Posted on 09/07/2009 6:51:08 AM PDT by listenhillary
The Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal's decision is a huge victory for the free-speech campaign Ezra Levant and I and a few others have been waging for the last couple of years. When Maclean's magazine and I were acquitted by the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal last year, a lot of people looked on it as a Steyn exemption — that if you were a prominent person with a powerful publisher and you both had deep pockets, the thought police would decide that discretion was the better part of valor. And, once the bigshots were out of the way, they'd go back to making life hell for little guys.
But Marc Lemire, though dogged and very deft in his approach, is not a prominent person. Indeed, he's exactly the kind of obscure figure the thought police would have taken to the cleaners a couple of years back. Now the judge has, in effect, ruled that Section 13, Canada's "hate speech" law, is unenforceable against anybody:
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
In every free nation “Political Corruption” is wrong on its face, against common sense and unconstitutional!
So...why has it taken so long for the average person to figure this out. Get a spine people!!
We have a Human Rights Commission here in NH.
No jury, no appeal, except to Federal court.
On their web page recently was a boast of how a contractor’s appeal to a Federal court ended up almost DOUBLING his fine from $250,000 to $400,000.
What horrendous violation of Human rights did the contractor do?
He had some overtime work unloading heavy materials from a truck. He assigned his burliest men to the job. A woman on the crew brought a case against the contratctor in the Human Rights Court, arguing that she should have had the opportunity to unload the truck for overtime.
The contractor tried to argue that the contents of the truck were very heavy, and that there were other men who were excused from the detail, due to limitations in physical capacity.
The HRC wouldn’t hear it. They fined him $250,000 plus unspecified damages to the female employee.
The contractor appealed to a federal court. Big mistake.
The contractor is out of business today, and *ALL* his crew had to find new situations.
He ought to have put her on the crew, and when she couldn't do the work, fired her for incompetence.
Good solution for next time.
I’m concerned that this is only a ruling of the Tribunal. Wouldn’t a court ruling have more authoritative force?
> He ought to have put her on the crew, and when she
> couldn’t do the work, fired her for incompetence.
She probably would have “hurt herself” and sued for workman’s comp as well as “unspecified damages”.
But at least he has insurance for that, and he could have stayed in business and gotten rid of a rotten apple employee at the same time.
Ping.
Oops. I think I just flagged myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.