The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is under attack. This time the hit didn’t come from its disgruntled victims, it was delivered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The court shredded into pieces a recent decision of the Tribunal, which would have left a hard working woman homeless. The HRT and HRC are usually called kangaroo courts, but after this case using that name would be an insult to all kangaroos in Australia.
There are three main characters in this tragic case, which was eventually brought to the attention of the upper court: the accuser Seema Saadi (a Bangladeshi Muslim), the accused Maxcine Telfer (a Black businesswoman), and the adjudicator Faisal Bhabha (Muslim). It is important to mention the race and religion of the participants, because they are at the bottom of that travesty of justice.
Ms. Telfer was running a service (financed by the government), which helped immigrant women to settle in Canada. She hired Ms. Saadi, who apparently was a devout Muslim. Six weeks later she let Ms. Saadi go for a cause. The latter filed a case with the tribunal citing discrimination on the base of race and religion, with main arguments based on the microwave policy and the dress code. She was reprimanded for using the microwave in the office to warm up foul smelling food (requirement that was applied to everyone). While she wore most of the time tasteful outfit compliant with her religion, one day she showed up in short skirt, strange anklet and leggings and even weirder hijab.
Since that was an organization promoting ways for immigrant women to fit into the Canadian society, Ms. Telfer disapproved of Saadi’s outfit.
Once the case reached the tribunal, the real fun began. As it is the custom, all of Saadi’s legal expenses were paid by the taxpayers. Telfer couldn’t afford a lawyer and had to represent herself. Just like most of us, she had very little knowledge of the legal procedures and the adjudicator Faisal Bhabha brilliantly took advantage of that. A key witness for Telfer couldn’t appear at the hearing because he had a family emergency, she tried to present a written testimony from him, but it was rejected. Bhabha never told her that she could get an adjournment of the case until the witness is available.
In the end of all that, she was found guilty and ordered to pay $36,000 to her accuser (great pay for 6 weeks of work). Since not many people have that much cash lying around, she was unable to come up with the money. At certain point the tribunal lost patience and tried to confiscate her house to cover the fine from the proceeds after it is sold.
Out of pure desperation, Telfer decided to appeal to a higher court, incurring even more legal expenses (over $10,000). The appeal was successful, the court reversed the tribunal’s decision and ordered Saadi to pay Telfer’s legal expenses. The tribunal said that they will make the payment for her.
It’s admirable that Maxcine Telfer was successful. If a white man was in her position, his house would’ve been sold long time ago letting him with the only option to reflect on his misfortune while waiting on the welfare line. And his accuser would be chilling out on a Bangladeshi beach (if sharia allows beaches).
The higher court decision provides a rare glimpse into what is going on within those sinister organizations called “Human Rights” commissions and tribunals. Probably not many reach the level of Telfer’s hopelessness that could motivate them to fight.
For those who care to learn from history, there is a striking similarity between the methods of those commissions and the medieval Inquisition. There is a book called The Malleus Maleficarum, which in the Middle Ages was the main manual on how to hunt and identify witches. It was written by two monks, apparently sexually deprived fellows with a taste for sadism.
One of the most “effective” methods to tell if a woman is a witch was to tie together her wrists and ankles (as it is shown in the contemporary picture below). Then the woman was thrown into a river. If she managed to come to the surface, she was definitely a witch and had to die at the stake. However, if she drowned, that was an evidence of her purity and innocence. Yes, it’s a tough lose-lose situation.
Do you see any difference between the poor “witch” and Maxcine Telfer? Telfer was tied and prevented from proving her case and eventually sentenced. In order to swim to the surface and get justice, she had to spend thousands of dollars. She was losing in both situations. (The HRC’s Malleum Maleficarum is the Abridged Policies and Guidelines of the OHRC, you can find them in the Annotated Ontario Human Rights Code by Adelyn L. Bowland. Once you read that text, you will understand why practically nobody has a chance of winning if accused).
Every new case of miscarriage of justice by the human rights commissions looks like the absolute bottom of immorality they can reach, but the next one proves that they can fall even deeper.
How in the world can you weave a microwave policy into a discrimination case? So you can force your co-workers to endure disgusting food’s smell under the pretence that it is part of your “cultural specifics”. If they dare to protest that, it will cost them $36,000.
It’s no wonder that so many people in Toronto never bother to wash their clothes from the curry stench. I had no idea that the right to stink was an unalienable part of the elitist Mr. Trudeau’s Charter.
The same applies to the religious outfit. There should be compromise between the employer and the employee with regard to that. Showing up dressed like a clown and filing a religious discrimination case when confronted is a simple extortion.
According to the news reports, when she heard about the upper court’s decision, Ms. Saadi said: “I am a little bit surprised and a little bit confused about how the justice system works”.
What really is confusing is how she will be able to sleep at night knowing that she looted $36,000 from a hard-working woman for 6 weeks of work and destroyed her life. Maybe I am old fashioned, but it seems to me that only a very immoral low-life human being can live with such a burden.
And what is the message that the tribunal sends in this case? You can get a job, behave for a month, then bring in some stinky food while wearing weird clothes. If they criticize you, sue for many thousands of dollars. Then lay back for few months and when you spend the money, rinse and repeat.
And what about the situation of those Muslim women who sincerely want to adapt? I am not sure how many employers (especially if they are white) would take the chance of hiring them. After such case, they will be viewed as ticking bombs, who at any moment can come up with some idiotic “religious” demands resulting in destruction of their business with the help of the HRC. By supporting vicious and unreasonable demands, the HRC closes the options for many people who sincerely want to work.
Apparently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is aware of that. In the harsh ruling against the case decision the judges used expressions as: “it is simply not possible to logically follow the pathway taken by the adjudicator”, “failed to apply… legal principles”, “unsupportable in law and fact”, “patently unreasonable”, “illogical”, “cannot be said to be rational or logical”, etc.
All these stern words apply to the decision made by the adjudicator of this case: Faisal Bhabha. He was appointed to that position because of his judicial education. He is a lawyer. Now, in the countries where the English common law is practiced, it is a self-evident requirement that the practitioner posses a minimum IQ that would help him or her evaluate impartially evidence, take into consideration the applicable case law and make a fair decision.
Faisal Bhabha failed miserably at each and every point of the process. Does that mean that he lacks the intellectual abilities to preside over the case? I don’t think so; he has been around for years with a successful career. He definitely is not a stupid guy.
There are deeper reasons for his behaviour. And here they are.
You may remember that in 2004 in Ontario a bunch of Muslim fanatics started a campaign to introduce sharia in the province. They didn’t do it directly, but tried to get in through the back door, initially as a form of marital arbitration. Such sharia family courts were established in England and slowly they expanded their jurisdiction, becoming more and more intrusive.
Sharia is a medieval system for total control of every aspect of the Islamic state and the lives of individuals in it, based on the teachings of the bloodthirsty warmonger who founded that religion. The women in sharia are treated like property; they cannot make any significant decisions without the consent of their male “guardian”. Death sentence can be handed down for anything, from blasphemy or converting to other religion, to adultery. Thieves have their hands chopped off.The courts always favour men over women and Muslims over kafirs.
In the two most notorious countries, which are completely under sharia rule, Saudi Arabia and Iran, there is total disregard for legal fairness. Non-Muslims are routinely tried and sentenced (even to death) without any legal representation or even translation of the proceedings into their language.
And the Muslim zealots wanted to introduce that monstrosity in Canada. They even got the support of Marion Boyd, the ex-Attorney General from Bob Rae’s NDP government. She stated that there is no problem to introduce sharia, if certain “safeguards” are in place. (What kind of a law is that, if people will need safeguards from it?)
Due to the apathy of most Canadians, the sharia would have been introduced in Ontario, if it weren’t for the fierce resistance of group of Muslim women who knew first-hand the horrors of that murderous “law”. Eventually, MacGuinty’s government had to back off.
While everybody was anticipating the “exciting” possibilities that sharia was going to bring to expanding the lawyers’ reach, an article appeared on Lawyersweekly (Canada), titled Interest in Islamic law creating opportunities for Muslim lawyers. It presented a rosy and a very deceptive picture of sharia, as just one of the many good and well thought out legal systems in the world, which we should consider in the name of multiculturalism.
Toward the end of the article, they interviewed Faisal Bhabha. Here is the complete text:
Faisal Bhabha of the newly formed Arab Canadian Lawyers Association says that if Sharia-based family arbitration gets the green light in Ontario, it could stimulate more interest in Islamic law. The Ontario government recently postponed the decision to change the province’s laws to allow voluntary faith-based arbitration for Muslims.
“If there are lawyers who have some familiarity with Ontario and Canadian laws, as well as Islamic law, there could be opportunities for them,” said Bhabha. “It depends on the extent that members of the community use this system of arbitration. We have no sense yet of how much this would actually be used.”
Bhabha said Muslims lawyers don’t necessarily have in-depth knowledge of the Sharia — and many aren’t keen to go through the gruelling process of getting an Islamic legal education as well as a law degree. He said the study of Muslim law requires fluency in Arabic, a language that many Canadian Muslims don’t speak. However, Bhabha said even if lawyers don’t become experts on the Sharia, having some knowledge of it can be useful.
“On an informal level, Islamic law is used already in Canada,” he said. “Islamic legal principles are used to devise marital agreements, prenuptial agreements and separation agreements. Those terms can be incorporated as long as both parties agree.”
So he thinks that there is no problem to introduce a hostile legal system in Canada, which you can’t figure out, if you don’t become fluent in Arabic. Maybe we should import some hand-chopping specialists from Saudi Arabia to make things easier? As of the remark that the arbitration would be voluntary, he just pretends he doesn’t know that a woman in a traditional Muslim family has close to none options for making personal decisions.
Why do I have the feeling that all those illogical twists in the Saadi vs. Telfer case fall neatly into place if you look at it from a sharia perspective?
Telfer committed blasphemy by rejecting Saadi’s attempt to assert her Muslim religion the way she wanted it. When the case went to the tribunal, any evidence provided by the non-Muslim was worthless against the word of the Muslim. In the end, the only option to solve the case was to force the non-Muslim to pay jizia of $36,000 to the non-Muslim.
The sharia “scholars” and “judges” in Saudi Arabia would have found this to be a very wise decision that strengthens Islam and puts the kafir in her place.
Of course, there is a possibility of a third option. Maybe Mr. Bhabha is not incompetent or sharia-compliant. Maybe he applied to the case some esoteric knowledge that is beyond the comprehension of the mere mortals and the esteemed judges from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
If that’s the case, we will highly appreciate it, if he makes his reasoning public.