Tag Archives: B.C. Human Rights Tribunal

Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson Launches A Human Rights Complaint for Discrimination by Fountain Diner Because He Was Not Masked

Posted on by

Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson Launches A Human Rights Complaint for Discrimination by Fountain Diner Because He Was Not Masked

is the opening skirmish in my campaign to have one aspect of the KronaMadness scrutinized in a court of law. Starting with a tiny, apparently in-significant incident.  My technique, is = bundle-up your complaint so someone who knows nothing about it can grasp it, then put it in front of someone who can do something about it.

I am no fan of the BC Human Rights Commission. Yet it is a proper starting-point up the ladder of Court … getting a ruling on the legitimacy of Commissar Farnsworth’s  “mandate” for  muzzling British Columbians = particularly, the exemption which is expressly set out in his Ministerial Order. 

Gordon S Watson
Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians
……………………

December 1st  2020

 British Columbia Human Rights Commission

This is my complaint that on November 30th 2020  employees of the Fountain Diner restaurant in Langford British Columbia unreasonably denied me a service normally available to the public,   contrary to the BC Human Rights Code.          

01             since about June 2020, I have been paying attention to the issue of the imposition of regulations under the Emergency Program Act  and also  Public Health Act . In August 2020,
I received from the office of the Ombudsman a copy of his report   “Extraordinary Times Extraordinary Measures”.  That report is available at the URL on the internet website URL

https://bcombudsperson.ca/investigative_report/extraordinary-times-extraordinary-measures/

Over-simplified, the opinion of lawyer Jay Chalke, is :  the administration which had been in power prior to the election of 2020,  exceeded its authority, so that powers it presumed to enshrine in law, are un-constitutional ab initio.  UN-learned in the law as I am, I say that >
Orders predicated in those Acts, made consequent to illegal amendments to them, are each invalid.     Particularly:  the diktat of Commissar Farnsworth re compulsory wearing of face coverings = Ministerial Order M425 made November 24 2020 =   is of no force nor effect.
A copy of that order is enclosed as Item  ONE  of Materials to be relied-upon
 
02             in the fall of 2020, I began requesting copies of the Orders made by Chief Medical Health Officer Henry as they were advertised in the newsmedia.  Each time I called the main office of the Ministry of Health, asking for a hard copy of the most recent Order, I was told “it’s not available”. Then about a week later, it would be posted on the internet.  Point being : in the meantime, lacking proper NOTICE, the Chief Medical Health Officer had not complied with that Act ergo her Order was not in effect in that timeframe

03             After studying this topic for the last few months, my position today is =  the Covid 19 phenomenon is a HOAX of the first order.  It is the worst medical mistake in modern history.  Included as Item TWO and integral to this my complaint, is the transcript of remarks made by Dr Roger Hodkins buttressing my opinion.  Also : Item THREE of Materials to be relied upon is the article by the past president of the Ontario Medical Association Mask Laws Necessary or Nonsense? 

04            Item FOUR of Materials to be relied upon, is, a batch of pertinent pages from the Kaplan Report. It is crucial that the Human Rights Commission know and take in to consideration, that in her official capacity as a health officer in British Columbia Bonnie Henry md gave evidence to the Kaplan Commission re the efficacy of wearing masks to prevent transmission of contagious disease in hospital settings.  I have good reason to believe and I verily do believe, that in the labor arbitration carried on between the BC Nurses Union and the Health Sciences Association re the issue of whether or not nurses were compelled to wear masks in hospital settings   Bonnie Henry in her capacity as Chief Medical Health Officer for British Columbia signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which she acknowledged that the wearing of masks was irrelvant to transmission of contagious disease, particularly, the influenza virus. The labor arbitration was settled behind closed doors, in December 2019.   That Memorandum is now improperly hidden from the public.    It is crucial for the purpose of this my complaint against the Fountain Diner that the Human Rights Commission compel Dr Henry to produce that Memorandum of Understanding – or whatever that document is titled – as evidence in this my complaint. 

05            Also  Item FIVE of the Materials to be relied upon, the interview COVID-19: Americans are in ‘delusional psychosis’.    It is crucial that the Human Rights Tribunal appreciate that section 103 of the Public Health Act  RSBC provides for a categorical defence to a prosecution under it, if the accused had a sincere belief as to the veracity a certain set of facts.    

06            On or about September 2020,  in my investigation of the Corona Madness,  I came upon the letter of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority,  informing Translink as to the legality of compulsion to wear the face muzzle. A copy of that letter is Item SIX of the Materials to be relied-upon.     When I learned about the exemption card offered by Translink,  I immediately published that image around the internet, and handed it to people whom I encountered in what we used to call “the real world”, recommending that they get it and use.  Dozens of people went to the Translink offices and got the card, for free, or printed it out from my email message. Feedback I got from them tells me that Translink drivers do acknowledge that that card is valid for the sake of exempting the bearer from wearing a muzzle. It is important that the Human Rights Commission appreciate that that policy was in effect on November 30th 2020, the day I was denied entry to Fountain Diner.   Around that same time, I came upon the image of a card which declares that the person using it is exempt from compulsion to wear a “mask”.  A photocopy of the front and back of that card is Item  SEVEN  of the Materials to be relied upon.     Ironically, when I came back home to compose this complaint, I saw a bus go by in which the driver was NOT wearing a muzzle.   Shocking, eh? !

07              For context, it is worth noting the following anecdotes.  On Monday November 23rd 2020 I was in Vancouver at work in the STAPLES store on Seymour street downtown. The manager of the store came about 20 feet from me and politely said “sir you have to have a mask on”.  I said to him “I’ve got the exemption card”. He was happy with that and left.  He did not ask to see the card itself.  Shortly thereafter, I attended the Registry of the Lawcourts building at 800 Smithe Street.  At the entrance, I was challenged by a deputy Sherriff.  I showed him the exemption card.  He glanced at it but did not read it.  He went through the protocol questions with me, then directed me to go ahead and enter.  I filed a document with the Registry Clerk, then left the premises.    In Vancouver and in Burnaby and in Surrey, I entered several other businesses including restaurants. When they politely asked me to put on a mask, I showed them the card and had no problem. With one exception.  In that instance, I simply ignored the fool who refused to acknowledge the declaration,  continued to finish what I was doing – photocopying – then left the premises. On Wednesday November 25th 2020 I came back to Swartz Bay on the ferry and had no problem with the staff as I walked around, breathing freely un-muzzled.   Despite relentless annoying messages over the public address system about requirement to wear a mask, no one challenged me anywhere on the ship.

08             On the morning of November 26th 2020, at approximately 10:30 am, I called the head office of the Ministry de Health :  250 952 1330 identified myself and told the telephone receptionist that the Public Health Act Order of which I’d heard rumors, was not available on the website of the office of the Chief medical Health Officer. Recognizing my voice from the other times I’d called asking for a copy of Orders which were pretended to be in force as of those days yet not available, she said “we’ve had this converstation before.”  I demanded her name and position. She said “Angela patient client relations”

09            The Public Health Act RSBC dictates that a person subject to an order must be notified of that Order.  I told “Angela” that I required a hard copy of that Order so that I could originate a Request for Reconsideration pursuant to its section 43 as I had done twice before. In both instances, there has been no reply from the Chief Medical health Officer nor anyone else in her Ministry. Even though in that exchange,  I offered to drive downtown and pick up a copy were they to make it available Angela told me that there was no Order available via the internet nor anywhere else.    Days later, I learned that the rumor about a “masking mandate” originated with Ministerial Order in Council M425 made – ostensibly – under the Emergency Program Act.  Thus,   the receptionist, in charge of advising the public what was going on for all things to do with the Ministry de Health was in ignorance about the state of the law

10             On Friday November 27th  2020 I went in to Langford.  UN-muzzled, I went in to the place where I do banking.    No one said a word to me about anything to do with a mask.  I then went to the Canada Post outlet in the Westshore Town Centre mall.    After noticing the headline on the Times-Colonist newspaper, I purchased a copy in the Fairways store.     No one there said anything to me about not being muzzled.    Reading the frontpage article headed At odds over whether doctor’s note required to not wear mask : item EIGHT of Materials to be relied upon, I noticed the quotation from the Emergency Management BC.  In the Canadian Journalism style manual,  such double quotation marks indicate that that is precisely what was said.   I went over to the STAPLES store on McCallum Road.   No one there said a word about me not wearing a muzzle, because I am a regular customer and have shown the exemption card to most of the employees, over the past couple of months.     I cut the article out of the newspaper and fitted it on one sheet then made many photocopies. My intent was,  to hand them out, for free, to people with whom I might come in contact so as to prompt discussion about the facts and logic to do with government policy to do with the so-called “pandemic”. 

11            On Monday November 30th 2020 I went up to the door of the Fountain Diner at  102- 2800 Goldstream Avenue Langford British Columbia.  I went inside the door and spoke to a waitress.  I gave her my name to put on the list of customers waiting to get in.  The look she gave me conveyed that she was unhappy that I was not wearing a muzzle.   About 10 minutes later, she came out and called my name. When I stepped up as though I would enter, she impeded me.  She said  “you have to wear a mask”.  I had in my left hand quite obviously, the exemption card.  Politely,  I put it closer to her face so she could get a good look.  She glanced at it but did not read it.  She said something like ‘it isn’t from a government office’.  I said to her  ‘read it.  The Human Rights commission is a government body.’  She turned away saying she would get the manager.

12            A few minutes later, another woman walked up to me saying she was the manager.  She spoke but it was hard to understand what she said through the cloth diaper she was wearing over her mouth.    After another try, I gathered her name was “Crystal”.  She told me she was refusing me entry because I did not have on a face mask.   I held out the exemption card for her to inspect. She sneered at it.  I pointed to the explanation on the back. She refused to read it. In short order, it became perfectly clear that she was not going to let me in. 

13            I warned her that if she was refusing to acknowledge the declaration on the card as excuse to deny me service normally available to the public,  I would make a complaint to the BC Human Rights Commission.   She said  “that’s your choice”.  I responded “no, that’s your choice.  You chose not to serve me contrary to the law    I left

I hereby entreat the Human Rights Commission to haul the Fountain Diner folks in to line …. educate them, as well as all citizens, as to their duty to obey the law
 

Gordon S Watson

Post Office box  47034   Langford P O British Columbia V9B 5T2

The case of Rhino Albino and other B.C. human rights complaints Earl’s Albino Rhino beer had been on offer for 25 years when the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal agreed to hear a complaint by a woman with albinism The label for Albino Rhino Ale made in 2012 for Earl’s Restaurant in Western Canada. Genna Buck Genna Buck August 8, 2019 5:17 PM EDT Filed under News Canada Comment Facebook Twitter Reddit Email More The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has heard some offbeat complaints in its recent history, including a complaint about Albino Rhino beer and a waiter who said he was fired for being too French. Complaints have to be made within six months and many are resolved with mediation. They only proceed to a hearing if the tribunal rules that the complainant has a reasonable chance of succeeding. Here are some greatest hits: The Albino Rhino beer summit Ikponwosa Ero, the United Nations’ independent expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism, addresses a press conference at the end of her official visit to Malawi on April 29, 2016. AMOS GUMULIRA/AFP/Getty Images In 2012, Ikponwosa Ero, a woman with albinism, launched a human rights complaint against Earl’s Restaurants in Vancouver because it had a beer called Albino Rhino on tap. The product had been on offer for 25 years at that point. The company claimed the rhyming name was intended to be “whimsical and fun” and denote that the beer was “rare and special,” like a white rhino, and was not intended to be discriminatory. People with albinism, which is genetic, are completely or partially missing the natural pigment in their skin, hair and eyes. They’re susceptible to vision problems and skin cancer. In some cultures around the world, they face threats of violence, discrimination and even murder. Ero originally went through the advocacy organization where she worked to try to get Earl’s to drop the name, but was unsuccessful. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal agreed to hold a hearing, but instead the two parties managed to talk things out among themselves and Earl’s voluntarily agreed to phase out the branding. The restaurant put out a statement in early 2013 stating, “Like many Canadians we knew very little about the condition or the very real discrimination persons with albinism experience, both in Canada and around the world,” and agreed, “Persons with albinism are a stigmatized group that face prejudice and exclusion in many areas of Canadian society.” Not rude, just French When Guillame Rey, a server at a Vancouver Milestones restaurant, was fired from his job for rudeness in August 2017, he claimed it wasn’t his fault — he’s French. The professional manner Rey’s co-workers called “combative” and his employer described as “rude and disrespectful” was simply “direct and expressive” and totally within the norms in his home country of France, Rey claimed. He said firing him amounted to discrimination on the basis of place of origin — a creative interpretation of section 13 of the province’s Human Rights Code. Last year, the tribunal denied the restaurant’s application to have the case dismissed. It’s expected to proceed to a hearing. Is being called ‘creepy’ sexist and racist? Mokua Gichuru, a man whose use of the B.C. court system has been legally limited because of his long-established habit to sue over anything and everything, complained to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in 2016 because a Vancouver swing dancing club banned him for being “creepy.” This amounts to “blatant stereotyping” of older, black men interacting with younger women, and is discrimination on the basis of age, sex and race, Gichuru claimed. Though the tribunal has declined to hear the case twice, it may yet proceed to a hearing, as Gichuru said that directors of the club banned him from events in retaliation for his threat to make a human rights complaint. ‘Reorganizing her out of the workplace’ Many recent cases have pertained to issues of disability accommodation in the workplace. For example, in July the tribunal heard the case of Norma Graham, a woman with a mental disability who had worked for the payroll department at B.C. Transit since 1991. In 2014, the organization made the switch to an open-concept office, and Graham complained that she was no longer able to concentrate on her work because of noisy conversations taking place near her desk. She asked to have her workstation moved and was denied. She also provided a medical note, but ended up taking a two-year medical leave soon after. When she returned to work, she was shuffled between various positions. Graham alleged that she no longer received the benefits she had at her old job. BC Transit eventually decided she would not be able to return to the payroll department. Graham ended up taking medical leave again. The tribunal ruled that B.C. Transit had done enough to accommodate Graham. Though the decision states that it was “unfortunate” that Graham felt her employer was not acting in good faith, and instead “reorganizing her out of the workplace,” the complaint was dismissed.

Posted on by

The case of Rhino Albino and other B.C. human rights complaints

[The tyranny of human rights commissions. Enabled minorities oppress Canada’s dispossessed Majority.   Paul Fromm]

Earl’s Albino Rhino beer had been on offer for 25 years when the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal agreed to hear a complaint by a woman with albinism

The label for Albino Rhino Ale made in 2012 for Earl’s Restaurant in Western Canada.
Genna Buck
Genna Buck

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has heard some offbeat complaints in its recent history, including a complaint about Albino Rhino beer and a waiter who said he was fired for being too French.

Complaints have to be made within six months and many are resolved with mediation. They only proceed to a hearing if the tribunal rules that the complainant has a reasonable chance of succeeding.

Here are some greatest hits:

The Albino Rhino beer summit

Ikponwosa Ero, the United Nations’ independent expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism, addresses a press conference at the end of her official visit to Malawi on April 29, 2016. AMOS GUMULIRA/AFP/Getty Images

In 2012, Ikponwosa Ero, a woman with albinism, launched a human rights complaint against Earl’s Restaurants in Vancouver because it had a beer called Albino Rhino on tap. The product had been on offer for 25 years at that point.

The company claimed the rhyming name was intended to be “whimsical and fun” and denote that the beer was “rare and special,” like a white rhino, and was not intended to be discriminatory. People with albinism, which is genetic, are completely or partially missing the natural pigment in their skin, hair and eyes. They’re susceptible to vision problems and skin cancer. In some cultures around the world, they face threats of violence, discrimination and even murder. Ero originally went through the advocacy organization where she worked to try to get Earl’s to drop the name, but was unsuccessful.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal agreed to hold a hearing, but instead the two parties managed to talk things out among themselves and Earl’s voluntarily agreed to phase out the branding. The restaurant put out a statement in early 2013 stating, “Like many Canadians we knew very little about the condition or the very real discrimination persons with albinism experience, both in Canada and around the world,” and agreed, “Persons with albinism are a stigmatized group that face prejudice and exclusion in many areas of Canadian society.”

Not rude, just French

When Guillame Rey, a server at a Vancouver Milestones restaurant, was fired from his job for rudeness in August 2017, he claimed it wasn’t his fault — he’s French.

The professional manner Rey’s co-workers called “combative” and his employer described as “rude and disrespectful” was simply “direct and expressive” and totally within the norms in his home country of France, Rey claimed. He said firing him amounted to discrimination on the basis of place of origin — a creative interpretation of section 13 of the province’s Human Rights Code.

Last year, the tribunal denied the restaurant’s application to have the case dismissed. It’s expected to proceed to a hearing.

Is being called ‘creepy’ sexist and racist?

Mokua Gichuru, a man whose use of the B.C. court system has been legally limited because of his long-established habit to sue over anything and everything, complained to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in 2016 because a Vancouver swing dancing club banned him for being “creepy.” This amounts to “blatant stereotyping” of older, black men interacting with younger women, and is discrimination on the basis of age, sex and race, Gichuru claimed.

Though the tribunal has declined to hear the case twice, it may yet proceed to a hearing, as Gichuru said that directors of the club banned him from events in retaliation for his threat to make a human rights complaint.

‘Reorganizing her out of the workplace’

Many recent cases have pertained to issues of disability accommodation in the workplace. For example, in July the tribunal heard the case of Norma Graham, a woman with a mental disability who had worked for the payroll department at B.C. Transit since 1991. In 2014, the organization made the switch to an open-concept office, and Graham complained that she was no longer able to concentrate on her work because of noisy conversations taking place near her desk. She asked to have her workstation moved and was denied. She also provided a medical note, but ended up taking a two-year medical leave soon after. When she returned to work, she was shuffled between various positions. Graham alleged that she no longer received the benefits she had at her old job. BC Transit eventually decided she would not be able to return to the payroll department. Graham ended up taking medical leave again. The tribunal ruled that B.C. Transit had done enough to accommodate Graham. Though the decision states that it was “unfortunate” that Graham felt her employer was not acting in good faith, and instead “reorganizing her out of the workplace,” the complaint was dismissed.