The Sergeant, in his letter to Mr. Levant suggested that he thought Mr. Levant would win his hearing, and that, in all likelihood the complainant against Mr. Levant would withdraw the complaint. He did.
How do these people even get listened too - demanding their insane rules be adhered to in a non-Muslim land by non-Muslims. Shouldn't it be the other way around - obey the rules of the country you live in or go to he*l back where you came from.
maine-iac7 wrote: "thank you - very good news - this craziness has got to stop - if not, none of us will dare open our mouths"
It is way too soon to cheer.
Here us an item from Levant's blog:
Kangaroo courts -- just not as fast as kangaroos By Ezra Levant on February 22, 2008 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackbackA real court has slapped down a kangaroo court. The Federal Court of Canada has thrown out a Canadian Human Rights Commission decision to award a nine-figure sum to Canada Post workers who were allegedly "discriminated against" based on sex -- based on a complaint made 25 years ago.
Besides throwing out the case on its merits, the judge had this to say about the sloppy procedures at the CHRC:
"The long hearing before the Tribunal is reminiscent of the trial in Charles Dickens' Bleak House over the Jarndyce Estate," Justice Kelen wrote."Jarndyce v. Jarndyce concerned the fate of a large inheritance, which dragged on for many generations. The trial finally came to an end after legal costs had devoured the entire estate."
:::
"(The length of) this case offends the public conscience of what is reasonable and responsible," he said.
"Many of the original female complainants working as (clerks) at Canada Post in 1983 may be dead . . . The hearing lacked the discipline required of a court of law."
The judge is correct of course. But it misses the obvious point: the grinding, sloppy, slow, unregulated, arbitrary, costly, one-sided processes of the human rights commissions is not an accident, it's one of their central qualities. The process is the punishment. It's bad enough when that cost is passed on to all of us through our taxes (or, in this case, higher postage stamp costs). But in the case of individual defendants, the cost is crushing.
When the anti-Semitic imam who started the human rights case against me decided he was bored, he simply walked away -- leaving taxpayers with a $500,000 tab, and me with my legal bills (I'm not free yet; the Edmonton Muslim Council has filed an identical complaint against me, and that is still proceeding at the human rights commission).
That's not allowed in real courts, but it's how kangaroo courts operate. What an embarrassment to Canada.
Note the vexatious and duplicate proceedings allowed by the rules of this tribunal.
Mark Steyne is confronted by identical proceedings initiated in more than one Provincial tribunals and in the Federal one, each of which will have to be defended at his cost and prosecuted at the taspayers' cost. There is nothing to restrain or punish a malicious complainant. The complaint in itself and the need to have a lawyer to defend it becomes punishment for the defendent regardless of its merits or lack of merits.