Some radical leftie intellectual wanted to become dean of law, but her bid failed due to accusations of plagiarism, so she blames racism and sexism for not getting the desired position. At first sight, this looks like a typical phony accusation of human rights abuse; a typical course of action of a radical leftie intellectual who cries discrimination when things don't go her way. But - look who is the one targeted by the "human rights" complaint. I bet we've heard that name already, didn't we?
A law professor is asking the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to force the University of Windsor to appoint her dean of law, after her candidacy was spoiled by accusations of plagiarism and, she claims, racism and sexism.
Emily Carasco, a one-time NDP candidate who teaches family and immigration law at the university, is also seeking payments for “injury to dignity” of $60,000 from the school, and $15,000 from her colleague who raised the accusation, hate-speech expert Richard Moon.
Yes, that's the Richard Moon,
one of the CHRC's most committed defenders.
What a nightmare for him. Even if he wins, he loses. Mind you, unlike me, I'm sure his (and his wife's) legal bills will be paid for by the university. Still, he's about to learn, first-hand, what a show trial is like from the inside.
Gentle reader, do not gloat. It might be tempting to smile at the fact that Moon, who has tried so hard to defend the legitimacy of human rights commissions, is now getting the kangaroo treatment himself, and at the hands of Barbara Hall, no less. But schadenfreude is unbecoming. Just because Moon believes politically correct hunter-killer bureaucrats should be sicced on you and me, doesn't mean we should descend to that level and cheer that they are now being sicced on him.
And, let us remember, that although Moon pocketed his $50,000 to write a brochure for the CHRC, and although he vigorously defends the CHRC's bullies, including Richard Warman, Moon also publicly recommended that the CHRC's censorship powers (also known as section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act) be repealed. So there is a little bit of gold in that heart of stone.
Hopefully, once he goes through the process, once he faces the Orwellian tribunal, where truth isn't the defense, where the standard rules of evidence don't apply and where the presumption is guilty until proven innocent, he too will realize that "human rights" commissions better be abolished and that complaints over discrimination and human rights abuse should be heard in the court of law.
Anyone who is aware of the full facts of the case would agree it's fairly obvious the claim against Richard Moon is completely spurious. She is upset she is not getting what she wants, so she is making up accusations that are not true (as she has been known to do in the past).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, she's asking for an outrageous remedy, to be made Dean, despite the fact that the majority of the law faculty members completely resent her at this point and I'm sure, have zero respect for her. It's hard to be Dean of a law school, when you don't have the cooperation of your faculty members.
Richard Moon, his wife and his kids, should not be going through this ordeal. These unfounded and ridiculous claims against Mr.Moon will have a significant impact on him and his family. I find that the title and main message of this article are deeply disturbing. Regardless, of what your views are on where the case should be heard.
Of course this case is ridiculous and of course the complainer's demands make no sense. That's obvious, because these so called "human rights" commissions were designed specifically for such ridiculous cases, so that any member of a special interest group whose feelings were hurt could claim "discrimination". So it's not surprising that the case against Richard Moon makes absolutely no sense.
ReplyDeleteBut... Didn't Richard Moon know what these commissions are all about when he vigorously defended the CHRC's bullies? I guess he did. He suggested that their censorship powers be removed (good for him,) but he still believed we need these ridiculous tribunals that adjudicate based on hurt feelings. Why? Did he believe that he's so politically correct that he'd never be targeted? Well, he'll have to learn from his own experience that one doesn't have to be a neo-nazi to be singled out in a phony "discrimination" complaint and that "human rights" commissions and tribunals actually have nothing to do with human rights.