School acts on psychic's accusation of abuse

From the alternative universe of the (Ontario) Simcoe County District School Board the Toronto Sun brings you this tale out of Edgar Allen Poe.

On May 30, Leduc picked Victoria up from school, where she's enrolled in an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) class with several boys around the same age. When Leduc returned home, there was an urgent call asking her to return to the Livingstone Street East school.

Frightened, Leduc rushed back to the school. She and Victoria entered a room where they were met by the principal, the vice-principal and the teacher.

Leduc said they advised her that Victoria's educational assistant (EA) had visited a psychic, who said a youngster whose name started with "V" was being sexually abused by a man between 23 and 26 years old. Leduc was also handed a list of recent behaviours exhibited by her daughter.

School principal Brian Tremain -- who referred phone calls seeking comment to the board -- advised Leduc that the CAS had been contacted.

"That's when I got sick to my stomach," she said. "I was shocked the whole meeting."

You think I made this stuff up don't you. You think that in a rationale world, school officials wouldn't accept a phychic's musings that a child named "V" was being sexually abused by an unnamed man aged somewhere between 23 and 26 years old. You would be wrong.

Dr. Lindy Zaretsky, a school board superintendent whose portfolio includes special education, said the school was just following protocol, adding the board is bound by the same legislation (Child and Family Services Act) as the CAS when it comes to suspected neglect or sexual abuse.

"It is clear in all cases that this (information) must be reported," Zaretsky said.

What is clear is that some school board employees ought to be given the old pink slip. Get thee hence. You aren't fit to teach a tadpole how to swim.

Did you know that Doctor Lindy Zaretsky cross dresses as a 25 year old man on weekends and spends her time in playgrounds with autistic children named V? How do I know? A homeless two-headed dwarf, high on LSD, on a street in Toronto told me that he consulted an Ouija board on the matter. There you are. Who you gonna believe? An Ouija board or a school board? In Simcoe County is there a difference?

Now that you know of this new information, it is your duty to call the Children's Aid Society! It's required by law. So says Dr. Zaretsky, whose PhD is, no doubt, in a hard science such as necromancy.

Disgust does not begin to describe it

Ezra Levant informs us that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has altered the official transcript of the Lemire hearing. There is an RCMP investigation underway into possible wrongdoing of HRC staff in this matter and the commission is playing silly bugger with the transcripts!

This is beyond belief. It illustrates as nothing else does, that these commissions constitute a threat to our freedoms as citizens of this democracy. I am utterly appalled.

John the Mad

Star Chamber procedings - Day two

Andrew Coyne has been brilliantly live blogging the abuse of human rights being foisted on the public by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in its consideration of a complaint brought by a Muslim radical against Canada's largest news magazine MacLean's.

I know, on the face of it, that the notion of a human right tribunal committing human rights abuses sounds fantastic and Orwellian, but if you know anything about these tribunals you will understand what I mean. If you don't, go look at Coyne's blogging. Just a few minutes doing that and you will find yourself weeping in frustration or gagging in horror ...... that is, if you have a conscience or a brain.

We must rekindle the spirit of William Lyon MacKenzie 1791-1861, journalist, member of the legislature, first mayor of Toronto, and leader of the rebellion of 1837 that opposed the Family Compact.

Shame on us all

Today, the British Columbia Human Rights Commission(BCHRC)began hearing a complaint by a Muslim extremist against Maclean's, Canada's largest news magazine. The hearing, if ultimately supported by a court of final jurisdiction, may well determine the fate of freedom of the press and its Siamese twin freedom of speech, in this demented Dominion. The complaint is against Maclean"s for having the temerity to publish an excerpt from Mark Steyn's bestselling book, America Alone.

That such a hearing is taking place at all is an utter disgrace in a constitutional democracy. The BCHRC commission uses processes that thwart centuries of established jurisprudence from Magna Carta onwards that is intended to protect citizens against the capricious and arbitrary exercise of untrammeled government power. Lest you think I exaggerate, let me pass on one of the guiding principles inherent in the operation of Canadian human rights Star Chambers.

Truth is not a defence before a Canadian human rights tribunal, including this provincial rights grotesquerie in B.C. If you love freedom, this singular truth should be sufficient for you to conclude that cherished ancient rights are under attack in Lotus Land O'er the Rockies. But if you, like me, reside in more elegant and sophisticated Upper Canada, do not gloat. No.No.No.

When the Ontario Human Rights commission heard the same complaint from the self-same complainant, Mr. Elmasry, the head of the Ontario Commission launched a scurrilous diatribe denouncing Maclean's and Mr. Steyn, even after admitting that the local Star Chamber lacked jurisdiction under Ontario statutes to even hear the case.

Why would a sworn servant of the Canadian Crown abuse her position of public trust in such a way, you ask? Because she can, that's why. Here is what the Commission has to say about the case.

For immediate publication

April 9, 2008

Toronto -

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has decided not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean’s magazine related to its publication of an article “The future belongs to Islam.” The complainants alleged that the content of the article and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The decision means that the complaints will not be referred to a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Denying a service because of race or creed can form the basis for a human rights complaint. However, the Ontario Human Rights Code does not give the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles through its complaint process.

Even though the Commission is not proceeding with these complaints, it still has a broader role in addressing the tension and conflict that such writings cause in the community and the impact that they have on the groups that are being singled out.

While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.

“Clearly more debate on this issue is required in Canada,” commented Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall. “That’s why we issued a statement today.”

So Commissioner Hall condemned Maclean's (and by extension, Mark Steyn) without any hearing on the grounds that the accused acted contrary to values expressed in "our human rights code." Some values! If, as Ms Hall asserts, the media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism (what obligation? - not a legal one), what can be written about a commissioner and commission established to protect human rights, who does such a thing. Those "enshrined values" apparently do not include giving Maclean's, or Steyn, a chance to defend themselves before the commission. No jurisdiction. No hearing. Just a verdict.

It seems the Ontario Human Rights Code has not enshrined principles of due process, prudence, fairness, or common decency.

But for those demented fellow Canucks who rise in applause over such abuse of power and lament the jurisdictional limitation of Ms Hall and her ilk, fear not. Your time is coming soon - as soon as the end of the month.

The New Mandate of the Ontario Human Rights Commission

When the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006 comes into effect on June 30, 2008, there will be a number of significant changes in the mandate of the Ontario Human Rights Commission [OHRC].

Under the new Act, the role of the OHRC Commisson in preventing discrimination and promoting and advancing human rights in Ontario will be strengthened. The OHRC will expand its work in promoting a culture of human rights in the province. We will have the power to conduct public inquiries, initiate our own applications (formerly called ‘complaints’), or intervene in proceedings at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). We will be able to engage in proactive measures such as public education, policy development, research and analysis.

The OHRC has also been given broad inquiry powers. The HRTO may refer matters in the public interest to the OHRC and may ask the Commission to conduct an inquiry. We will have the power to monitor the state of human rights and report directly to the people of Ontario. The OHRC may also apply to the HRTO to state a case to the Divisional Court where it feels the HRTO decision is not consistent with OHRC policies.

We will, however, no longer process human rights complaints under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Dealing with such complaints will be the job of the HRTO. A new body, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, will offer independent human rights-related legal and support services to individuals, ranging from advice and support to legal representation.

We will continue to be guided by the Human Rights Code in all our work. The overall spirit of the new law is that the OHRC is one part of a system for human rights alongside the HRTO and Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

In some ways, the new law enhances the OHRC’s independence. We will file our annual report directly to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, instead of through the Attorney General, as we currently do. We will have the power to monitor and report on anything related to the state of human rights in the Province of Ontario.

Our powers to review legislation and policies, for example will be very broad. The new law refers to our ability to consider whether legislation is inconsistent with the intent of the Code. We will have a role in dealing with “tension and conflict” and bringing people and communities together to help resolve differences. Our current role as a developer of public policy on human rights is made explicit in the new legislation, as is the way those policies can be used in issues that are before the Tribunal.

Yes dear reader, the Ontario Commission's mandate is about to get broader. It says it is getting a role in setting public policy on human rights - a role in dealing with "tension and conflict." What gives me great confidence in what is about to happen is best summed up the following testimony by a Canadian human rights commissar respecting that old British concept of freedom of speech. Let us hear now, via Mark Steyn in the National Review's online The Corner, from Mr. Dean Steacy, the principle "anti hate" investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He summed up under oath, in Warman vs Lemire (page 4793 of the transcript), the approach we are about to see in Ontario.

MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.

Think about that. Think hard. Then recall the final stanza of that famous World War I poem by Canadian Army Lieutenant-Colonel John McRae In Flander Fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Wherever he may be, old King John must be smirking. Magna Carta indeed!