Is The Canadian Human Rights Commission Discriminatory?


In the news this past week, we read that the Divisional Court has just refused to overturn the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering a Toronto landlord to pay an astounding $12,000 for violating the religious rights of his Muslim tenants.

In 2015, Rebel Media’s Ezra Levant came  under fire for calling the Alberta Human Rights Commission ‘crazy’ for a  case similar to the one below: “A Czech immigrant had failed the provincial engineering exam three times, so he complained to the commission that the exam was “discriminatory.” In a shocking ruling, it agreed and ordered Alberta’s engineering profession to lower its standards and pay the complainer $10,000.”

As a result of the above landlord story, a story came to light dealing with similar issues. This story did not make the news, but the individual involved is interested in people hearing her story and her frustration with the futility of dealing with the Human Rights tribunal.

Following is her story, and here are the links to her case.

“I taught English as a Second Language to adults. In 2004, one of my students, an Egyptian Muslim male immigrant (mid 40s) got caught cheating in my class, and as a result, he was going to get a zero on that work. He didn’t like that. After trying to get me to change my mind which I wouldn’t do, he dropped out of my class and started stalking me at school on a regular basis. He would also stand at my door glaring at me and rally other students from my class around him and bad mouth me. It was horrible. He was a terrifying guy. Administration did nothing because they are afraid of being labelled intolerant. I tried to avoid him and would never go to my car at the end of the day by myself.

Another teacher, after I had been charged, sent me an email  about her dealings with him the previous year. She testified the complainant became distraught upon learning that he had failed her level 5 Reading class. He emailed her at home a few weeks after the end of the course requesting she reconsider his grade. In the email he reiterated his request to be advanced “to the next level rather than remaining at a standstill” and concluded “I hope that it will not turn into an unfortunate issue for us both.” This other teacher testified that this email seemed “mildly threatening” and made her feel uncomfortable. 
One day the complainant yelled at my back as I went down the hall, “I am going to have the police come to your class and arrest you for discrimination.” Had I not been so freaked out and terrified by this guy, maybe I would have been able to think straight and would have realized that the police would not be coming to my classroom. However, I was terrified of this guy and all I could see after all of his tormenting was the police coming to my classroom. I turned around and said, “I am sick and tired of immigrants crying discrimination when they don’t get what they want. You’re getting zero for cheating just like anyone else.” That was all it took for a human rights charge to be lodged against me. 
We went to mediation. He wanted an apology and 100% on the work he cheated on. At the behest of the school board lawyer, I told the student that I was sorry that he had misunderstood what I said, but since I wouldn’t budge on the mark, it didn’t end there. I went to another mediation which was fruitless; followed by a human rights investigation with an  immigrant investigator whose accent was so heavy that he was nearly incomprehensible. Then we went on to a full blown 5 day tribunal.


The complainant was so unpleasant that the ‘free’ human rights lawyer fired him as a client. Now the onus was on him to either present himself as a lawyer or hire one at his own expense. He did neither. 
The first witness came on to the stand. The school board lawyer questioned her, then the union lawyer and now it was time for cross examination. The student couldn’t do it as he knew very little English beyond the word discrimination! The same thing happened with the second witness and the third. When he said, ‘No questions,” to the third witness, the ‘impartial unbiased’ adjudicator, pretend judge, took over for him. The union lawyer interrupted and told her she couldn’t do that. She responded saying, “This guy is not able to do it and if I don’t do the cross examination then we will send this back to the commission at the end of this tribunal and they will say it was insufficient and we will have to start over. That’s not what we want.” Everyone decided that this was okay.
When he cheated, the principal should have made it clear that when you cheat in Canada, you get zero. Failing that, the adjudicator should have put the whole tribunal on hold until he fulfilled his requirements. 

These human rights commissions are so crooked. It’s like doing business in some third world hell hole. 

There are no transcripts or recordings of anything. In other words, no proof of anything. I believe only one person has ever been found innocent who has been charged under section 13, the ‘you hurt my feelings, so you must be punished,’ section. 

This went on from January 2005 – November 2008. The costs for this are astronomical. There is the school board lawyer, union lawyer, a second junior union lawyer, the cost of the adjudicator, hotels, travel, etc., not to mention the cost for all of the people during the mediations. I figure this case cost the tax payer well over a million dollars. For what? 

I was found guilty and he got $1,500.00. When I asked the lawyer why he got any money at all, the lawyer said that he had to be paid something or he would have had an opportunity for an appeal. It makes me wonder if that is why there is always a guilty verdict and a pay out. To avoid appeals.”

So hurting someone’s feelings is now hate speech in Canada. Just wait until motion 103 kicks in. If you see all of the blood thirsty Muslim barbarians marching in the streets screeching for the killing of one Christian mother in Pakistan, you are looking at the face of Canada once this motion 103 is put in to place. 

I believe that calling for the death of someone, calling for the killing of someone is hate speech. That used to be the law. Now it is slightly different. It seems that only some can call for the killing of innocent people in Canada. So I guess if a Muslim calls for the murder of people, in a mosque no less,  it’s not really hate speech? It is not defined as hate speech when the Muslims are calling for the death of all Jews and Christians and for the destruction of Israel during the Al Quds marches in Canada. Yet it’s hate speech  when we call attention to their rhetoric; and it violates Canadian law. 

Hate speech in Canada is anything that people found in Section 15 of the Charter wants it to be. And Human Rights Commissions, Human Resource Departments and arbitration give the whiners a spot to unleash their intolerance and their hate, while refusing to follow the rule of law.  
ALL Human Rights Commissions, Human Resource Departments, and arbitration should be abolished .”




2 thoughts on “Is The Canadian Human Rights Commission Discriminatory?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: