A higher court sent back the jaw-dropping discrimination case of a black businesswoman pursued by an aggrieved Muslim employee (of all of six weeks) who apparently felt pressured to wear a skirt and heels instead of her hijab at the office. The 1984-ishly named Human Rights Tribunal naturally found in favor of the Muslim employee, and oversaw the near-seizure of the black businesswoman's house. [Superior Court rules Ontario Human Rights Tribunal hearing was unfair, By Moira Welsh, Toronto Star, February 1, 2011] Now, the Human Rights Tribunal — along with other elements in the Canadian legal system, like the odious Richard Warman has been dispensing anti-white, anti-free speech craziness for years. Legal rebels like Doug Christie have spent years fighting back.
So what did it take for the straw to break the moose's back?
Well, check into the facts of this case. First, the defendant is black. And a woman. Second, her "business" is a "company that gets federal government money to provide job training to immigrant women", according to the Toronto Star. (See Diversenfreude.)
(I don't know: encouraging immigrants to file discrimination suits is actually pretty good training for entry into pretty much any Western country — Seema Saadi could set up her own little business.)
Things may not have gone so well if the defendant had been a white male who had, say, a construction business. But there's at least now precedent for the rejection of the Human Rights Tribunal.
Canada should just scrap the Tribunal outright, but anyone at The Corner could say that. I'll say that Canada shouldn't have let any of the players in this drama inside its borders to begin with.