After reading the entire 41-page judgment of the BC Human Rights Tribunal in the complaint of Tracey Smith and Deborah Chymyshyn against the Knights of Columbus, Bob Tarantino at Let It Bleed calls the decision "a freakin' travesty".
The three panelists furrowed their brows, quoted a whole bunch of irrelevant caselaw, contradicted themselves about a jillion times and then, when not even that mash-up could get them to the result they wanted, they just made it up.
. . .
Laughably (well, not really, but what else can you do?) the Court awarded $1,000 to each of the complainants "for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect" (para. 151). What's pathetic is that the panel is not able, even once, to identify the actions which lead to these supposed injuries. There is absolutely no enumeration of what the Knights actually did to injure the complainants.
. . .
In the end, the case turns on hurt feelings - the panel thinks the Knights were mean (according to some unknown standard), that there is some vague right to be free from mean people, and that this meanness magically translates into $1,000, plus reimbursement of the complainant's costs. Pathetic.
This bit is especially strange, I think.
Then there's all kinds of blather about a "constitutionally protected right to solemnize and to celebrate" a marriage (para. 125) and a constitutional right to be married (para. 107). Quite where this arises from is never explained. To make that a bit more clear: the fundamental right on which the panel bases its decision is never sourced, it's just picked out of thin air.
One would think that a quasi-judicial panel pontificating on the constitutional rights of Canadians would at least ensure that the rights they're talking about actually exist. As Bob says, they just made it up.
Read the whole thing. The text of the decision can be found here (document in pdf format).









Posts
