On a Balance of Probabilities, You're a Racist. Waitaminute....

The Toronto Police Service is doing the right thing - and not taking the latest profiling from the Human Rights Tribunal lying down. They are considering appealing to a real court. You know, one where inferences don't count. With the successful appeal of the RCMP in the Tarmourpour case, this should be a slam dunk.

You're a Racist, But Not Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

I'm sure you've heard about Mr. Ali Tarmourpour, the wannabe RCMP officer who flunked out of boot camp. Ali filed a Human Rights complaint he was only failed because he was Muslim and Iranian.

Predictably, the CHRT agreed. The Tribunals have an impeccable track record when it comes to condemning the police as racist. Evidence? Who needs that. The decision was based on two things that would be laughed out of a real court: statistics and feelings.

For statistics, the Tribunal used attrition rates for minority and non-minority (Caucasian) recruits, noting that the rate was almost twice for minorities. That's enough for the Tribunal to assume that Tarmourpour's dismissal was caused by racism. Imagine. A police officer stops you, accuses you of speeding (when you weren't), and simply states that you're guilty since men speed more than women. Amusing stuff.

For feelings, Tarmourpour alleges that he was yelled at and called names, but not necessarily racist ones. At boot camp. Tragic stuff. In one instance, Tarmourpour insisted that his jewelry was religious and he must wear it in contravention to policy. Sergeant Hebert agreed to the exemption, and informed the fellow recruits, in case they wonder why one of them was wearing jewelry against the rules. Apparently, Tarmourpour felt that this was discriminatory, and that was enough for the Tribunal.

Tarmourpour was awarded a six-figure salary and forced the RCMP to re-admit him. Luckily, the RCMP appealed to a real court to stop this insanity. Here's what the Federal court decided (emphasis mine):

The Tribunal erred in applying the wrong test for direct discrimination in making a finding of direct discrimination by Sergeant Hébert

The Tribunal erred in law in relying upon statistical data contained in the report of the respondent’s expert which merely repeated the data contained in the report of the applicant that was not in evidence;

The Tribunal erred in concluding without evidence and only on the basis of speculation, that Mr. Tahmourpour’s performance was affected by the discriminatory treatment he received at Depot; and

The Tribunal erred in awarding lost wages to the date of reinstatement in a training program having engaged in no analysis as to whether that period could reasonably extend to that date.

Most of the decisions of the Human Rights Tribunals are based on admitted circumstantial evidence that routinely strays into the realm of speculation. Take two recent decisions against Ontario police officers, for instance. I would hope that this decision could be cited as precedent for an appeal of both of those.

But I'm not holding my breath.

In the meantime, the Human Rights assault on our police forces continues.

Writing the Textbook on Libel Chill

We all know that the largest threat to our freedom of speech is the Human Rights apparatchiks at the federal and provincial levels. So far, they have only received the mandate to silence those who offer politically-incorrect opinions.

Another threat to freedom of speech comes through the laws governing libel. Libel laws are intended to seek damages for malicious harm to a person's reputation by slanderous and untrue statements. But, the mechanisms of our justice system can be turned to the benefit of someone who wants to shut down a debate. It's called Libel Chill. Here's how it works:

Party A says something true about Party B that B doesn't like.
B is either a lawyer or has a dozen of them on speed-dial. B issues A with a libel notice or threatens one.
A needs to retain counsel (costs money) and spend time and energy gathering the sources that prove his statement true (costs time and effort). Even if A successfully defends the libel suit and is awarded costs, the award likely does not cover all the costs incurred and doesn't compensate for hundreds of hours of lost time.
In order to avoid all of this, typically A issues an apology and retraction, and B withdraws the complaint. Speech, even if it's true, is successfuly suppressed.
Everyone else sees what happened to A, and is hesitant to report anything about B lest they be served with the same headache.

I need not go into specifics of who A and B might be. All you need to know is why we need to encourage and support the A's out there, and have the courage to write about the B's whe we have our facts straight and properly sourced.

On a completely unrelated note, here's a roundup of a few interesting items in the blogosphere:

A teenager, writing for a local newspaper on Vancouver Island, is threatened with a lawsuit by an Ottawa lawyer who used to be an employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

A Conservative operative and blogger was sued by an Ottawa lawyer who used to work for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Several other right-wing bloggers, including Small Dead Animals and Five Feet of Fury, are being sued by an Ottawa lawyer who used to work for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

A white-supremacist was sued by an Ottawa lawyer who used to work for the Canadian Human Rights Commission for describing him as an "enemy of free speech", and that he "uses scare tactics to censor free speech".

Always Trust the Science

Because Science is apolitical, right?

Though it hasn't yet been fully authenticated, there appears to be a monumental leak of correspondence and data from the world's leading climate researchers that give a good indication to the ethics behind the research fueling global warming alarmism.

The leak was first reported on The Air Vent. Take a look for yourself, but this one caught my eye. It's allegedly from Michael Mann, the author of the fabled (and discredited) hockey stick graph that is still used by the IPCC.

Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

Once again, I'd like to stress that this has not been authenticated yet.

h/t SDA
More at Moose and Squirrel, WUWT, Jay Currie

UPDATE: Here's Glenn Beck on the e-mails:

On a Balance of Probabilities, You're a Racist. Again.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal already revealed that it considers Ontario police officers guilty of racism unless proven innocent. Constable Shaw was castigated by the Tribunal for 1) being white, 2) being physically well-built, 3) doing his job, and 4) possessing unconscious unapproved thoughts.

A second case has now been decided by the OHRT with much the same verdict. The decision is here. Sharon Abbott, who is black, was delivering newspapers in an affluent Toronto neighbourhood, and, according to the Star (accompanied by a completely unbiased photo of Abbott crying):

She was followed by a Toronto police sergeant who acted aggressively toward her, pinned her to a police car, handcuffed her and held her for 45 minutes before issuing seven tickets and releasing her.

Well, let’s examine the facts of the case from the OHRT’s own decision. Note that these are the facts from the officer’s testimony, which I would consider less motivated to lie than a civilian looking for a fat wad of cash and some humiliation for a cop who dared to question her:

1) The time was 3:30 AM, at which residential crime is at its peak.
2) Abbott was parked in a no-parking zone with her 4-ways on.
3) The mandatory licence-plate light on Abbott’s car was not working.
4) Abbott got into her car, did not put on her seatbelt, and proceeded to turn left with no signal. She was not wearing her glasses as mandated on her licence.
5) Ruffino pulled up alongside Abbott’s car and rolled down the window to talk with her. Abbott took off, nearly hitting the patrol car.
6) Abbott proceeded for a distance, then pulled onto the sidewalk while holding the driver’s side door open.
7) After Abbott delivered a few more papers and returned to her car, Ruffino rolled down his window and asked Abbott to approach the patrol car so he could speak with her. She refused.
8) Ruffino got out of the car and approached Abbott, and asked for her drivers’ licence and registration three times. Failing to get a response, he asked her name three times and still received no answer. Abbott was busy dialing numbers into her cell phone.
9) Ruffino cautioned Abbott that he could arrest her if she failed to identify herself. Still no response from Abbott.
10) Ruffino proceeded to arrest Abbott, who resisted. A struggle ensued.
11) After Ruffino had subdued and handcuffed Abbott, he neglected to advise her of her right to counsel, for which he was later reprimanded.
12) Abbott complained of a medical condition. Ruffino offered to call an ambulance, which Abbott declined.
13) Ruffino offered to remove the handcuffs while he wrote several tickets. Abbott responded by saying she hadn’t done anything wrong. Ruffino did not remove the handcuffs and did not ask again.
14) After the incident, Abbott lodged a complaint. The police investigated, and only found that Ruffino had erred in not advising her of her right to counsel.

So why is this before a Human Rights Tribunal? Abbott alleges that the treatment was because of her “race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex.” Quite the grab bag of victim groups, all of which I’m sure Ruffino catalogued as he devised his malicious plan to rough up a completely innocent person for kicks.

As also used in the Shaw decision, the OHRT quoted from Radek vs Henderson Development in laying down the virtually unlimited scope of racial discrimination:

a) The prohibited ground or grounds of discrimination need not be the sole or the major factor leading to the discriminatory conduct; it is sufficient if they are a factor;
b) There is no need to establish an intention or motivation to discriminate; the focus of the enquiry is on the effect of the respondent's actions on the complainant;
c) The prohibited ground or grounds need not be the cause of the respondent's discriminatory conduct; it is sufficient if they are a factor or operative element;
d) There need be no direct evidence of discrimination; discrimination will more often be proven by circumstantial evidence and inference; and
e) Racial stereotyping will usually be the result of subtle unconscious beliefs, biases and prejudices.

The Tribunal immediately admits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence, but let’s not have that get in the way of the shakedown. Next, the police officer’s testimony is assumed to be inferior to Abbott’s, on the basis that she was more familiar with the area - a newspaper delivery person apparently knows the area better than a police officer who pounds the beat. The Tribunal did not make the assumption that, during an altercation, a police officer is recruited, trained, and experienced in remaining calm and composed under stressful situations; the complainant, meanwhile, admitted that she feared she was being raped, and therefore heightened emotions may interfere with the ability produce reliable testimony for an event occurring under that kind of stress.

The Tribunal found, in the end, that Ruffino had been too hasty in arresting Abbott. If this finding was made by a police review board or dedicated police complaint commission, I would be less skeptical. However, since it is made by a Human Rights body that has every motivation to justify their own existence, I find this conclusion completely suspect.

The leap of logic then needs to be bridged between the hasty arrest and the applicant’s race (and the other grab-bag of victim designations). The Tribunal took great pains in making it clear that Ruffino did not deliberately discriminate. But here’s the kicker:

I find that Sergeant Ruffino’s actions in this regard are consistent with a manifestation of racism whereby a White person in a position of authority has an expectation of docility and compliance from a racialized person, and imposes harsh consequences if that docility and compliance is not provided

I would think that a police officer, white or black, can rightly expect docility and compliance from anyone when required. They should have every right to mete out harsh consequences if that compliance is not provided. Resisting officers of the peace is dangerous to everyone, and a government body would be irresponsible to say the least if it alleges that “docility and compliance” to a peace officers’ reasonable demands should not be a duty of every citizen.

The Tribunal is projecting its opinions of the “manifestations of racism” onto the actions of police officers, resulting in fines and professional humiliation. Those of us whose brains have not turned into multicultural mush can see as plain as day that a Tribunal, endowed with the force of the state and claiming to be the arbiter of our conscious and unconscious thoughts, is no better than an Iranian theocracy.

Utterly Shameless Self-Promotion

Vote Now! The Infidel Blogger Awards are open for voting for a couple days! And, ahem, when you get to the Unsung Infidel Blogger People's Choice Award category, you know what to do!

Public-Sector Unions are Experts at Inverting Reality

The BC ambulance strike has been going on for some time now. As befits the well-known reputation of CUPE and other public-sector unions, their concept of reality is one that can be inverted at will. It is to be expected that in any conflict in which the public support is a powerful ally, the truth will be stretched and facts will be spun by both sides. But public sector unions take the cake in disingenuous propaganda.

Teachers go on strike “for the kids”, costing students a good chunk of their school year. Health workers force patients to suffer inordinate wait times and deferred surgeries in order to “fight for patients.” Garbage workers deny service in order to “improve service”.

The paramedics are no different. The main sticking point is wages, but they nevertheless portray this as “saving the ambulance service”. Recently, the BC provincial government imposed a legislated contract to prevent the union from further disrupting Olympic emergency drills and continuing to restrict their services during heightened demand due to the H1N1 outbreak.

The president of CUPE, Barry O’Neill, then attempted to hijack November 11 in a stunning display of inverted reality:

I spent November 11 recognizing people that defended our ability to do exactly what we are doing, defending our rights. It would be a little hypocritical in my point of view for [the province] to honor them for what they did and shortly thereafter impose something that they fought [against] and died for, and us not react.

November 11 recognizes those who fought fascism and tyranny. Considering that tyranny occurs whenever a small group imposes rule over the people for their own gain, it’s not hard to spot the tyrant here. O’Neill continues:

Our fight is not with the public, it is with the government.

Though he may or may not like democracy, the government are the representatives of the people. To blackmail the government in this manner is no different than stopping all of us on the highway with shotguns and balaclavas, relieving us of what they deem to be their “right.”