Chasing the whims of frustrated losers through hearing basis-less cases and covering Canada with ridicule distracts the do-it-yourself courts we know as HRCs from their real job: ridding the country of unfairness. A striking example of this is the recent difficulties faced by a blind house-hunter in BC, the very same BC hosting the sham trial against Mark Steyn and Macleans.
Although renting is completely at the discretion of the landlord (there's no human right to be a tenant), the case of Kim Hood is possibly an indictment of the current running of the Human Rights tribunals. Surely she is being discriminated against, and I for one would love to see her rights upheld. However, an HRC would find itself in a bind. Either, as these commissions do, they pluck a human right out of their backsides and all but abolish private property (by destroying your right to choose whom to let to) or they rule in favour of the landlord and wipe off any remaining credibility they have as custodians of our rights and freedoms (were they ever?).
There is a third solution: rent by attorney, i.e. using someone else who's legally registered to house-hunt for you. This would eliminate the guide dog as ground for rejection because there's no dog in the first place, and it wouldn't qualify as a pet. If there isn't a law for this the Commission would recommend it to the provincial legislature. As of now, this isn't a possibility as far as I know.
The HRCs should not draw rights and interpretations out of a hat or consider themselves courts. I would suggest their scope be changed to arbitration: less clamor, less legal fees, no precedent, more common sense. A possible solution would include capping maximum sanctions if both parties agree not to appeal the arbiter's decision in the normal courts of law.
Actually, why bother with legal ways at all? Instead of claiming a human right to attend a school grad ball, a Muslim student and observant family will attend because independently of her a group of students began a petition to ban alcohol at the event, and received almost every attendee signature. Persuasion, dialogue and common sense sometimes are the best way to achieve a peaceful society. Crying "Wolf", guilt trips and using backdoors do not do the cause of moderate Islam any good whatsoever.
2 comments:
The woman with the guide dog is definitely being discriminated against and I hope she exercises her legal recourse.
The other story, about the students deciding not to serve alcohol at their graduation in order to accomodate a Muslim student, is disturbing.
What is she going to do for the rest of her life - avoid every situation where alcohol is served (from university commencement to staff parties to wedding receptions) or demand that every single venue refrain from serving alcohol?
I can certainly understand someone who is forbidden to drink alcohol for religious reasons and therefore orders non-alcoholic drinks. But to avoid every venue where alcohol is served? If your religious views are this extreme, then you should be prepared to make certain sacrifices for your religion, instead of imposing your religious practices on others who do not share your faith.
And yes, I know the other students voluntarily chose to accomodate her - she didn't demand it - but they made a mistake for several reasons, not the least being that their decision will embolden those who ARE inclined to make such demands.
I know exactly what you mean. Personally I hope she doesn't get the HRC virus from some loser. I'm sure that if she kicked up a fuss the students would have ignored her but the school would have accommodated forcefully. Result: everyone is dissatisfied.
It kind of worked out, more like a one-off.
Post a Comment