05.24.2012 07:55 AM

Byline, May 23: on s. 13 and human rights

Lilley and I duke it out on s. 13. I’m right.


  1. JamesHalifax says:

    I watched that exchange last night. You both made some good points, but I have to agree with Lilley.

    I would rather tie up the criminal courts than have someone subjected to the arbitrary and ideological judgement of folks who for the most part aren’t trained in the law. The human rights commissions have become simply a mouthpiece for politically correct thought.

    The best dressing down I ever saw of these tribunals, was when Ezra tore several strips of that HR beaurocrat. priceless.

    I’m sure as a Lawyer, even you appreciated that show.

  2. Philippe says:

    While watching this I’m reminded of:
    “How do you know someone’s _really_ listening in a debate?”

    “They’re open to changing their opinion based on what you say.”

    Why do I get the impression that this host will never, ever change his preconceived opinions no matter what Warren says?

  3. TomS says:


    I am not sure why you and others insist that HRC adjudicators are not trained in law. They are virtually all trained in law, many having sat on quasi judicial Boards for years.

    You folks confuse the hell out of me. You trumpet free speech like a mantra but are willing to leave it in the hands of police (the same cops who dealt with G20 as an example) to handle instead of a regimen that is less onerous and better trained to deal with human rights matters.

    And yes I know the “Atilla the hun” dinosaur-bloggers of the world will soon descend and bully about how terrible we human rights supporters are but in fact they care little for free speech seeming more a champion of hateful speech. And so it goes

  4. smelter rat says:

    Does Lilley cut his own hair?

  5. JamesHalifax says:


    I’m not saying that NONE of them are trained in law, I’m raising the point that they aren’t ALL trained in law. Given some of the judgements we’ve seen, one can clearly see that the LAW has very little to do with some of the foolish decisions handed down.

    One of the most aggregious examples was actually mentioned on the show. A woman who worked in the food industry did NOT HAVE TO WASH HER HANDS AFTER GOING TO THE BATHROOM. Apparently, she had a condition that caused her discomfort from washing her hands. That is HER problem…it shouldn’t be ours.

    Would you want to eat there, knowing someone just took a dump and didn’t wash afterwards?

    As for free speech vs. hateful speech….the problem is having someone else determine what hate is. You cannot legislate against hate….people are going to hate various things regardless of any laws in place. You legislate against incitement to violence, or calls for actions against a group…..and we have the criminal courts for that. You will note, that many Muslim groups openly espouse violence and intolerance….but none of them have EVER been taken to the HRC. The HRC’s refuse to look into those cases. Currently, the only targets of Canadian HRC’s seem to be white and christian. coincidence?

    Today’s HRC’s are a joke and a travesty not only because they are selective about who they target, but the process itself. The person complaining needs no proof, and incurs no cost. The accused on the other hand, is on the hook to pay.

    The HRC’s are simply being used to silence people.

    I’m not too worried though. I don’t think they’ll be around in their present form for much longer.

    • Jason King says:

      citation please

      • GFMD says:

        The case he thinks he is referring to is called “Datt”. He has clearly never read it.

      • JamesHalifax says:

        Jesus, Jason…it was all over the news. Try Google.

        • Jason King says:

          Regardless, James you are missing the point.

          You are the one responsible for backing up your point. Since you dont and claim that I should try Google, I will continue to say that your point is still anecdotal.

          Plus GFMD is correct, you clearly never read the case.

          Nice try though with your blustery anecdotes. I should put up a propeller to generate some power of your hot air.

    • Patrick Deberg says:

      Right James!

      Better to eliminate all the HRC and go to the feudal system again. That way we can air our grievances with the club and bullet. It’s so less expensive!!

      • JamesHalifax says:

        No Patrick, the feudal system didn’t work that well and is outdated.

        We have the COURTS for legitimate complaints. And simply hearing something that hurts one’s feelings…is not a legitimate complaint.

        • Jason King says:

          “And simply hearing something that hurts one’s feelings…is not a legitimate complaint.”

          Good to hear that or we’d be hearing about your hurt feelings all the time.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            I have a pretty thick skin. I can take whatever you throw at me.

            In fact, my skin is probably almost as thick as your head.

    • HonestB says:

      Which judgements? Did you actually read them, or just Ezra’s Coles notes?

      The hand-washing one wasn’t that the woman didn’t want to wash her hands after going to the bathroom. She wanted to be accommodated by being given tasks that didn’t require her to wash her hands constantly, which was something the restaurant could easily have done, but chose to keep her doing work that required her to wash her hands more often than people doing other tasks.


      • JamesHalifax says:

        Oh god!!

        Listen to yourself HonestB.


        I wouldn’t want her working anywhere near food.

        Maybe they could put her in charge of cutlery, or making change, or wiping tables. As long as her shit covered fingers don’t handle your Big Mac…you’d be ok with it?


        If she doesn’t want to wash her shit covered fingers tell her to become a plumber or farm hand. (no offense to plumbers or farm hands)

        • Jason King says:

          Well I wouldnt want you working anywhere near people with your impression of superiority and poorly thought out statements.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Jason, If I worked in a position surrounded by folks like you…..how could I NOT feel superior?

            Have you ever read what you have written?

      • Steve T says:

        It would then follow that, if someone got food poisoning from the restaurant and it could be traced back to this employee, then the restaurant would be immune to prosecution. Sound good?

        Once again, the arbitrary claims of the few seem to trump the needs of the many.

  6. Jim Hayes says:


    It’s people like you that created a need for a human rights code and commission.

    The woman has worked at the resterant for 20 years. She asked for an accommodation based on a skin condition. She could have taken orders, given cash whatever…hell she could have worn latex gloves if need be but instead she was fired.

    Sadly people with little conscience could care less. Thankfully we have a human rights commission that deals with such situations fairly.

  7. Jemery says:

    I believe in free speech and I would give my life to defend it. But in the case of defaming Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) I think all speech that degrades Islam and it’s people should be banned completely and those who defame it should be punished according to the holy laws of the Sunnah.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      That is such a predictable and stereotypical comment….I’m assuming you are posting firmly tongue in cheek in order to bait someone.

      (taking the bait)

      Islam: Nowadays, considered the religion of “pieces” after the vest goes off.

      • Jemery says:

        FYI that “vest” comment could land you in front of the CHRC on a section 13 complaint!

        • JamesHalifax says:

          And that’s my point entirely.

          If anyone writes/say anything about Islamic fanaticism, or muslim culture (wife beating/murder, etc) you can be dragged to the HRC.

          Muslim Imams can preach hatred and intolerance in Canadian Mosques, or school cafeteria’s…and the HRC’s are strangely silent.

    • Pomojen says:

      Which would be what … The laws you refer to. And what should happen to people who break them?

  8. JamesHalifax says:

    No Jim, the human rights commissions were established to prevent REAL abuses of human rights. They were to address REAL racist or REAL sexist policies that hurt REAL people. If you couldn’t rent a house because you were a minority, you had the HRC to go to first. If you couldn’t get into a position at work because it was restricted to men only…you go to the HRC.

    you do NOT go to the HRC because you don’t want to wash your hands after taking a dump. You do not go to the HRC because your feelings are hurt. But of course, this is no longer the case, because now, the HRC’s cases are comprised mainly of exactly these types of cases. And, the HRC’s are very selective about whom they prosecute.

    As for the woman with the skin condition. Too bad…so sad. You can’t wash your hands. Congratulations, and keep your filthy fingers off my food. I care about her feelings and her rights until they present a risk of E-coli to my kids or myself.

    • GFMD says:

      Your time would be better spent reading the case to learn how it actually happened rather than spewing stupid statements which bear no resemblance to the facts or law at issue.

      • JamesHalifax says:


        I am familiar with that case, but it doesn’t change the FACT…that this woman complained because she DIDN”T WANT TO WASH HER HANDS AFTER GOING TO THE BATHROOM!!!.

        I don’t give a damn about her reasons. I don’t care if her hands hurt, I don’t care if she felt pain. If you work in a restaurant, all I want to know is that the plate you set before me hasn’t been handled by someone who just took a crap and didn’t wash themselves after the fact.

        The FACT you are looking for GFMD….is right in front of your face. She worked in a restaurant……and she doesn’t want to wash her hands. That my friend, is the only FACT that has any bearing on the case.

        You want to eat her shit…….you hire her to cook for you.

        • HonestB says:

          Cite the actual part of the case that you think backs up your assertions or shut up.

          You can read the case here: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2007/pdf/aug/324_Datt_v_McDonalds_Restaurants_%28No_3%29_2007_BCHRT_324.pdf . At no point is she asking to not have to wash her hands after using the washroom. Ezra made that up, because he’s a liar.

          • HonestB says:

            “It may be that, at the end of the day, Ms. Datt could not have been accommodated
            at McDonald’s because she simply could not meet its hand-washing policies doing any
            job or combination of jobs, but based on the evidence before me, I find that McDonald’s
            failed to take all the necessary steps to make this final determination. ”

            This is the key point. McDonald’s wasn’t (indeed, it couldn’t be, by law) required to not enforce it’s handwashing policy. It was required to make some kind of real effort to find work for an employee who was rendered unable to do the job she had been doing by a disability. Ultimately, it might not have been possible to do that, but we’ll never know because McDonald’s never even tried, which is the point of the case.

            McDonalds’ handwashing policy wasn’t the issue. if you’re saying it was you’re an idiot who can’t be bothered to read the case you’re blathering on about.

  9. JamesHalifax says:

    Glad you see my point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.