BCHRT Forces Visually Impaired To Wait Longer For Taxi's

Update -Done Like Dinner:

Damien I am hoist by my own petard I suspect. I will have to concede this matter to you.

I came across this little snippet in a pdf outlining The Settlement Process. Assuming,and I have no reason to doubt it, that this remains current policy then a settlement essentially absolves the BCHRT of responsibilty.


D. Enforcement of Agreements

The Tribunal does not approve or enforce settlements. (Ouch)

The parties to the settlement are responsible for the resolution of problems arising from the settlement or the settlement agreement. Section 30 of the Human rights Code addresses enforcement of settlement agreements.

This lets the BCHRT off the hook, and Damien (AKA Babbling Brooks) too, I stand corrected. Aw Crap. Honesty may pay, but it doesn't always feel good;)


Blazingcatfur and that lightweight Mark Steyn are right!

Babbling Brooks in his post "Steyn gets it wrong" suggests the BCHRT is not to blame but rather the litigants for reaching a settlement prior to the scheduled hearing, the implication being that the settlement was reached outside the auspices of BCHRT and was in fact a private agreement between the parties concerned, affecting no one beyond The Blind Individual, The Driver & The North Shore Cab Company. Wrong.

The BCHRT is actively involved in the settlement process. Settlements are a formal alternative dispute resolution mechanism offered to all parties by the BCHRT. Settlements are mediated by BCHRT members.

Settlement Meeting Options

The tribunal will offer settlement meetings for the purpose of assisting the parties to achieve resolution of all or part of the complaint, using any of the following approaches or any combination of them:

interest-based mediation, where the parties meet with a mediator to discuss their interests and objectives;

early evaluation or rights-based mediation, where a mediator reviews the facts with the parties, provides the parties with an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the complaint and advises the parties of an appropriate remedy that would be expected should the matter proceed to hearing and receive a positive determination;

structured negotiations, where the tribunal provides a meeting place for the parties and a mediator who may provide limited assistance to the parties to negotiate their own settlement;

final determination of the merits of all or part of the complaint by the member mediating the complaint, if settlement is not achieved and the parties consent.

Update: Settlements vs. Rulings

BC Ministry of the Attorney General 2004/2005 Annual Service Plan Report. Page 64.

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal is responsible for accepting, screening, mediating and adjudicating complaints under the Human Rights Code. The Tribunal provides parties the opportunity to resolve complaints through mediation. Complaints that are not resolved through mediation proceed to a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is accountable to the legislature through the Attorney General and functions independently of government on all matters related to adjudication of complaints. Orders of the Tribunal are enforceable in the British Columbia Supreme Court.
For more information on this organization, please go to: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/ *

What the Attorney Generals report suggests to me is that the only difference between a Settlement and a Ruling is that a Settlement is simply a complaint that was resolved without having to proceed to adjudication by the BCHRT.

I hold to the my position that the BCHRT are culpable in this matter that a Settlement and a Ruling are 2 sides to the same coin and that the BCHRT have effectively issued their stamp of approval to this settlement. The BCHRT would not, issue nor enforce a settlement they do not approve.



A BCHRT mediated Settlement like a BCHRT Ruling are both enforcable by Law:

Settlements are enforced by law:

Rule 23 - Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Section 30(1) of the Code provides that, if there has been a breach of the terms of a settlement agreement, a party to the settlement agreement may apply to the British Columbia Supreme Court to enforce the settlement agreement to the extent that the terms of the settlement agreement could have been ordered by the tribunal. Link Here.

The settlement is binding only to the North Shore Cab Company in this instance. Note however that the settlement affects more than just the 3 parties directly involved in the complaint. North Shore Cab was mandated to implement the guide dog exemption for Muslims and Allergic Cab Drivers as part of a policy to accomodate future blind riders, therefore this is not a "private" settlement as was argued by Brooks.

It's a tough call on whether this will constitute a viable precedent in future complaints but none the less a precedent has been set. My concern is that because a BCHRT mediated settlement is enforcable by law then it does constitute legal precedent. The settlement process itself seems an ideal extra-judicial means to slyly implement an agenda. What's to stop the next Muslim Cabbie at another Taxi Company from asking for the same exemption from transporting guide dogs? How could he be denied in light of this "settlement"? Holy Creeping Islamofication Batman!

What may have occurred is that the BCHRT realized it had a hot potato on its hands and wanted a way out. The settlement process clearly allowed the BCHRT to avoid a ruling that may have been applicable province wide and if implemented drawn a great deal more heat. In this instance I would say all parties involved, including the public at large, were ill served. This was a messy stupid decision that has created the proverbial slippery slope. Both common sense and decency dictate that a visually impaired individual with a guide dog never be denied transport under any circumstances. The BCHRT in it's perverse cowardice thinks otherwise, all the more reason to crush this bastion of PC Bullshit.

I stand by my original post and my condemnation of the BCHRT Kangaroo Court. Oh and stop pickin on that Mark Steyn guy too Brooks;)


The Star - Taxi firm pays blind man after refusing ride

VANCOUVER – "A North Vancouver taxi company has agreed to pay a blind Vancouver man $2,500 after one of its drivers refused to pick up the man because he was accompanied by his guide dog. "

Here comes the Kick in the Teeth- as you'd expect from the BCHRT or any of our Human Rights Kangaroo Courts

"It's against the law for cab drivers not to transport blind people with guide dogs, but a settlement agreement between Gilmour and the taxi company says an exception to that law would be a Muslim driver refusing to transport a dog because of religious beliefs.

But the policy says the driver has to call dispatch for the next available cab and stay with the blind person and guide dog until that cab arrives."


Update from Vancouver Sun: Behzad Saidy is the Cab driver in question.

He said that as a Muslim, he cannot associate with dogs because they are considered impure.

Saidy said he often walks disabled people to their door or helps them into cabs and, in Gilmour's case, he called the dispatcher to order another cab to collect him and Arden."I felt for [Gilmour]. I'm sorry for him but I'll never be sorry for what I did because I try to help people all the time," he said."I have lots of customers who are blind or disabled...but I can't be close to the dog.

"In my own company they say if you don't take the dog you're going to be fired. This is torture for me."Saidy said he agreed to the settlement because his religion was finally respected and he was exempt from picking up guide dogs. But, he adds, he's not optimistic that's going to happen. "I don't trust anymore," he said.


Cripes! Get another Job Mr. Saidy

It is evident that the F&CKING ASSHOLES OF THE BCHRT are not in the business of Human Rights but instead in the business of PC Thuggery. In their make-believe world wrong is right.

I suggest we all buy large dogs, teach em to drink, and inform Cab companies in advance that we are our pets "Sober Companions"

From the comments- best suggestion yet!

"Ok, maybe then just carry a flask of booze everywhere, or bacon on a chain round your neck. You know, kind of like garlic & vampires."

You may register your complaint with the BCHRT using the on line form here.

Upperdate: Mark Steyn on the BCHRT Cabbie Craziness H/T SDA

"Canada's ghastly human rights commissions are an an ersatz-judicial abomination to enforce PC bullying. In recent years, they've ordered a Catholic school in Alberta to employ a practising homosexual, fined a Christian printer in Toronto for refusing to print a gay activist group's publicity material, used their powers to support the suspension without pay of a evangelical Christian school teacher who had written to his local paper expressing concern over pro-gay education programs. In all case, the human rights commissions operated on the more or less consistent principle that "religious belief" was fine as long as you kept it furtive and walled up inside your private home but it did not have the right to impact on who you employed, what clients you accepted*, or even what views you expressed in the newspaper.
Apparently, it's different for Islam.


(*The Toronto printer even did as that Muslim taxi driver was supposed to do, and found an alternative printer for the gay group.)


Upperdate No. 2: Mark Peters raises interesting points in Hyper Accomodation

"With respect to the Muslim-friendly spaces, the important question is whether Muslims are going to accommodate kuffar using the facilities. Are blind persons with seeing-eye dogs going to be allowed into the washrooms now that Muslim spaces have been set up? I have a sneaky suspicion they aren't, much in the same way Muslim cab drivers refuse to pick up or drive those with dogs.

Are Muslims cool with a transgendered person washing him/herself in the ablution space? I really don't know. Perhaps they are, but what if they aren't?

This type of "unidirectional multiculturalism," as Mark Steyn calls it, is a setup for anti-Muslim "discrimination" suits, especially since defilement of a Muslim sacred space is assumed by default to be motivated by hatred and not convenience or utility."


MEA CULPA: BCF wrongly identified the CHRC as the culprit, it is in fact the BCHRT, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal - which is responsible. BCF wishes to thank the reader responsible for pointing this out.

Incognito  – (12:20 AM)  

Good.. too bad he didn't ask for more money! It's just getting more and more ridiculous. 10 years ago you would never hear of such a thing.

Anonymous –   – (5:16 AM)  

More info on this in the Vancouver Sun:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=16fb2403-8ff3-4f68-907a-01ce50e3bbf8&k=88664

Anonymous –   – (5:35 AM)  

Why not just have a policy of letting the cab co know when you call for a ride that you have a dog with you. That way they can send only infidel cabbies to come get you. Everybody's happy.
Then EVERYONE EVERYTIME they call for a cab let them know you have a dog (you know, invisible dog, stuffed toy dog) Great idea! Everybody start now!
Let them go back to driving cabs in Yemen!

Blazing Cat Fur  – (7:27 AM)  

Naughty Anon! That would be discriminatory against Muslims!

Anonymous –   – (7:49 AM)  

Ok, maybe then just carry a flask of booze everywhere, or bacon on a chain round your neck.

You know, kind of like garlic & vampires.

Pongo –   – (8:46 AM)  

One of my hunting buddies, I have mentioned this before, is a Pakistani Muslim. He rides in the van with me and my dog to our hunting grounds with no trouble at all. He just keeps the dog from licking his face. He wants a hunting dog of his own too. He would keep the dog in a kennel outside of his home, but this is pretty common.

There are varying degrees of orthodoxy in religions and each has its rules regarding the use of animals. Swine are raised in Israel and pork is consumed, despite protests from Orthodox Jews. Some Protestants, like the Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites still use draught horses for transportation, plowing, etc., in place of automobiles. In addition, they only keep animals that work for them, i.e., no pets.

Canadian society goes to great lengths to accommodate people of different cultures and religions, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. If dogs really bother you that much, maybe you should seek a line of work in which you are less likely to be confronted with them.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (8:49 AM)  

Well stated Pongo. This decision is in fact discriminatory and shows the perverse reasoning of the CHRC. This sort of non-sense makes the blood boil.

Seraphic Single  – (8:51 AM)  

What I wonder is, does this cab driver think that people who DO associate with dogs are impure?

Although I am sure I shouldn't care, when I pass a woman in niqab (not mere hijab because Catholic nuns, and indeed most Western women, covered their heads for two thousand years, and so do I when it's cold or too sunny), I wonder if she thinks that I am a complete tramp because I show my face.

I mean, it's one thing to chose not to drink alcohol and secretly despise those who do, but it's quite another thing to go on about "purity" which has very little to do with one's own choices. I look with interest to the day men of various religious persuasians ask Canadian women if they are menstuating so as make sure they are not made impure by associating with them.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (8:54 AM)  

Seraph you are correct, many Muslims do consider us impure- we are infidels.

Seraphic Single  – (8:56 AM)  

By the way, in Germany, where you can drink in the street and anywhere you like, it is illegal for anyone to go around with their face covered. Thus, as much as they might otherwise cover up, all women must show their faces. I thought that this was the law here, too; can anyone enlighten me?

If it is not the law, I would suggest a movement to make it into law. As some jewellery shops in Toronto have discovered, tolerance of niqab is DANGEROUS. There is nothing to stop bandits from disguising themselves as niqabis (or niqabis themselves becoming bandits).

Blazing Cat Fur  – (9:00 AM)  

Not Illegal that I am aware of Seraph. I recall Alberta Hutterites being allowed to forgoe the photo for their drivers licenses, also Quebec did pass legislation regarding voter identification and the veil as I recall. I agree with your movement idea.

RightGirl  – (9:11 AM)  

Oh for the love of Dog! I already learned this when trying to get Bug back and forth to the vet. He doesn't like Muslims any more than they like him, but try to get a cab if you have a 5lb dog tucked under your arm.

I now make it a policy to always tell the cab companies I am travelling with Bug, and they haven't sent me a Muzzie yet. Hurts them more than it hurts me - I'm a big tipper.

RG

Blazing Cat Fur  – (9:45 AM)  

That is really sad RG - how is bug since his you know?

RightGirl  – (10:08 AM)  

Hee hee. Much CALMER. And not very resentful.

RG

holdfast –   – (10:59 AM)  

Well, if you go around wearing a piece of bacon around your neck, you'll certainly attract a doggie hour guard.

Mark  – (11:05 AM)  

So can we refuse to take a cab that is driven by a Muslim now as well?

THAT I highly doubt.

Pongo –   – (12:34 PM)  

Prejudice on the basis of sex, ethnicity, skin colour, sexual orientation, etc., is generally condemned as immoral in Canada, as well it should be, but what some people forget is that it is not just white people who harbour prejudice. People of other races and ethnicity look down on those around them who are different too.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (12:39 PM)  

Agreed Pongo, unfortunately for the rest of us, the CHRC seems to possess the mindset of the left. Any minority immediately qualifies for exemptions/status, special treatment & rights etc not granted the "oppressive" majority.

John P. –   – (3:08 PM)  

The CHRC are a bunch of thugs, intent on skewing things in favour of anyone who isn't white or Judeo-Christian.

Totally agree.

K.Shaidle said it best on her blog a few days ago.

"Had I known that Rosa Park's butt-park would lead to all this nonsense, I'd have hopped down to Alabama myself and organised a fucking car-pool."

Or something to that effect.

Why was the Toronto printer punished for his beliefs whereas this retard gets a pass on his?

In fact, the disparity between these two judgements should itself be the object of a human rights complaint.

Perhaps we should sic the dogs on the CHRC.

John Palubiski.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (4:39 PM)  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blazing Cat Fur  – (5:00 PM)  

Agreed John these Kangaroo Courts should be put out of business.

Maureen  – (10:43 PM)  

This whole thing makes no sense. Arab princes and Bedouins and Egyptian Muslims have always kept salukis. Salukis, like Arabian horses, often sleep and eat in the tent with the humans. Nobody goes around calling salukis unclean. Afghan hounds, either.

Babbling Brooks  – (12:19 PM)  

Don't blame the BC Human Rights Commission over this. Blame the blind complainant, the taxi company, and the driver, who agreed to this settlement.

That's right: it was a settlement, not a ruling:

The tribunal was to hear Mr. Gilmour's case on Monday; however, a settlement was reached last week with Mr. Saidy and his taxi company. "The parties have agreed ? to resolve Mr. Gilmour's complaint by balancing the rights of persons with seeing-eye dogs to obtain taxi service with the rights of Muslims to follow their religion," the settlement reads.

The HRC's might well be messed up, as has been suggested. But this particular story doesn't prove it, because the B.C. Human Rights Commission didn't make a final ruling, as the case was settled before the tribunal could even hear it.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (2:44 PM)  

BB None the less, the settlement was approved by the tribunal. This has created a precedent which may come back to haunt us.

Babbling Brooks  – (3:33 PM)  

I wonder about those things, BCF. I wonder if the HRC exerted any pressure or had any influence on the settlement, and I wonder if it can be used as a precedent in future cases.

I suspect not, on either count, but I'm not a lawyer.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (9:59 PM)  

BB, as it turns the settlement is not a private agreement, it is a process mediated by the BCHRT, it's findings are enforcable by law and given that it affects more than the 3 named parties- specifically future riders, it cannot be considered a private settlement.

GenX at 40  – (9:07 AM)  

Though none of us were in the room, it is a private settlement in that the details of the deal are acceptable to the parties so the man who is blind must have thought the outcome fair and agreed to it. Without his agreement, no settlement so if anyone is "to blame" include him. As a result, and given the particular facts in which two grounds for discrimination are at play, not much general precedent to be taken practically speaking. These cases only illustrate that accommodations end up being made for practical purposes in each direction.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (10:02 AM)  

GenX, A ruling that effects others beyond beyond the 3 original litigants and is enforecable by law to include future blind riders is not "private" in any way shape or form.

Babbling Brooks  – (9:06 PM)  

BCF, I think you may be misunderstanding the "enforceable by law" aspect of this. The taxi company is bound to abide by the terms of the settlement. If they don't, the BCHRC can enforce that settlement by law.

But the company's customers aren't in any way bound by it. They're not party to the settlement, so the BCHRC wouldn't have anything to enforce with them.

Again, I'm trying to get a fix on this from lawyer friends, but I don't think anything in the settlement or the HRC's rules would prohibit another blind fellow from bringing another complaint if he wasn't happy with being refused service. Just because the complainant Gilmour was happy with the result doesn't mean he gets to decide whether every other blind customer in the city must be happy with it.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (12:59 AM)  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blazing Cat Fur  – (2:19 AM)  

Damian, as I see it another Blind guy with a guide dog could launch a complaint against North Shore if he felt North Shore was not living up to the terms of the settlement. But remember the settlement only applies to North Shore Cab at this time.

But look at this scenario:

1)Blind guy no. 2 calls North Shore.

2)North Shore sends a Muslim Cabbie.

3)Muslim Cabbie says sorry Sir I do not have to give you and your guide dog a ride but I will wait until an unclean infidel driver arrives to take you.

4) Blind guy No. 2 gets his ride per settlement policy but is still pissed off and wants to sue - somebody - anybody.

Question: Who does he sue? Who is liable?

1) Not the Muslim cabbie - he was abiding by the policy of his employer North Shore cab.

2) Not North Shore Cab - they provided an alternative ride for blind guy no. 2 and lived up to their obligation under the policy mandated by the BCHRT settlement.

3) Not the BCHRT - they throw his complaint back in his face with what else- precedent.

"The prior settlement determined that waiting for a 2nd cab was fair and that Muslims do not have to transport infidel guide dogs. We suspect you are a racist blind guy and we will prosecute you if you harass this nice Muslim again."

Okay forgive the dramatic license but the fact is the policy "coverage" extends to the general public beyond the 3 original litigants - so long as they are dealing with North Shore Cab.

Now if Blind guy no. 2 called a different cab company and was refused service- well a new complaint could be launched. You would have new litigants and maybe a new ruling or settlement, assuming the original North Shore case was not held up as precedent.

Babbling Brooks  – (9:33 AM)  

Damian, as I see it another Blind guy with a guide dog could launch a complaint against North Shore if he felt North Shore was not living up to the terms of the settlement.

That's where I think you're getting mixed up, BCF. Another blind guy with a guide-dog could launch a HRC complaint even if North Shore abided by the terms laid out in the Gilmour settlement. The rights of every other blind person in Vancouver haven't been circumscribed by this settlement - they can file a complaint if they feel they're being discriminated against, no matter what Gilmour and North Shore agreed to.

I've confirmed that with two different lawyers so far.

This isn't to say that the BCHRC might not like the "balance" struck in the settlement, and choose to adopt it in a future ruling in the event of a similar complaint, but we don't know that.

Which gets back to my original point: Steyn was wrong to point to this case as an example of how the HRC system is slanted towards Muslims, because the HRC made no decision in the matter. The only way we'll really know if they put religious rights over disabled rights is if another complaint is filed, and they rule on it.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (9:37 AM)  

"Which gets back to my original point: Steyn was wrong to point to this case as an example of how the HRC system is slanted towards Muslims, because the HRC made no decision in the matter."

That the BCHRT orchestrated this settlement under the aegis of its settlement process and will in fact enforce it suggests to me that they do in fact approve it.

Babbling Brooks  – (10:08 AM)  

So now you and Steyn were right all along because the BCHRC might apply the terms of this settlement to another future complaint, according to...you?

I thought you were honestly misunderstanding the situation, but I've explained it quite clearly now, and it's looking increasingly to me like you simply don't want to admit you're wrong, BCF.

If you want to beat on the Human Rights Commissions, there's plenty of legitimate ammunition out there without making cases like this into something they're not. It only weakens your argument when you try.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (10:14 AM)  

BB - are you suggesting that BCHRT are in the habit of orchestrating settlements they have no intention of enforcing?

That they issued a settlement they orchestrated and will enforce it amounts to approval.

You cannot argue otherwise, so no I do not believe I am wrong on this.

Babbling Brooks  – (11:22 AM)  

BCF, you're still off base on the enforcement issue. North Shore is the only cab company bound by the agreement. And not a single other blind person in Vancouver is bound by it.

The only thing the BCHRC can enforce is whether North Shore Taxi's Muslim drivers who refuse service to a blind person with a guide-dog are 1) calling the patron another cab that can accommodate the dog, and 2) waiting with the blind patron until the other cab arrives. That's the full limit of their enforcement abilities in this matter.

Look, if another blind patron is refused service by a Muslim driver, if that blind patron then files a complaint with the BCHRC, and if the BCHRC rules that a Muslim's religious rights trump a disabled person's right to non-discriminatory service, then I'll yell and scream along with you.

But that hasn't happened yet, no matter how much you want to read into this settlement.

You thought it was the CHRC, not the BCHRC, and you were wrong. You thought it was a decision by the HRC involved as opposed to a settlement, and you were wrong. You thought the settlement set a legal precedent, and you were wrong. You thought the settlement somehow restricted the rights of other blind patrons, and you were wrong - they're perfectly able to file their own discrimination complaint even if North Shore follows the terms of the Gilmour settlement.

The only point you have left to cling to in blaming this agreement on the BCHRC is that somehow they "orchestrated" the settlement. That's not discussed by any of the articles you've quoted. So unless you have some sort of special insight into the way that this negotiation took place, something more than just your own suspicions that says Gilmour was pressured into accepting a crappy settlement (because it's still a crappy settlement, even if you can't blame it on the BCHRC), I'd suggest you're wrong here too.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (11:37 AM)  

BB now you are just being silly.

1st you aregued it was a private settlement worked out "outside the auspices of the BCHRT. You were wrong.

Then you argued that the setllement impacted no one beyond the original 3 litigants. again you are wrong.

The settlement process is a formal procedure of BCHRT, mediated by the BCHRT and results are enforced under law. They would not issue settlements they have no intention of enforcing so give me a break.

The next Blind guys rights have already been circumscrobed by the terms of this settlement- he must launch a complaint in order to seek redress- don't you see that?

As for precedent, who says I am wrong? Seems someone is jumping to conclusions. I never argued it was a viable precedent only that it might be considered a viable precedent. A reasonable assumption and one I stand by as do you yourself.

I quote you:

"This isn't to say that the BCHRC might not like the "balance" struck in the settlement, and choose to adopt it in a future ruling in the event of a similar complaint, but we don't know that."

That bit bit about the CHRC error I made is just you being pissy c'mon you're better than that. Note that I have the courage of my convictions and will admit when I am wrong.

Babbling Brooks  – (12:17 PM)  

1st you aregued it was a private settlement worked out "outside the auspices of the BCHRT.

Show me where exactly I said that, BCF. That was your interpretation of what I said, nothing more.

The settlement agreement is between the parties involved in the complaint, and no more.

Then you argued that the setllement impacted no one beyond the original 3 litigants.

Again, where exactly did I say that? Quotes, please.

It may impact other blind patrons, in that they see differences in the way that North Shore Taxi treats them. What the agreement doesn't do is force them to be satisfied with that treatment.

The settlement process is a formal procedure of BCHRT, mediated by the BCHRT and results are enforced under law. They would not issue settlements they have no intention of enforcing so give me a break.

This is getting frustrating. The BCHRC didn't "issue" a settlement. The parties in the complaint agreed to a settlement. This is important.

Let's say you and Jim and I are all neighbours. Jim and I want to build a fence between our properties and yours, on either side of you. You say you don't want to pay for your portion of the fencing, even though there are laws that say you have to. Jim and I file against you in small claims court. Before there's a decision in your case with Jim, you and he agree to a settlement that you're not going to pay him half the money, you're going to pay him a quarter of the money for the fence. Jim agrees.

That has absolutely no effect on my suit against you for half the money for my portion of the fence, even though your settlement with Jim is "enforceable by law."

Same thing with the Gilmour complaint against North Shore Taxi. Just because Gilmour's OK with the new arrangement doesn't mean anyone else has to be.

The next Blind guys rights have already been circumscrobed by the terms of this settlement- he must launch a complaint in order to seek redress- don't you see that?

The next guy ALWAYS would have had to launch a complaint if he felt unfairly treated - regardless of this settlement.

Again, back to the fence dispute: just because Jim has filed a claim against you for not paying for the fence doesn't mean I don't have to file my own claim for my portion of it. His claim doesn't cover me.

Same with the blind folk in Vancouver: if any of them feels discriminated against in any given situation, they have to file a complaint in order to receive redress. Even if the BCHRC had made a decision in this case, stating that Muslim drivers absolutely had to transport guide-dogs, no exceptions, a blind passenger refused service because of his dog would have had to file a complaint with the BCHRC in order to receive redress.

As for precedent, who says I am wrong?

At least the two different lawyers I've corresponded with on the issue say you're wrong, that's who. All I was doing was speculating about whether the BCHRC might like the settlement enough to use it as a guide in a future ruling, since, like you, I have very little confidence in their ability to adjudicate with any sort of common sense. But my idle speculation doesn't make this case anything close to a legal precedent.

BCF: stop putting words into my mouth, and stop misrepresenting the realities of this case.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (12:28 PM)  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blazing Cat Fur  – (12:33 PM)  

BB, I have to leave this for now, I will answer your response later. And note I have not put words in your mouth, my contention is that the premise of your argument bears the implication that the settlement was done outside the auspices of the BCHRT and would impact no one beyond the origiginal 3 litigants.

From my post:

"Babbling Brooks in his post "Steyn gets it wrong" suggests the BCHRT is not to blame but rather the litigants for reaching a settlement prior to the scheduled hearing, the implication being that the settlement was reached outside the auspices of BCHRT and was in fact a private agreement between the parties concerned, affecting no one beyond The Blind Individual, The Driver & The North Shore Cab Company. Wrong."

Babbling Brooks  – (12:49 PM)  

And note I have not put words in your mouth, my contention is that the premise of your argument bears the implication that the settlement was done outside the auspices of the BCHRT and would impact no one beyond the origiginal 3 litigants.

You absolutely put words in my mouth! Read your 11:37 comment again:

1st you aregued it was a private settlement worked out "outside the auspices of the BCHRT. You were wrong.

Then you argued that the setllement impacted no one beyond the original 3 litigants. again you are wrong.


Nowhere in there does it say that you think my argument "implies" that; you say I argued it, and I didn't.

Don't try to weasel out of your own words, BCF. I never said the things you've asserted I said, and my argument doesn't rest upon your incorrect assumptions.

As far as the comment you made, then deleted, which said that I'm wrong and won't admit it, try reading the comment thread over at John Donovan's place, where I started arguing from Steyn's point of view, realized where I'd made my mistake, and corrected it with a clear admission of error.

I'm perfectly willing to let myself be convinced of another point of view, especially where it's obvious that I've misread the facts. After laying out those facts for you, I'm wondering if you can honestly say the same.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (1:24 PM)  

And I never said you said them Brooks, I simply pointed out that the premise of your argument rested on those assumptions but you are correct you did not utter those statements you are right. My wording did imply as much and I admit I was wrong.It was merely a means of point out your arguments assumptions. Please consider this my apology.

That said the fact remains the assumptions of your argument, as I have pointed out and proven repeatedly, are wrong.

I will state for the record, That I am right on this issue.

The settlement has circumscribed the rights of blind riders with guide dogs, they are forced to launch future complaints because of this settlement. The settlement was the the result of a formal BCHRT process which has the weight of law behind it's enforcement.

The settlement may represent a viable precedent for future cases.

Good day Sir.

Babbling Brooks  – (2:00 PM)  

Your thoughts on the premises underlying my argument are incorrect. So you've proven nothing in that regard.

Unless you can show that the BCHRC exerted pressure on Gilmour to accept a crappy settlement, your argument about the BCHRC "orchestrating" the agreement amounts to nothing. If it turns out he was pressured into signing off on the settlement, then you and I will both be condemning the BCHRC. Until then, you're speculating.

As I mentioned over in my own comments section, your point about having to file a complaint being restrictive in and of itself is ridiculous. If you think you've been discriminated against, you have to file a complaint in order to get any sort of redress.

Follow the bouncing ball, here: let's say that Gilmour had dropped his complaint entirely, instead of settling it before a ruling could be made. The next blind patron unhappy with his service by the taxi company would have had to...that's right, FILE A COMPLAINT!

Let's say the complete opposite had occurred, and that the BCHRC had ruled that taxi drivers absolutely had to transport dogs around in their cabs, religious objections be damned. If a cabbie refused to abide by that, the blind patron would have to...that's right, FILE A COMPLAINT!

In other words, this settlement changes nothing in terms of a blind patron's rights or responsibilities in enforcing those rights. You have to file a complaint if you've been discriminated against and you want someone to fix it, regardless of ANYTHING that has happened before.

As far as the question of whether this settlement has set a legal precedent is concerned, I'm disappointed by your obstinacy on a point where neither you nor I are expert. Unlike you, I've actually consulted with lawyers on this point so that I don't sound like an uninformed ass, and they've assured me that the settlement sets no legal precedent.

If you care to find a couple of lawyers willing to state that it does in fact set a legal precedent, I'll concede that the point remains in question. Until then, I'd say that my position is somewhat more credible, backed up by expert opinion as it is.

Babbling Brooks  – (6:02 PM)  

Btw, I just had a third lawyer agree with me by e-mail about the precedent-setting issue.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (1:43 PM)  

BB the premise of your argument was that this was a private settlement affecting no one beyond the original 3 litigants and the BCHRT should not be blamed. That is not the case. The settlement is a formal BCHRT alternative resolution to a ruling.

That the BCHRT issued this settlement means that they should be blamed for it, that it was mediated by them, under their settlement process, and that they will enforce it, means they approve it. As I stated earlier I do not believe the BCHRT are in the habit of issuing settlements they do not approve and have no intention of enforcing.

As for wider public impact.That a Blind man with a guide dog could be refused service and have to launch a human rights complaint in this day and age is ludicrous to begin with.

That this settlement entails that a Second Blind Man must launch a second suit to in fact regain the right of service without facing discrimination or delay on any grounds is more ludicrous still.

This settlement verges on condoning discrimination by allowing religious rights to trump the rights of the visually impaired, and that is beyond the pale.

BB, Gilmour himself has stated that the settlement has raised the bar for this type of case. (That's his opinion, seems a pyrhhic victory to me;)

As for precedent and not to discount the opinions of your lawyer buds, ( Who were they? Bob, Penny and?;) I would argue that what applies in the real world does not apply in the La La Land of Human Rights Commissions.

Here's a quote from a CHRC employee - "Freedom of Speech is an American concept so I don't give it much value" scary and otherworldly no? Human rights commisions are Quasi-Judicial authorities vested with a great deal of power.

As I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (2:56 PM)  

I would suggest that this calls into question the issue of precedent as well as any dispute over the leagl weight and or involvement of the BCHRT in the settlement.

BC Ministry of the Attorney General 2004/2005 Annual Service Plan Report. Page 64.


Link: http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Annual_Reports/2004_2005/ag/ag.pdf


British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal is responsible for accepting, screening, mediating and adjudicating complaints under the Human Rights Code. The Tribunal provides parties the opportunity to resolve complaints through mediation. Complaints that are not resolved through mediation proceed to a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is accountable to the legislature through the Attorney General and functions independently of government on all matters related to adjudication of complaints. Orders of the Tribunal are enforceable in the British Columbia Supreme Court.
For more information on this organization, please go to: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/ *

Babbling Brooks  – (10:59 AM)  

I appreciate your honesty, BCF.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (11:13 AM)  

Yea I appreciate my honesty too BB:) I was floored when I read that little snippet. Clearly the BCHRT has a great deal of power and very little accountabilty.

In my research I came across criticism of the tribunals.
When set up the intent was to expedite and make the process more accessible, goals which they have achieved.

However in the pre-tribunal days the BC Human Rights Commission would Cherry-Pick specific cases which they felt merited a ruling because they had a wider or provincial application. This happens less frequently now.

This case should have gone to a ruling, to my mind the BCHRT acted irresponsibly and counter to the greater good.

Post a Comment

  © Blogger template me by me 2010

Back to TOP