|
Jesse Ferreras draws my attention to a most peculiar decision by the genius jurists of the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal:
Tonie Beharrell of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, the same tribunal behind the right to not wash your hands while working in a restaurant, is laying a gavel down on the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association for violating an alleged confidentiality agreement with Pivot Legal Society, the amateur DTES law firm that's brought a complaint against the Association with no supporting documents.
The Tribunal has laid a fine of $2,000 against the association for revealing the fact that Pivot has no documentary evidence to support its claims...
A complaint based on no evidence isn't the peculiar part. That's just business as usual in the "human rights" racket. What's odd is the fining of the defendant for revealing the fact. "Judge" Beharrell was one of the three judges who presided over the Maclean's/Steyn show trial last June when "expert" witnesses were flown in to discourse on the "tone" of my jokes and whatnot for the best part of a week. So I was naturally curious as to why she had fined the DVBIA:
The BC Human Rights Tribunal ruled today that Charles Gauthier, Executive Director of the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association (DVBIA), engaged in improper conduct by disclosing confidential proceedings related to the discrimination complaint against the DVBIA filed by Pivot Legal Society and VANDU in June 2008. The Tribunal awarded Pivot and VANDU $2000 in costs, finding that Mr. Gauthier’s improper conduct “had a significant impact on the complainants and on the integrity of the Tribunal’s processes”.
"The integrity of the Tribunal's processes"? That's a laugh, considering that, as I know firsthand, they make it up as they go along. But in any case how can DVBIA's disclosure impact the "integrity"? One can understand it might be prejudicial were this a jury trial. But in this instance Tonie Beharrell is both judge and jury: Is her "integrity" so easily impacted?
Or is it some sort of "contempt of court" deal? Two years ago, when the "human rights" enforcers first inserted themselves into my life, at the very first meeting with counsel I asked what the rules were with this racket, and I was told that there was no such thing as contempt of court with these "human rights" commissars: You could say what you want about them and their crappy pseudo-courts. So I did, mercilessly, week after week in Maclean's. If I got hold of a document, I revealed it, starting with my publication here of the original complaints. The only time Maclean's and I had a wee bit of a falling out was when I was stopped by a scrum of reporters leaving the courthouse in Vancouver and I denounced Tonie Beharrell and her chums as a troika of "pretend judges", which it was felt was a mite excessively abusive as they were only a few yards away at the time. (The Globe & Mail report appears to be subscriber-only, but here's the CP story from the Pictou County News.)
Other than that, Maclean's and I said whatever the hell we wanted regardless of whether or not it "had a significant impact on the complainants and on the integrity of the Tribunal's processes". Which, of course, it did. Why do you think we got off? Under the BC "Human Rights" Act, we're clearly guilty but our "significant impact" on the "integrity" of the "process" happily took care of that.
So I wonder whether Judge Beharrell has the power to levy such a fine. If I were in the DVBIA's shoes, I certainly wouldn't pay it.
|
