race-based lens’ you say…
Don’t forget his own make work project includes “As an activist on racial discrimination, Mr. Pieters has brought other similar complaints. In 1999, he reached a settlement with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency after he complained about being unfairly targeted for a search of his bags on a train from New York by a 22-year-old white male student customs officer.”
Same old same old.
and if mr pieters had a critical, fact-based lens he’d see things from the perspective of a non-hyphenated Canadian…but we all know that’s never going to happen…to paraphrase a famous quote “all men are equal, it’s just that some have found a way to be equaller than others”
Don’t wait for “mittens” Hudak to take on the star chamber of the Ont. witch hunters cult – at least the courts are not pleased with the demented parallel trial system the OHRC runs.
All these star chambers and the PC racketeers who run them need their wings clipped. They should be abolished but there isn’t a politician with the guts to do that so the next best thing is limit their compensory awards to $500
Affirmative Action at its finest.
Thank god we have a chance to turn this PET thing around with Harper before this guy becomes the first Canadian black Affirmative Action president.
If the librarian wasn’t a legal one working for a group of lawyers, I wonder if the judgement would have been the same?
Per Mr.G; having written the LSAT many, many years ago, I’d be hard pressed to imagine how one could construe it as being racially biased. It seemed to me to be a test of general and verbal reasoning on which the race-baiter obviously performed miserably. Good thing the lad didn’t sit the old MCAT, he’d have been reduced to tears in the first half hour.
Has anyone else noticed a slight movement towards sanity by our judiciary since Mr. Harper got a majority last year??
What ever happened to Wayne Kensilla?
You know, Chretien’s ‘left hand man’.
That’s “Warren” Kinsella and he’s still out there flapping his gums and pretending Cretin is going to make a comeback.
Occam writes about the HRCs, “. . . limit their compensatory awards to $500 . . .” A great idea, but that’s just a start.
The quasi-judicial HRCs have astonishingly draconian powers that altogether defy the rule of law: the accused is guilty, as charged, until s/he proves her/his innocence; the accused’s intent is immaterial, though s/he is somehow held responsible for the “hurt feelings” of a another, no matter how frivolous the case; the complainant may actually complain on behalf of a third party, not even known by the complainant; the accused must pay all her/his own expenses to fight the case, which may drag on for years; all the complainants’ expenses are paid for by the state; the complainants’ name may be withheld from the accused; the complainant (like the altogether duplicitous Sayed Sowarhardy who took Ezra Levant to the Alberta HRC) may back out at any time, with no consequences; the HR tribunals are generally run by left-wing, progressive appointees, who may or may not be lawyers: even when they are, they may have no expertise in the case they’re dealing with; the complainant does not have to face the accused: although the accused must show up, the complainant doesn’t have to appear at the hearing; hearsay evidence is accepted by the tribunal and truth is no defence; the tribunal is allowed to impose cruel and unusual punishments (like telling a pastor what he’s [not] allowed to say about a certain subject for the rest of his life), including large monetary payouts. I think that’s it . . .
I was interested to see that “[t]he three-judge panel found that tribunal vice-chairman Eric Whist unfairly reversed the onus of proof from the complainant to the respondent”. Well, that’s the established, turn-the-rule-of-law-on-its-head modus operandi for all the HRCs. Let’s hope that this sets a precedent, thus removing this altogether draconian power from all HRCs.
Selwyn Pieters appears to be one, big, affirmative action troublemaker—“He also pursued a claim of systemic bias in the Law School Admission Test, after he was not accepted to the University of Toronto based on his score . . .”—and racist, to boot—“. . . he acted for a youth coalition that tried in 2007 to bring New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz to Toronto to speak at a Queen’s Park rally . . .”
Malik Zulu Shabazz, that model of brotherly love and inclusiveness, famously said, “When it comes to killing crackers [a pejorative term for white people], I wouldn’t focus on the babies… I’d focus on the police.” Let’s add the word, HYPOCRITE, to describe Mr. Pieters.
He’s already out of pocket for having to repay some of the accused’s HRC legal expenses. Perhaps that will dampen his enthusiasm for the appeal he’s considering. However, if he does go ahead, it’ll be in a real court of law, which is a far cry from the cakewalk he and others of his ilk are used to when dealing with the kangaroo courts run by the HRCs. Bon voyage, Mr. Pieters!
“If the judges had a critical, race-based lens, they would have seen it from the perspective of an African Canadian.”
We don’t have, nor do we want African Canadians in Canada. We want CANADIANS.
This Pieters is a obvious racist and malcontent who should be deported to his beloved Africa where he will not be discriminated against ever again.
Sports Columnist Says Asians Have Small Penis – Did He Get to Keep His Job b/c He’s Black?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/47216/sports-columnist-says-asians-have-small-penis-did-he-get-to-keep-his-job-bc-hes-black/
In my bar admissions course there was a black guy in my seminar group who wasn’t writing the exams because he claimed he had child care responsibilities and he wanted alternate exam times scheduled for him. I assume he’d laid some sort of official complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada. I was too disgusted to ask him.
Meanwhile, there was a young lady who was in a mobility scooter and raising a baby, yet somehow she made it through.
That was ten years ago, for all I know he’s still waiting for some kind of accommodation.
An “inherent right to freedom from discrimination” and an inherent right to freedom of association can’t occupy the same space.
It is indeed gratifying to see a Court show some good old fashioned common sense.
As said above,this guy is a race-baiter,the Al Sharpton of Canada.
Librarians should remember in future,to ask any white folks present for their ID too,but even if they did, Canada’s own “Al” would probably find a way to have his feelings hurt.
iggy slanter at 11:01 AM: “Has anyone else noticed a slight movement towards sanity by our judiciary since Mr. Harper got a majority last year??”
=======================
Yes, I’ve detected a slight movement, but then again, I thought it might be a figment of my imagination. Been living under the weight of liberal insanity for so long, it’s hard to trust my hunches.
I’ll bet even Orwell never imagined things would go this far. If he had he would have titled his book ‘1984 Lite.’
These three judges should be considered for any upcoming supreme court vacancies!
Slowly but surly things are reversing. I pray for Harpers health every day.
Good news or not?
According to two sources, the NP editorial today and the opinion of SUN News’s Brigitte Pellerin (wife of John Robson), Justin Trudeau’s intemperate outburst about Quebec separation—“That’ll show Stephen Harper and the RoC!”—has pretty well scuppered his chances of ever being Liberal leader.
Shiny Pony, indeed.
Maybe we won’t need to tar-and-feather the judges after all.
Here’s a primer on the horrible HRCs that I posted yesterday:
“The quasi-judicial HRCs have astonishingly draconian powers that altogether defy the rule of law: the accused is guilty, as charged, until s/he proves her/his innocence; the accused’s intent is immaterial, though s/he is somehow held responsible for the “hurt feelings” of a another, no matter how frivolous the case; the complainant may actually complain on behalf of a third party, not even known by the complainant; the accused must pay all her/his own expenses to fight the case, which may drag on for years; all the complainants’ expenses are paid for by the state; the complainants’ name may be withheld from the accused; the complainant (like the altogether duplicitous Sayed Sowarhardy who took Ezra Levant to the Alberta HRC) may back out at any time, with no consequences; the HR tribunals are generally run by left-wing, progressive appointees, who may or may not be lawyers: even when they are, they may have no expertise in the case they’re dealing with; the complainant does not have to face the accused: although the accused must show up, the complainant doesn’t have to appear at the hearing; hearsay evidence is accepted by the tribunal and truth is no defence; the tribunal is allowed to impose cruel and unusual punishments (like telling a pastor what he’s [not] allowed to say about a certain subject for the rest of his life), including large monetary payouts. I think that’s it . . .”
PLEASE LET PEOPLE KNOW WHY the HRCs have NOTHING to do with human rights: people get sucked in by the mere title, as if it means what it says. E.g., I once had a well known NDP candidate, a lawyer, canvassing on my doorstep: I mentioned a few of the HRC’s draconian powers: “No way,” he said. What an ignorant dolt. (Well, he is NDP!) I told him to check it out: he’d find I was 100% correct.
Here’s today’s National Post editorial, “Reining in the witch hunters”:
http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
..now that has made my night.!! How delightfull to see some common sense being applied for a friggin change. I am sick and tired of these Self entitled Al Sharpton copy cats with their BS stories of discrimination. Perfect outcome.