The First Thing We Do, Let's Embarrass All the Lawyers

One of the most mind-boggling aspects of our "human rights" system, for me, anyway, is the fact that so many lawyers are so supportive of it. One would have thought that those who have been trained in Western jurisprudence--Lady Justice, blindfolded, holding balanced scales and all that--might look askance at our "parallel" system in which the woman has pulled off her eye covering, is sporting garish make up, and has a hard time walking because she's wearing high heels and her scales are hugely out of whack: Lady Justice as a slut. Doesn't participating in such a pathetic charade of justice make lawyers feel, well, kind of dirty? Appararently not, as testified to (pun intended) by this letter in the National Post. It was written by the attorney who represented the delicate blossom who claimed she was forced to endure "racial slurs" at her place of employment (which wasn't a genteel flower shop but a rough and tumble trucking firm). For her "pain and suffering," she was compensated by the Ontario 'roos to the tune of 25 thousand smackeroos:

Re: Employers Vs. HRCs, letter to the editor, Feb. 23.

Contrary to letter-writer Sheryl P. Lipton's assertion that, in human rights cases, "recognized legal tenets such as witnesses and documentation are unnecessary minutia," a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is a formal legal proceeding, in most respects no different than a trial in a court, and one that most certainly requires evidence.

In the case of Cheryl Khan (who was awarded $25,000 in compensation for enduring racial slurs in workplace) the hearing took place over five days, documentary evidence was presented and testimony was heard from 10 witnesses. In his 37-page decision, the vice-chair determined the employer's witnesses were "inconsistent, troublesome" and "attempting to hide aspects of [his] behaviour."

In contrast, the testimony of Ms. Khan and her witnesses was "clear and unproblematic."

Ms. Khan had to prove her case, and she did.

Bruce Best, counsel for Cheryl Khan, Toronto.

Of course the 'roos found her witnesses "clear and unproblematic". That's how the system is set up--to see the complainant (generally speaking, a member of one of Canada's designated "victim" groups) as being in the right and the defendent (more often than not a white guy, a small business owner) as being "troublesome" and in the wrong--especially if it reaches the 'roo stage, because had the defendant submitted to shakedown much earlier on, he would have obviated the need for a 'trial'.

Since Mr. Best doesn't seem to be the least bit abashed to have participated in this joke of a trial, this tawdry simulacrum of justice, please allow me to be embarrassed on his behalf.