Some stories just tell themselves…..
B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that the International Village Mall in Vancouver discriminated against aboriginal people.
Complainant Gladys Radek was awarded $15,000 in the tribunal’s decision Wednesday. Radek claimed she and other native people had been discriminated against by security guards at the mall, who continually barred them from entering the mall.
Human Rights Tribunal member Lindsay Lyster agreed. In her decision, she says the mall’s owner, Henderson Development, and Securigard, the mall’s former security company, “established a pattern of systemic discrimination.”
[…]
It was mall policy to deny access to people who had dirty clothing, open sores and wounds, red eyes, and who were acting intoxicated. Lyster ruled that the policy created practices that had an unfair and discriminatory effect on aboriginal people.
H/T Vancouver Housing Market Blog
update
Maxed Out Mama has read the ruling in full and has provided some damning quotes from the judge that may actually reinforce the CBC’s quote above – which I originally thought was just very poorly thought out wording. (Bonus – Ward Churchill makes an “anonymous” appearance in the comments!)
That is hillarious! It reminds me so much of living in Edmonton. You didn’t even need to add your own punchline. Thanks, Kate.
RG
Bingo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Bingo$$$$$$$$$$$$Slots$$$$$$$
Gambling industry probe urged
A new Law Commission of Canada report calls for a federal inquiry into the nation’s $13-billion gambling industry, while questioning the legality of Ontario’s casinos and on-line gambling operations on Native reserves in Quebec. (Globe & Mail)
primetimecrime.com
OK. So what does this mean for intoxicated rubby-dubs of other ethnic/racial backgrounds? Are they now allowed into the mall too?
Where, oh where is Goldhawk when you need him?
I can only imagine how the people who pay exorbitant rents to maintain businesses there must feel. Nothing screams improved sales and profits like open sores and smelly clothes…
The best ( and legitimate sound charter right) thing to do when the HRC quasi Judicial star chambers make these edicts/judgement ( outside the legitimate enforcement of court of queen’s bench law) is simply ignore them.
I refuse to recognize any judicial system which deny’s me my charter guaranteed legal rights. The HRC sispends the charter guarantee of fundamental justice with clever little devices like refusing to recognize rule of evidence, reverse onus, conviction without mens rea, suspension of trial by peers, suspension of rules of complaint, danage, inestigation or the right to face your accuser.
If they ever called me or my company to their marsupial courts, I would stand mute and rturn the summons marked, “not applicable to a sovereign Canadian citizen”. I would further ( and do) ignore their judgements as being ultra vires of the constitutional rule of law.
HRC: pee on ya! I answer to no private court nor take orders from any quasi judicial hacks….your commissioning document is illegitimate and your raison d’ etre is bogus and legal authority constitutionally fraudulent.
Uhh… have any of you actually read the decision, or just relying on what the newspaper article says?
There is much more to this than what’s being lead to believe.
First of all, the mall itself was not entirely private property – it was built on a public right of way, which the mall incorporated – but it appears security folk were not really aware of this “right of way” but treated it as private property.
I believe in private property rights, for sure. But, if I’m going to play with the devil himself, and make deals with governments, which include public right of ways.. then.. you get what you get.
Take it up with the CBC.
I’m sure you’ll have as much success as I have.
😉
Sorry Kate, but I’m not sure what you mean. Whether it’s the CBC or CTV, or any other media outlet, sometimes stories are not exactly correct.
In this case, the CBC does include a link to a PDF with the full decision, so it’s not difficult to obtain that and read it.
I think you’re missing the point. But that’s ok. Write your own post on the ruling! I chose to go with the cringeworthy CBC report. Readers are welcome to follow the links.
(BTW – I generally can’t open pdf’s).
BC Human Right’s Commission is joke anyway. They once awarded tens of thousands of bucks to some jerk who was working at Shopper’s Drug Mart and had to put up Christmas decorations, and since he wasn’t a Christian, he was offended. He took his complaint to the HRC, and won.
Speaking of which – the BC Human Rights Commission that is, did anyone pick up the news item on the complaint from the mother of the sole 13-year-old female hockey player on a minor league team in Lumby BC who was not allowed to use the ‘team’ dressing room at the same time as the �boys�. It transpires that some red-necked chauvinistic Neanderthal had suggested that maybe she either goes first, or alternatively, wait until the boys were finished changing and she could have the dressing room all to hereself.
But noooooooo Momma says she has every right to be in the room at the same time as the boys and she lodged a complaint with the erstwhile Sub-human Rights Commission. I understand that they adjourned the hearing in Lumby and moved to No 5 Orange so the little darlin� can audition to really strut her stuff.
There is no damned justice � how come none of this stuff happened when I was in minor league??? Gives totally new meaning to the old bump and grind in the corners huh?
WLM Redux again thinks as do I… the HRC has no power. I also believe one should ignore their rulings. The Libranos ignored Parliamentary votes that required them to hold a full public inquiry into the Air India bombing and ignored a nonconfidence vote, claiming it wasn’t such while the wording of the vote clarified it was.
In the past few years, I have been thinking, if it’s okay for the Libs to do something, then it must also be okay for everyone else, and if someone complains, ask them if they voted Liberal and if they did, then tell them to shut up as they already consented to that kind of behavior.