What's that you say? You want to know what I think?
Funny you should ask. Because in addition to my previous somewhat-related comments ...
I think it's fascinating. The whole process.
- I think that it's rather telling that the complainants chose the Human Rights Commission as opposed to launching a court action for defamation or some other cause of action.
- I think that although Human Rights Commissions have a valuable role to play in Canadian society, this is most definitely not the proper forum to adjudicate this type of dispute.
thinkhope that, despite thatbecause of the above, the complaint will be dismissed.
- I think that should things go the "wrong way" for MacLeans, they will definitely fight it up the chain to the very top, which will be a very good thing.
- I think that the whole "kangaroo count where proper rules of evidence do not apply" argument has been done to death. No doubt by many who wouldn't recognize "proper rules of evidence" if they landed on their heads.
It's true that the BC Human Rights Tribunal, like many administrative tribunals, has been given the power to make their own rules of evidence. And although the ones set out here are admittedly sparse, the point is that, contrary to popular opinion, the Commission has not been given carte blanche to just "make things up" as they go. The entire procedure has to comply with the rules of natural justice.
In other words, a court has to find that the process was fair. So what, exactly, was their point?
Whichever way this case goes, it will most likely (unless decided on some obscure technical point) be very precedent setting in Canada.
- A good friend of mine has been know to say that "Common sense is the least common sense of all". I'm
hopingbetting that she will be proven wrong in this case.
- "PS - Not with a bang, but with a whimper" - don't count us out, Lex. It ain't over 'til it's over.