Saturday, February 27, 2010

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.


Mitka said...

Before you continue what may turn into a contempt against Mr. Best (the judicial system quasi or otherwise is very touchy about inferences of unfair judges, adjudicators. You wouldnt be the first one to find herself slapped with a cotempt proceeding)perhaps you can check his CV or creds and tell us if any of your allegations hold water.

scaramouche said...

I'm not "in contempt" of Mr. Best, who I'm sure is an attorney of the first rank. I'm contemptuous of the entire "human rights" racket, a system that jettisons due process, fair comment, presumption of innocence, balanced scales of justice and other vital elements of English common law and replaced them with--what?--some kind of Darkness at Noon joke of a judiciary. The entired system is contemptible, and rotten to the core.

Mitka said...

Nice try Scaramouche but let me play back for you your own words:

"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. "

So you are claiming that the adjudicator participated in a "joke of a trial" without compunction. Suggesting that Judges or legally appointed adjudicators took part in proscribed judicial proceedings that are a "joke" is to suggest that the Judge/adjudicator knowingly and willfully perverted justice. That is what contempt is made of Scaramouche...not that he reads your blog but you never know.

Blazingcatfur said...

Mitka the HRC's are a legal farce, to suggest otherwise is true perversion.

scaramouche said...

Mitka, Mitka, Ceej's troll,
Thinks that he (she's?) on a roll.
Why he posts here's not a mys'try--
"Rights" types on the wrong side of hist'ry.
Mitka, Mitka, Ceej's troll
Thinks that he is on a roll.

Mitka said...

Man oh man I feel like this thread is like being back in Kindergarten.

gama said...

Ah yes Lady justice the slut !
Fear not she is being fitted for a burka... talk about blind and ignorant justice.