Canadian "Human Rights" Cases a Matter of "Common Sense"? As If!

The Ceeb's Michael Enright considers the case of the chick who was denied a "businessman's cut" by a Muslim barber, along with several other "human rights" cases, and concludes--laughably and bafflingly--that determing the outcome of these complaints boils down to "common sense."

If only it were so.

Anyone who's been paying attention to the weird and wacky complaints that get adjudicated in/by Canada's plethora of "human rights" bodies (Ezra Levant and Kathy Shaidle each wrote a book about some of them, and Mark Steyn detailed his surreal encounter with the British Columbia branch of kangaroos in his book Lights Out) would know that "common sense" in those precincts is most uncommon indeed. Truth be told "common sense" is rarely even in the same room, and complaints are decided by faux-judges who make up the rules as they go along, and whose rulings are often redolent of the same sort of capriciousness and totalitarian "logic" one finds in the pages of Lewis Carroll and/or Franz Kafka and/or Milan Kundera's The Joke.

It's nice of the Ceeb to finally notice the fact that there's a "hierarchy" of rights in Canada--and completely in character of it to take up the cause/case of the Muslim barber who, for religious reasons, cannot and will not cut the tresses of women to whom he is not related. And if you don't think that's what Enright is doing in his radio essay, consider this: never once does he mention the fact that the woman who was denied service is a lesbian (even though one can infer it from her customary choice of cut), because to do so would boost her standing in the pecking order of victimhood.