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.