Professor Moon exposes right wing smears

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
Winnifred
Professor Moon exposes right wing smears

I have followed the debate regarding the Canadian Human Rights Commission for some time now. The verdict is still out in my mind as to the usefullness of human rights law in dealing effectively with hate speech. However I was terribly bothered by the allegations and accusations made by many right wing columnists such as Rex Murphy in the Globe and Mail and Mark Steyn in MacLeans as well as extreme right wing bloggers such as Ezra Levant against the CHRC.

Allow me to put my biases on the table, one of my very dear friends works in Ottawa for the CHRC and quite frankly the lies written about her and her team were disturbing. No one seemed to come to their defence and I knew she was imply not capable of the accusations being leveled at her.

Last night I was pointed to a blog authored by Warren Kinsella, http://www.warrenkinsella.com/comments.php?y=09&m=02&entry=entry090209-204116

and I could have cried for joy!! Please read it for yourself. Professor Moon deserves much credit for exposing these smears and I for one thank him heartily.

Ghislaine

I agree with you Winnifred, that there have been smears. However, that does not in any way diminish or take away from the real issue of the human rights commissions' assault on free speech.

It also shows that their efforts are counter-productive. What did it acheive other than garnering publicity for writers and ideas that should have been countered with argument, not the force of the State.

 In Steyn's testimony yesterday, he mentioned that he and Macleans were let off the hook in all three jurisdictions and that he thought it may have something to do with their "deep pockets". Others without wealth and who wrote far less objectionable things are targetted and have no right to legal representation.

 I am sure your friend has the best of intentions, but how does she feel about the fact that the accused have no right to legal representation regardless of their income situation?

Madwow

I'll wait for Richard Warman to get his comeuppance before I start to celebrate.

ohara

I happen to agree that Section 13 needs fixing not the least of which is the issue of legal representation. But let us not lose sight of what Winnifred's thread is about and that is the absolute lies being perpetrated about the CHRC staff. And it didn't end there. Levant and company lied about all kinds of things.

There use to be a blog specifically targeting Ezra's lies but I can't seem to find it. Perhaps there were so many that the blogger gave up. I will try to look for it, meanwhile leaving section 13 aside, we should all be pleased that Ezra got his comeuppance.

 

edited to add: Just found the story on the National Post site:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1271435

 

Michelle

Yeah, I also think there is no call for attacking individual staff members at the CHRC if that's what's happening.  It would be interesting to see examples of that.

Also, it's ridiculous to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  The CHRC is actually very, very useful and a good thing to have in our society.  They are the ones you go to when you have real issues of discrimination or human rights violations.  (I'm not talking "so-and-so said something in the news and that hurt my feelings," I'm talking "They asked me if I was planning to get pregnant and how old I was during my job interview" or "He sexually harassed me when I was trying to access government services" or whatever.)

I may not like the fact that people can get dragged before a tribunal over expressing unpopular opinions.  But a) the people who work there don't make the rules, they enforce them, and b) the people who work there have to investigate complaints and it doesn't mean they're going to find in favour of the complainant.  Working to change the stuff you don't like doesn't mean demonizing the whole institution and everyone who works there.

remind remind's picture

I agree Michelle, and thanks winnifred for bringing this topic up!

ohara

Michelle, you claim that people were "dragged before a tribunal over expressing unpopular opinions". I have gone over the Tribunal hearings online and these people before tribunals did much much more than express "unpopular opinion". Its replete with racists, Holocaust deniers, and the worst bigots imaginable. You do yourself and Babble a disservice by trying to diminish the real work of the CHRC.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Why does Michelle 'do babble a disservice' by voicing her personal opinion?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
I'm talking "They asked me if I was planning to get pregnant and how old I was during my job interview" or "He sexually harassed me when I was trying to access government services" or whatever.)

It's my understanding that that was the original mandate of the various HRCs:  to act as ombudspersons of a sort when a citizen believes that they've been discriminated against in terms of employment or housing.

How did they morph from that role, to a brand new role in which Barbara Hall, Commissioner of the OHRC, feels free to declare Mark Steyn's writing "Islamophobia" even as she concedes that it's not her jurisdiction to render such a judgement?

Clearly something happened somewhere in there.

I don't expect anyone to show sympathy for Steyn or his opinions, but surely it's clear that HRCs could benefit from a bit of clarity regarding their mandate? 

Quote:
I'll wait for Richard Warman to get his comeuppance before I start to celebrate.

The poor man has had his human rights violated dozens of times and you're picking on him??  He has practically no time for anything except bringing his oppressors to justice.  He doesn't need your sass.  :)

ohara

Catchfire wrote:
Why does Michelle 'do babble a disservice' by voicing her personal opinion?
Because she is the mod and her "opinion" is simply untrue  She should check her facts (easy enough to do) before presenting them as truth.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

The truth of the issue lays here: 

Quote:
In Steyn's testimony yesterday, he mentioned that he and Macleans were let off the hook in all three jurisdictions and that he thought it may have something to do with their "deep pockets". Others without wealth and who wrote far less objectionable things are targetted and have no right to legal representation.

It is both ironic and hypcocritical for Steyn to raise, but no doubt in a very self-serving way.

Those with deep pockets have resort to SLAPP suits, defamation suits, libel suits, and the mass media. Let's not forget Steyn's hateful tract appeared in a national magazine and the national right wing press defended his right to present views that parallel the international Jewish conspiracy like baying dogs over a fresh kill.

The truth is, in this country, if you don't have deep pockets you don't have free speech and the legal recourse that serves as a bludgeon for those like Steyn and his supporters is a private club to which you are not welcome. 

Madwow

Michelle can speak for herself but maybe she was talking about Macleans magazine, or some of the other frivilous complaints put forth to the HRC's.

johnpauljones

i would write what I really think of Steyn and Ezra and the great job done by Moon at Queen's Park but I am afraid that they will sue me.

ohara

Madwow wrote:
Michelle can speak for herself but maybe she was talking about Macleans magazine, or some of the other frivilous complaints put forth to the HRC's.
But MacLeans was not "dragged" through a Section 13 tribunal.

KenS

Mods are entitled to express their opinion, and do so all the time.

 

Ze

Of course they are. It's just that it's a mistake to say that Maclean's was "dragged before a tribunal over expressing unpopular opinions." I'm pretty sure they weren't dragged anywhere. 

Meanwhile, here's a great article by Pearl Eliadis on the lies told by Levant and Co:

 

Quote:
We should be afraid, but not of human rights commissions. We should fear being misled and lied to about the most basic aspects of Canadian law and human rights. We should fear how the establishment media acts when it feels threatened: letting its controversy entrepreneurs off the leash to bark up a storm and propagate falsehoods that do not even serve the media’s own interests. And we should fear the gay-bashers, neo-Nazis and religious fanatics who have been cheering in the wings throughout this farce. Poisonous blogs and vicious hate sites may not be apparent to the average newspaper reader, but many Canadians are unaware of how bad things have become on speech’s final frontier.

http://maisonneuve.org/index.php?&page_id=12&article_id=3198

 Our Ezra now denounces her by name on a regular basis, so she must be doing something right.  

Ghislaine

Check out [url=http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/585012] yesterday's Star [/url] for an additional example of how an accused is treated under the current system:

 

Quote:

Kindos owns Gator Ted’s Tap & Grill in Burlington. Four years ago, he asked a marijuana smoker to step away from his front door.

The medically licensed toker complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission of discrimination against a disabled person.

He won.

Kindos was about to pay the fine and post obligatory signs saying, “We accommodate medicinal marijuana smokers,” when a different government agency told him he could lose his liquor licence. Serving anybody possessing a controlled substance - prescribed or not - is against the law.

“Heads I win, tails you lose,” Kindos said yesterday of the government’s position. 

“People didn’t like the way I smell,” the smoker, Steve Gibson, acknowledged of one complaint against him from fellow patrons.

“But I don’t like a lot of smells either,” he said. “I can’t bare to stand near some chicks, they’ve got so much perfume on, let alone some ethnics that I don’t like the smell of that much.”

Gator Ted’s is a roadhouse-style bar cum family restaurant, which when the dispute began offered an indoor smoking section.

Gibson suffered a neck injury in a 1989 workplace accident, collects a disability pension and is one of nearly 3,000 people in Canada medically authorized to use marijuana to control pain.

His prescription covers 3.5 grams a day, or seven to eight joints.

When Kindos asked him not to light up inside, Gibson stood smack outside the front door where families pass in and out. Regular smokers stand there, too, he says.

“I don’t care if you’re eating a banana outside my front door - if you’re blocking my entrance I’m asking you to leave,” Kindos says.

After spending $40,000 in legal fees fighting the rights complaint - the government covered Gibson’s costs - Kindos announced last May he would settle.

But on seeing the offer 10 days later, he changed his mind.

He was ordered to pay Gibson $2,000 for pain and suffering, train the bar staff in the human rights code, educate the public about the code, and post signs in the restaurant and on his website saying he accommodates authorized marijuana users.

Discovering he could lose his licence proved the last straw.

 I wonder if anyone will make a complaint against Gibson for his remarks against "ethnics" and their "smells"? It would certainly be a nice taste of his own medicine.

Madwow

What scares me more other then the enablers like Pearl is this;

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=1095061

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies

In December 2008, the Commission refused to look at the case of imam Abou Hammad Sulaiman al-Hayiti. Al-Hayiti is a Montreal Salafist Muslim who was accused of inciting hatred against homosexuals, Western women and Jews in a book he published on the Internet. Al-Hayiti has written that Allah has taught that "If the Jews, Christians, and [Zoroastrians] refuse to answer the call of Islam, and will not pay the jizyah [tax], then it is obligatory for Muslims to fight them if they are able." Christianity, in particular, is denounced as a "religion of lies," which is responsible for the West's "perversity, corruption and adultery." Al-Hayiti book refers to "the incredible number of gays and lesbians (may Allah curse and destroy them in this life and the next) who sow disorder upon the Earth and who desire to increase their numbers."[21]

In declining to hear the case, the Commission stated that Al-Hayiti was free to make comments against "infidels" because they are not an identifiable group. Regarding Al-Hayiti statements against groups established as "identifiable," such as homosexuals and Jews, the commission simply stated that these "do not seem" to meet the criteria for promoting hatred.[21]

 

Perhaps some consistency to keep the underlings in real life satisfied is what is necessary, however, the likes of Ze prefer to shut up only what they consider as bigotry against "certain" people. 

By the way, does your Pearl not have a stake in making sure the hrc's look good being that she is a "human rights lawyer"?  It would sure be a shame if all that past money spent was proven to be a waste. 

remind remind's picture

I hate it when I wake up in the morning and read posts that make me think that I got the dark site popping up, instead of babble!

madwow IMV, your post is very close to being racist tripe.

And ghislaine, wtf? Taste of his own medicine????

Ghislaine

Yes - a taste of his own medicine. He cost a man $40,000 in legal fees by claiming the "right" to smoke in a doorway of a family restaurant.

Perhaps the laws have changed in Ont. since then, but in this province you need at least 15 feet of clearance from any doorways to smoke.

Madwow

remind wrote:

I hate it when I wake up in the morning and read posts that make me think that I got the dark site popping up, instead of babble!

madwow IMV, your post is very close to being racist tripe.

 

Since when is linking to news articles that show a discrepancy in how the hrc's do business "racist tripe"?  If I am wrong I will gladly remove the offending material from my post

 

ohara

Ze wrote:

opinions." I'm pretty sure they weren't dragged anywhere. 

Meanwhile, here's a great article by Pearl Eliadis on the lies told by Levant and Co:

 

Quote:
We should be afraid, but not of human rights commissions. We should fear being misled and lied to about the most basic aspects of Canadian law and human rights. We should fear how the establishment media acts when it feels threatened: letting its controversy entrepreneurs off the leash to bark up a storm and propagate falsehoods that do not even serve the media’s own interests. And we should fear the gay-bashers, neo-Nazis and religious fanatics who have been cheering in the wings throughout this farce. Poisonous blogs and vicious hate sites may not be apparent to the average newspaper reader, but many Canadians are unaware of how bad things have become on speech’s final frontier.

http://maisonneuve.org/index.php?&page_id=12&article_id=3198

 Our Ezra now denounces her by name on a regular basis, so she must be doing something right.  

 

And here is the blogger I found (though he seems to be awol of late...too bad) that made Levant's lies his personal objective

 http://chapelviews.blogspot.com/2008/08/ezra-levant-and-paul-fromm-together-at.html

http://chapelviews.blogspot.com/2008/08/bullies-will-always-be-bullies.html

Not sure that the links work but they can be cut and pasted I guess. Either way pretty damning stuff.

 

It's Me D

Ghislaine:

Given what Mr Gibson's medicine is, I'll have a taste too, if its on offer... Wink

As for Mr Kindos he just learned a leason in human decency, all he would have had to do to avoid all that expense and grief was just be a decent human being and not treat Mr Gibson like garbage because of his disability or the medicine used to treat it. Mr Gibson's personality or comments are not relevant, Mr Kindos' own action is what got him in trouble and IMO he deserved it.

Madwow

So D you would have no opposition to your children walking through someone else' marijuana smoke?

Ghislaine

It's Me D wrote:

Ghislaine:

Given what Mr Gibson's medicine is, I'll have a taste too, if its on offer... Wink

As for Mr Kindos he just learned a leason in human decency, all he would have had to do to avoid all that expense and grief was just be a decent human being and not treat Mr Gibson like garbage because of his disability or the medicine used to treat it. Mr Gibson's personality or comments are not relevant, Mr Kindos' own action is what got him in trouble and IMO he deserved it.

 

$40,000 is a pretty steep price for being rude to someone.

It's Me D

Madwow wrote:
So D you would have no opposition to your children walking through someone else' marijuana smoke?

I wouldn't, but thats beside the point, I don't expect others to share that point of view and I have no children of my own to be concerned about.

The point is that Mr Gibson should be held to the same standards as other patrons, regardless of what he is smoking. If Mr Gibson was smoking within the prohibited distance from the entrance of a business he and any others doing the same should be asked to move the required distance from the entrance. The tribunal obviously found that Mr Kindos had singled out Mr Gibson, contrary to Mr Kindos' portrayal of the situation. I only have the article to go on, while the tribunal had much more, so I'll defer to their judgement as to whether Mr Gibson was discriminated against in this case (it is their job afterall).

However my point was actually that Mr Gibson would not have lodged a human rights compaint (and it would not have been heard) if Mr Kindos had simply treated Mr Gibson the same as his other patrons rather than singling him out. That is the definition of discrimination. 

Ghislaine wrote:
$40,000 is a pretty steep price for being rude to someone.

Mr Kindos was "ordered to pay Gibson $2,000 for pain and suffering, train the bar staff in the human rights code, educate the public about the code, and post signs in the restaurant and on his website saying he accommodates authorized marijuana users" the $40,000 he spent to fight this decision was discretionary spending on his part.

Ghislaine

It's Me D wrote:

Mr Kindos was "ordered to pay Gibson $2,000 for pain and suffering, train the bar staff in the human rights code, educate the public about the code, and post signs in the restaurant and on his website saying he accommodates authorized marijuana users" the $40,000 he spent to fight this decision was discretionary spending on his part.

Did you miss the part I posted above, where Mr. Kindos was informed he would lose is liscence if he posted signs saying he accomadates marijuana users? He is in a lose-lose situation.  How would you react to this nonsense?

Our legal system is based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". This mean an accused person has a right to legal aid. Mr. Kindos did not, so to characterize his legal fees as "discretionary spending" is disingenous at best. Do you not believe in these principles?

Two great articles in support of free speech and getting rid of Section 13:

[url=http://www.eyeweekly.com/features/article/51938] Eye Weekly[/url] and [url=http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Take_hate_clause_out_of_human_rights_... Xtra [/url].

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

It's Me D wrote:

...the $40,000 he spent to fight this decision was discretionary spending on his part.

Ghislaine wrote:
 

...to characterize his legal fees as "discretionary spending" is disingenous at best.

No it's not.  Can't you see that it was entirely at his "discretion" whether he wanted to (A) lose his liquor license (and his business) or (B) spend $40,000 in attorneys' fees to defend himself?!?!   8-|

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Michelle

It's Me D wrote:

Mr Kindos was "ordered to pay Gibson $2,000 for pain and suffering, train the bar staff in the human rights code, educate the public about the code, and post signs in the restaurant and on his website saying he accommodates authorized marijuana users" the $40,000 he spent to fight this decision was discretionary spending on his part.

Ha!  That's hilarious.  It's "discretionary spending" to defend yourself when you're compelled by law to attend a tribunal that has the power to impose legal sanctions on you?

By the way, I have no problem with the CHRC being used for a case like this - this is clearly a question of human rights, and these are the sorts of questions that should be settled by the CHRC.  But it's kind of ridiculous to claim that defending yourself in court or in front of a tribunal is "discretionary spending".  Last I heard, people have the right to defend themselves when charged with something or being sued.

That said, even people who are charged in courts don't get legal aid unless they can prove that they can't afford a lawyer themselves.  So I have no problem with this guy having to foot his own legal bills.  I do, however, have a problem with the system if there isn't anything in place to provide legal aid to those who cannot afford legal representation.

As for the complainant getting "free" representation - that's a silly argument.  A parallel would be the criminal justice system.  It is not the victim who prosecutes the accused, it is the Crown.  In this case, it is not the complainant who is bringing the accused before the tribunal, it is the CHRC. 

It's Me D

In response to the last couple posts directed to me:

1) I didn't know the CHRC was responsibe for liquor liscensing now Ghislaine.

2) So Mr Kindos was obligated to pay $40,000 in this case to defend himself? People don't have the option to admit they're wrong and make amends rather than fighting the charge? If thats the case then yeah I was totally wrong in my post above but I'm shocked that Mr Kindos had no choice to simply accept that his actions towards Mr Gibson constituted discrimination and not spend the $40,000... Michelle is this really the case?

Ghislaine

It's Me D wrote:

In response to the last couple posts directed to me:

1) I didn't know the CHRC was responsibe for liquor liscensing now Ghislaine.

2) So Mr Kindos was obligated to pay $40,000 in this case to defend himself? People don't have the option to admit they're wrong and make amends rather than fighting the charge? If thats the case then yeah I was totally wrong in my post above but I'm shocked that Mr Kindos had no choice to simply accept that his actions towards Mr Gibson constituted discrimination and not spend the $40,000... Michelle is this really the case?

 

1) No. But the Ontario Alcohol and Gaming Commission does. They advised Mr. Kindos that if he followed the OHRC's order to post a sign advising he is welcoming to medical marijuana users he would be in violation of their policies and have his licquor liscence suspended.

2) So you do not believe in the concept innocent until proven guilty?

It's Me D

Ghislaine:

1) Then the OAGC should also be brought before the CHRC for discriminating against users of medical marijuana; that policy is bullshit. Mr Kindos could even help fight against that discriminatory policy rather then fighting to defend his own discriminatory conduct.

2) So that concept compels the accused to deny guilt in all circumstances? I'm no lawyer but aren't people allowed to plead guilty? I don't care what money Mr Kindos spent trying to justify his discrimination against Mr Gibson.

Now for a question to you: in your view was Mr Kindos guilty of discrimination? I haven't noticed you comment on this yet, despite your numerous comments on the subject.

Madwow

"Then the OAGC should also be brought before the CHRC for discriminating against users of medical marijuana; that policy is bullshit. Mr Kindos could even help fight against that discriminatory policy rather then fighting to defend his own discriminatory conduct." 

Is it legal to smoke medical marijuana anywhere in Ontario?

Why would anyone plead guilty if he feels he has done nothing wrong?

WHy should Kindos lead the charge against the OAGC, when I doubt he feels the policy is discriminatory? 

It's Me D

Madwow you've done a great job explaining why I have no sympathy whatsoever for this Kindos fellow.

Madwow

It's Me D wrote:
Madwow you've done a great job explaining why I have no sympathy whatsoever for this Kindos fellow.

Good answer to my above questions. If you thought that you were unjustly prosecuted for a crime,  would you not try to defend yourself, if you had the money?

It's Me D

madwow wrote:
If you thought that you were unjustly prosecuted for a crime,  would you not try to defend yourself, if you had the money?

Your question isn't very specific; if I was innocent and wrongly accused? or if I didn't consider what I did a crime but admitted to my actions?

Also while you're responding could you answer the question I put to Ghislaine above, because so far no one else in this discussion besides Michelle and myself has actually been willing to offer their own view on whether Mr Kindos was guilty of discrimination, for all the talk.

It's Me D wrote:
Now for a question to you: in your view was Mr Kindos guilty of discrimination? I haven't noticed you comment on this yet, despite your numerous comments on the subject.

It's Me D

I'm disgusted by your last comment and you didn't add anything worth responding to.

I'll say this for the CHRC, you're not learning anything about discrimination from its decisions, which is a pity. 

Madwow

I worded the last sentence poorly. However, would you not try to protect yourself or your business, if you thought you were being wrongfully prosecuted? 

Sineed

Okay, how about another example?

In a local park, a man came in and started spreading pills all over the picnic table.  The parents were keeping their distance, whispering among themselves.  Then I came along.  I walked over and observed that he had a couple of high blood pressure medications, some Diabeta (for diabetes), and some vitamins.  All legal medications.  So I told him it was not appropriate to have his pills at the park with children running all over, and he needed to pick up his medications and go.  And he did, without any fuss.

Did I violate his rights? 

Ghislaine

It's Me D wrote:

madwow wrote:
If you thought that you were unjustly prosecuted for a crime,  would you not try to defend yourself, if you had the money?

Your question isn't very specific; if I was innocent and wrongly accused? or if I didn't consider what I did a crime but admitted to my actions?

Also while you're responding could you answer the question I put to Ghislaine above, because so far no one else in this discussion besides Michelle and myself has actually been willing to offer their own view on whether Mr Kindos was guilty of discrimination, for all the talk.

It's Me D wrote:
Now for a question to you: in your view was Mr Kindos guilty of discrimination? I haven't noticed you comment on this yet, despite your numerous comments on the subject.

It's Me D - whether or not I think Mr Kindos is guilty of discrimination is irrelevant. The point I am making is that defendants of any accusation in Canada should have the right to due process, legal aid (if required as per their income) and be considered innocent until proven guilty. As to my personal opinion, I live in a province where smoking is illegal less than 15 ft from a doorway - something I support.  There a million health reasons why this makes sense. Please keep in mind that I not only support medical marijuana but complete legalization of this wonderful plant. However, It is not discrimination to regulate where smoking can be done. 

I do support the HRCs as a mechanism for settling discrimination cases, if the rights and protections mentioned above are provided to defendants. I don't support the speech provisions however. I think everything from Mein Kampf to the Bible should be available for Canadians to read and comment on. 

[url=http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_transcripts_d... Here [/url] are a few of the remarks Mark Steyn made to the Ontario Standing Committee:

 

Quote:
Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You spoke earlier about the drive-by verdict of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Could you inform us of other aspects of natural justice that were lacking in your experience before the Ontario Human Rights Commission?

Mr. Mark Steyn: Yes. There's a reason why-but let's start with the basic thing. For example, truth is no defence. No one was disputing the truth of what I wrote, nobody was arguing that it was libellous or seditious or false, for all of which there would be appropriate legal remedy. In essence, the plaintiffs were arguing that they'd been offended. Well, offensiveness is in the eye of the offended. I have no way of commenting on that one way or another. It's not possible in a legal sense to mount a defence to the accusation that you've offended somebody, which is why the human right not to be offended should not exist in free societies. That's the first and most basic thing that this system fails in.

 

 

 

 

It's Me D

Ghislaine: Thanks for that well-thought-out post and for restoring this thread to the level of a discussion. I appreciate you sharing some of your personal opinions, even if you don't consider them relevant; we appear to agree on most everything you stated.

Ghislaine wrote:
The point I am making is that defendants of any accusation in Canada should have the right to due process, legal aid (if required as per their income) and be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Do you feel Mr Kindos' rights were violated in this regard by the CHRC?

Regarding my discretionary comment above I'm not suggesting that Mr Kindos had no right to spend $40,000 defending his discriminatory conduct; all I said was that his defense and expenses in doing so were completely at his discretion. Do you disagree?

Ghislaine wrote:
As to my personal opinion, I live in a province where smoking is illegal less than 15 ft from a doorway - something I support.

I also support reasonable restrictions on where people can smoke any substance. However as I said above its my opinion that the CHRC weighed the conflicting testimony of Mr Gibson and Mr Kindos regarding whether Kindos' treatment of Gibson was discriminatory, when compared with his treatment of other patrons smoking another (more harmful) substance; I think they are qualified to make that determination and support their decision.

As for Mr Steyn's remarks I do not think that the "right not to be offended" has anything to do with this case. If you do, can you elaborate. 

Ze

Steyn: "In essence, the plaintiffs were arguing that they'd been offended."

So we know he has made no effort to understand what the complaint against him was. It sure wasn't "we were offended." 

Madwow

If I saw someone smoking a joint right in front of the doors of a resteraunt/bar I would not take my family into the establishment.

If the patron was breaking the law smoking his medicinal marijuana I have no problem with Kindos acting as he did.

So how about it, you gonna let "the man" trample all over you without a fight?