injusticebuster

Freaks was a thing I photographed a lot. It was one of the first things I photographed and it had a terrific kind of excitement for me. I just used to adore them. I still do adore some of them. I don't quite mean they're my best friends but they made me feel a mixture of shame and awe. There's a quality of legend about freaks. Lke a person in a fairy tale who stops you and demands that you answer a riddle. Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatifc experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats." - Diane Arbus http://www.profotos.com/education/referenc...ianearbus.shtml

Vanity Fair's arresting look at Blair's Britain Owen Gibson, media correspondent Thursday June 29, 2006 The Guardian Asked to describe a politically subversive magazine, one might picture a tatty pamphlet rather than Vanity Fair, the American glossy packed with A-list stars and ads for luxury brands. But its London editor, Henry Porter, yesterday angrily wrote to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, over an incident in which police appeared to claim that an article in the magazine constituted "politically motivated material". On June 18, a man was arrested in Whitehall under the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act, which prevents demonstrations within a kilometre of parliament. Steven Jago, who was carrying a placard bearing the George Orwell quote "In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act", was later found by police to be in possession of several photocopies of Porter's article Letter from London: Blair's Big Brother Britain, printed in the latest issue of the magazine. Mr Jago claims that they were confiscated by police and he was told the article constituted "politically motivated material". Porter, a vocal critic of Tony Blair's record on civil liberties, who recently took part in a detailed email exchange on the subject with Mr Blair in the Observer, said in his letter that the matter was of serious concern. "The word sedition was not used, but clearly that is the light in which the article was regarded by the Metropolitan police," he wrote. Porter, who has the backing of Vanity Fair's publisher, Graydon Carter, said it was extremely worrying if police could not tell the difference between a mainstream publication and a "terrorist sheet". http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1808226,00.html

Dear Kindred, Thank you very much for your kind word and support to survive a combination of feudalism and capitalism like in Dickens's or Zola's novel. Some people say you can judge a society by how it treats its weakest members. The Little Match-Seller by Hans Christian Andersen (1846) It was terribly cold and nearly dark on the last evening of the old year, and the snow was falling fast. In the cold and the darkness, a poor little girl, with bare head and naked feet, roamed through the streets. It is true she had on a pair of slippers when she left home, but they were not of much use. They were very large, so large, indeed, that they had belonged to her mother, and the poor little creature had lost them in running across the street to avoid two carriages that were rolling along at a terrible rate. One of the slippers she could not find, and a boy seized upon the other and ran away with it, saying that he could use it as a cradle, when he had children of his own. So the little girl went on with her little naked feet, which were quite red and blue with the cold. In an old apron she carried a number of matches, and had a bundle of them in her hands. No one had bought anything of her the whole day, nor had anyone given her even a penny. Shivering with cold and hunger, she crept along; poor little child, she looked the picture of misery. The snowflakes fell on her long, fair hair, which hung in curls on her shoulders, but she regarded them not. Lights were shining from every window, and there was a savory smell of roast goose, for it was New-year’s eve—yes, she remembered that. In a corner, between two houses, one of which projected beyond the other, she sank down and huddled herself together. She had drawn her little feet under her, but she could not keep off the cold; and she dared not go home, for she had sold no matches, and could not take home even a penny of money. Her father would certainly beat her; besides, it was almost as cold at home as here, for they had only the roof to cover them, through which the wind howled, although the largest holes had been stopped up with straw and rags. Her little hands were almost frozen with the cold. Ah! perhaps a burning match might be some good, if she could draw it from the bundle and strike it against the wall, just to warm her fingers. She drew one out—“scratch!” how it sputtered as it burnt! It gave a warm, bright light, like a little candle, as she held her hand over it. It was really a wonderful light. It seemed to the little girl that she was sitting by a large iron stove, with polished brass feet and a brass ornament. How the fire burned! and seemed so beautifully warm that the child stretched out her feet as if to warm them, when, lo! the flame of the match went out, the stove vanished, and she had only the remains of the half-burnt match in her hand. She rubbed another match on the wall. It burst into a flame, and where its light fell upon the wall it became as transparent as a veil, and she could see into the room. The table was covered with a snowy white table-cloth, on which stood a splendid dinner service, and a steaming roast goose, stuffed with apples and dried plums. And what was still more wonderful, the goose jumped down from the dish and waddled across the floor, with a knife and fork in its breast, to the little girl. Then the match went out, and there remained nothing but the thick, damp, cold wall before her. She lighted another match, and then she found herself sitting under a beautiful Christmas-tree. It was larger and more beautifully decorated than the one which she had seen through the glass door at the rich merchant’s. Thousands of tapers were burning upon the green branches, and colored pictures, like those she had seen in the show-windows, looked down upon it all. The little one stretched out her hand towards them, and the match went out. The Christmas lights rose higher and higher, till they looked to her like the stars in the sky. Then she saw a star fall, leaving behind it a bright streak of fire. “Someone is dying,” thought the little girl, for her old grandmother, the only one who had ever loved her, and who was now dead, had told her that when a star falls, a soul was going up to God. She again rubbed a match on the wall, and the light shone round her; in the brightness stood her old grandmother, clear and shining, yet mild and loving in her appearance. “Grandmother,” cried the little one, “O take me with you; I know you will go away when the match burns out; you will vanish like the warm stove, the roast goose, and the large, glorious Christmas-tree.” And she made haste to light the whole bundle of matches, for she wished to keep her grandmother there. And the matches glowed with a light that was brighter than the noon-day, and her grandmother had never appeared so large or so beautiful. She took the little girl in her arms, and they both flew upwards in brightness and joy far above the earth, where there was neither cold nor hunger nor pain, for they were with God. In the dawn of morning there lay the poor little one, with pale cheeks and smiling mouth, leaning against the wall; she had been frozen to death on the last evening of the year; and the New-year’s sun rose and shone upon a little corpse! The child still sat, in the stiffness of death, holding the matches in her hand, one bundle of which was burnt. “She tried to warm herself Some people say you can judge a society by how it treats its weakest members.

FTA It struck me that in your opinion my case is unmeritorious and outlandish because the Court Challanges Program will be funding my case. On your website both of you look pretty young so I wonder if you guys have enough of the Charter experience. Just for you info Section 15 of the Charter has a two-fold, remedial purpose: (1) to eliminate and prevent discrimination, and (2) to promote equality. It may be said that the purpose of s. 15(1) is to prevent the violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration. My case is similar to the recent ruling where the nurse refused to attend to mentally challanged person, Vice-Chair Kelly violated my dignity and showed total disregard for the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee that every person equal treatment without discrimination due to disability when he failed to accommodate me based on my disability and adjourn hearing when I had a panic attack and I needed medications or even pause for a while or provide me with a glass of water or medical aid. On the contrary, Mr. Kelly was laughing showing vile contempt for me as a human being driven by vile contempt and prejudice. The Ontario Human Rights Commission violated my dignity when it failed to accommodate me based on disability in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code's guarantee that "Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability". It is the function of the Commission, (a) to forward the policy that the dignity and worth of every person be recognized and that equal rights and opportunities be provided without discrimination that is contrary to law; t is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province The Ontario Human Rights Code requires accommodation in both employment and services. The refusal to accommodate the Applicant based on his mental disability violated his rights and is offensive to human dignity. The Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c. 32, at s. 2(1) defines a barrier broadly as “anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice.” Having "the most respected (former) judge in Ontario" on her side gives Braithwaite more reason to keep fighting. "The complainants have been denied the equal benefit of the law," Cory wrote in his 15-page decision, noting that the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee every person equal treatment without discrimination due to disability. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=969483202845 I am also thinking about Alien Claims Tort Act but I have to find somebody in U.S.A so I may ask Mr. Gates or Mr. Buffet for help. For your info The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) of 1789 grants jurisdiction to US Federal Courts over "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." In 1980 a Paraguayan man successfully used ATCA to sue the policeman who had tortured his son to death in Paraguay. Others have since filed civil suits against individuals, including Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, seeking compensation for damages resulting from breaches of international law. On the rare occassion that a suit is successful, however, the defendant rarely has sufficient assets in the US to satisfy the final judgment. An interesting development has been the recent efforts to use ATCA to sue transnational corporations for violations of international law in countries outside the US. If these suits are allowed to proceed, then ATCA could become a powerful tool to increase corporate accountability. U.S. v. Goering 6 FRD 69 (1946); John Doe v. Unocal Corp., Case No. CV 96-6959 RSWL ; Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba, 96-10127-CIV, 96-10128-CIV.

At the same time McGuinty spends thousands for Flying Squirrel Sex life, care fore them more than humans. McGuinty Funds Flying Squirrel Sex Research Tory calls on Dalton McGuinty to get a grip on spending, stop wasting taxpayers’ money (Toronto, ON) – With four days until the provincial budget, Progressive Conservative Party Leader John Tory today called on Dalton McGuinty to rein in his government’s reckless spending after learning taxpayers are paying $150,000 for flying squirrel sex research. “Dalton McGuinty is treating taxpayers’ dollars like monopoly money,” said Tory. “For $150,000 to be spent on this after Dalton McGuinty brought in the biggest tax increase in Ontario’s history is inexcusable. The McGuinty government’s spending is out of control – who knows what other boondoggles they have squirreled away in their upcoming budget?” Dalton McGuinty created the Ministry of Research and Innovation in June 2005 and appointed himself Minister. In September 2005, his Ministry awarded a researcher at Laurentian University with a $150,000 grant to study the sex life of flying squirrels. “This is a symptom of a much bigger problem with the McGuinty Liberals,” said Tory. “They have no respect for taxpayers’ money. While Ontarians struggle to get by, Dalton McGuinty is spending hundreds of millions of dollars of their money recklessly.” Tory pointed to several other examples where Dalton McGuinty has wasted taxpayers’ money. Construction is now underway on a $400 million casino hotel in Windsor funded by the McGuinty government. The Liberals also spent $91 million to fire nurses at Ontario hospitals (who were then re-hired at other hospitals) and have spent $179 million creating a new bureaucracy in health care called Local Health Integration Networks. “Someone has to take the government credit card away from Dalton McGuinty or this province is going to go broke,” said Tory. “Ontarians deserve a leader who respects their hard-earned money, spends it effectively and gets real results – not one who breaks his promises, reaches further into our pockets and then goes on a reckless spending spree.” -30- For more information: Brendan Howe (416) 319-1418 http://www.mcguintywatch.ca/2006/03/19/mcg...l-sex-research/

Union will fight for you. Oherwise, if someone is defenceless and cannot afford a lawyer, they are kicking you contrary to Judge Ron Fratkin statement: "In Canada, we don't kick people when they're down. What he has [already] gone through is enough… As I say, the public, at least in Canada, I think, has always lived by the sort of guiding principle, you don't kick somebody when they're down”.R. v. Robinson, 2000 BCCA 75 The Ontario Human Rights Commission uzurpes a discretion to refer a complaint to the Tribunal and it censorships evidence, facts. The investigator told me to drop my case because "the Commission does not like that type of cases". There is evidence and witnesses but it does not care. It failed to accommodate when I could die any minute and wanted me to comply with 15 day strict deadline it knew I was unable to meet because I was too sick. .

What I meant is that everytime I admitted to my employers that I needed accommodation I was terminated just like prisoners who could not work selected by Dr. Josef Mengeles. Ontario Human Rights Commission uzurpes monopoly on human rights just like inquistions or communist party. It discriminated by telling me to drop my complaints because I wanted to work and the Commission allocated all resorces to guarante a right to party in bathhouse. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that the focus of the discrimination “must always remain upon the central question of whether, viewed from the perspective of the claimant, the differential treatment imposed by the legislation has the effect of violating human dignity.” As Justice Iacobucci stated in Law: “[h]uman dignity within the meaning of the equality guarantee does not relate to the status or position of an individual in society per se, but rather concerns the manner in which a person legitimately feels when confronted with a particular law.” Writing for the Court, he explained that “human dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment” and with “the realization of personal autonomy and self-determination.” Law, supra, at paras.53 and 70 (emphasis added); Corbiere v. Canada, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203 at para.59; M. v. H., supra at para.70; Rodriguez v. B.C., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519 at para.61 A human rights Tribunal engaged in a “dignity” analysis should therefore ask whether, viewed from the perspective of the complainant, the differential treatment imposed by the respondent has the effect of violating human dignity. In answering that central question, the Tribunal may consider such factors as (1) whether the respondent’s impugned conduct had an adverse effect on the complainant’s feelings of self-respect and self-worth, (2) whether it impaired the complainant’s physical and psychological integrity and empowerment, or (3) whether it interfered with the complainant’s realization of personal autonomy and self-determination. Beginning with Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, the Court favour substantive equality approach in which a claimant does not need to prove discriminatory intent and the focus is placed on the effect of the discrimination on him or her. Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 at 164-171 Law v. Canada, supra at paras. 25, 38, and 81 In Andrews, McIntyre J. stated: Discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society because it epitomizes the worst effects of the denial of equality, and discrimination reinforced by law is particularly repugnant. The worst oppression will result from discriminatory measures having the force of law Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, supra at 172, per McIntyre J.

When Halpern wanted to marry his same sex partner, the court ruled refusal violated their dignity. When a dying father asked the Ontario Human Rights Commission to give him more time to comply with the strict 15 day deadline, Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Norton denied it on spot. The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided it it was a priority to guarantee a right to party for lesbians in the bathhouse than to save a life of a father. When a crippled by illness father attempting to support his family was harassed, intimidated, reprised by a lesbian manger for enforcing his right to be accommodated, the Ontario Human Rights Commission told the sick father to quit because it "does not like that type of cases" and its priority was to guarantee a right to party for lesbians in the bathhouse . Now lesbians earn enough money to celebrate and pay for a sick father's CPP disability .

Ontario Human Rights Commission advises everybody that you have to tell employers upfront that someone has medical problems and requires accommodation and since I followed that its advice nobody even considered to call me for a interview. Even Ontario Human Rights Commission failed to call me on numerous occasions contrary to its policy when its investigates such complaints and onus shifts on the Commission that it did not dsicriminate against me. In Kanags Premakumar v. Air Canada, the Tribunal stated: In a case of this nature, the burden of proof is on Mr. Premakumar to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Once that is done, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a reasonable explanation for the conduct in issue. A prima facie case is one which covers the allegations made, and which, if believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in Mr. Premakumar's favour, in the absence of an answer from the respondent. (1) In the human rights context proof of an affront to the claimant’s dignity is not required because the legislature has already pre-determined which types of distinctions are sufficiently critical to human dignity that they ought to be proscribed. By circumscribing the specific areas of private activity that human rights legislation regulates (i.e., employment, housing and access to public services), the legislature has determined that decisions about where people may live, where they may work, and how they may interact in the marketplace are so fundamental that differential treatment in respect of them is presumed to impact on human dignity. It is worthy of note that, in s.15 jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Canada has mirrored these value judgments by, for example, emphasizing the importance of employment as “a fundamental aspect of …human dignity.” The difference in the human rights context is that such findings have already been made by the legislature and it is therefore unnecessary (and inappropriate) for tribunals to require human rights complainants to demonstrate an infringement of their dignity as a component of their prima facie case of discrimination. In reality government, employers pretend not to be like Nazi and by shifting liability instead of killing someone they marginalize a person so he or she commits suicide. Clean hands policy

Geoffrey Would you hire somebody like me? I have excellent knowledge of human and labour rights, history of standing up, almost 20 years of experience from insurance and finacial industries, university education and few professional designations. But there is a little problem ... I am suffering from mental and physical difficulties.

When I was young and healthy I was a conservative but now when I am sick and unable to work supported by my wife I know from my personal experience that when someone gets sick he or she gets automatically fired by fellow conservatives the right's opressive agenda that "ARBEIT MACHT FREI" means "WORK BRINGS FREEDOM" or those who do not work do not eat or if someone does not work does not sleep is inhuman and opressive.

When Halpern wanted to marry his same sex partner, the court ruled refusal violated their dignity. When a dying father asked the Ontario Human Rights Commission to give him more time to comply with the strict 15 day deadline, Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Norton denied it on spot. The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided it it was a priority to guarantee a right to party for lesbians in the bathhouse than to save a life of a father. When a crippled by illness father attempting to support his family was harassed, intimidated, reprised by a lesbian manger for enforcing his right to be accommodated, the Ontario Human Rights Commission told the sick father to quit because it "does not like that type of cases" and its priority was to guarantee a right to party for lesbians in the bathhouse . Now lesbians earn enough money to celebrate and pay for a sick father's CPP disability .

I want to work but cannot find job without accommodation. Every time I asked for accommodation I was fired. Further more, I cannot pass job interviews because there are no employers with human face. I have a knowledge and I can contribute. Unfortunately my own personal experience is very traumatic i.e. just like 60 years ago in Auschwitz either automatic termination when I asked for accommodation because of medical conditions or harrasment and intimidation to quit right away or reprisals like increased workload and blame for somebody's else mistakes. I have been living with bipolar for many years and have been marginalized and cannot work without being accommodated because the Ontario Human Rights Commission which itself is responsible for enforcing this right is the biggest violator itself and failed to accommodate me and has been violating my equality rights with offensive to human dignity insensivity and doublestandard. I lost my job numerous times, had to change careers 4 times only because I was seeking to enforce my rights pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have been blacklisted from workforce by the Ontario Labour Relations Board's Vice-Chair who in discriminatory and ignorant manner ridiculed medical evidence that I did not have to sleep for few days during my mania period and refused to look at into poison work environment and termination as a reprisal for enforcing my rights. The other arbotrator told me I had to put more hours without pay to keep jobs if I cannot perform 100% because of depression. This crusade of marginalization and devaluation is orchestrated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission which contrary to its own policy failed to accommodate me when I was suicidal and could die any minute and wanted me to meet the strict deadlines. The Commission did not call me for interviews on numerous occasions contrary to its policy and refused to accept my complaints and ignored all evidence and allowed my witnesses to be threatened, intimidated, harassed and eventually fired. Even Bill Wilkerson from the Global Business and Economic Roundtable on Addiction and Mental Health behaves like an insensitive hypocrite who initially undertook in writing to inquire into my case and after talking to Ontario Human Rights Commission's Chief Commissioner Keith North failed to return my calls. Would he had given up so easily had Michael Wilson's son or Margaret Trudeau had been treated in such a untermenchen Nazi like manner? Some people say you can judge a society by how it treats its weakest members.

I'd say employers would find it quite difficult not to accommodate someone with disability because of this 3 part test from the Meiorin. They might meet the first 2. 1. demonstrate a rational connection 2. was adopted in honest and good faith believe 3. impossible to accommodate employees My employer is a big corporation and they had losts of different positions. In my case I was on sick leave in a hospital treatment. My employer failed to pay short term disability benefits from its self funded plan so I had to apply for E.I. They violated Section 27(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act states that: Without limiting the duty imposed by subsection (1), a supervisor shall, (a) advise a worker of the existence of any potential or actual danger to the health or safety of the worker of which the supervisor is aware; ( where so prescribed, provide a worker with written instructions as to the measures and procedures to be taken for protection of the worker; and © take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 27. When I wanted to return to work they said they had no job for me. They did not pay my vacation pay saying it was offsetting for my sick days taken 6 months earlier which is contrary to Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, the Ontario Court, General Division upheld a human rights board of inquiry ruling that denying an employee sick leave benefits because she was on vacation constituted discrimination. Further more they said that I did not accummulate vacation time during my sick leave which is violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code. In addition, they committed insurance fraud by charging me premium for Long Term Disability but failing to process my application as per my contract. In Tarailo v. Allied Chemical Canada Ltd., the Court held: It should have been in the contemplation of the officers or employees of Allied, upon receiving the letter, that carelessness on their part may be likely to cause damage to their ex-employee. It was not up to them to decide whether or not here was a valid claim but rather to assist in completing the required forms. Mr. Tarailo may well have been so mentally ill that he did not appreciate that he might have a claim. I conclude that a duty was owed to him. Allied did nothing to assist. In Zaryski v. Loftgard the Board stated: “It finds further that although Mr. Loftsgard had made the decision to terminate Ms. Zaryski before… he should have taken the information into account and considered whether Ms. Zaryski could be accommodated”. In Menard v. Royal Insurance Co. of Canada, Henessey J. found “to someone suffering from depression, the world looks bleak and hopeless”, “the point at which the employment relationship ruptures is the time when the employee is most vulnerable and hence in need of protection”. They banned me from entering company's premises and told me they would charge me with harassement if I try to contact witnesses violating Section 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act states that No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall, (a) dismiss or threaten to dismiss a worker; ( discipline or suspend or threaten to discipline or suspend a worker; © impose any penalty upon a worker; or (d) intimidate or coerce a worker, because the worker has acted in compliance with this Act or the regulations or an order made thereunder, has sought the enforcement of this Act or the regulations or has given evidence in a proceeding in respect of the enforcement of this Act or the regulations or in an inquest under the Coroners Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 50 (1). 5. Section 76(1) of the Employment Standards Act states: No employer shall, (a) threaten to dismis en employee; ( discipline or suspend an employee; © impose any penalty upon an employee; or (d) intimidate or coerce an employee, because the employee, (e) has sought the enforcement of this Act or the regulations; In Moffat v. Kinark Child & Family Services the Board held that bad report was reprisal. In the Applicant’s case also refusal to provide employment information, failure to process an application for long term disability, process address change and the life time ban were reprisals. In case of Ontario Human Rights Commission they are fully aware of my medical conditions and I was a victim of particular vulnerability because of his precarious medical condition and the Respondents knew this but they ignored my pleas that I was still sick. The Respondents have given absolutely no reason why I was never considered by them to be one of that group which I obviously was. The fact that my condition was difficult to assess should not be permitted to open the door to oppressive conduct on the part of the Respondents. On the contrary, such circumstances should “increase the need to proceed openly, fairly and cautiously”: see Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (2004) 239 D.L.R. (4th) 547 (B.C.C.A.) at p.567. According to well established jurisprudence, the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination require the complainant to show: (1) that they were treated differently from others in respect of employment or the provision of a service. In the case of employment-related discrimination, the complainant must also demonstrate that their differential treatment was in relation to others who are equally or less qualified than they are. (2) that the differential treatment was based on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Code: A human rights Tribunal engaged in a “dignity” analysis should therefore ask whether, viewed from the perspective of the complainant, the differential treatment imposed by the respondent has the effect of violating human dignity. In answering that central question, the Tribunal may consider such factors as (1) whether the respondent’s impugned conduct had an adverse effect on the complainant’s feelings of self-respect and self-worth, (2) whether it impaired the complainant’s physical and psychological integrity and empowerment, or (3) whether it interfered with the complainant’s realization of personal autonomy and self-determination. I have a knowdledge and I can work with appropriate accommadation and I am making a prima facie case of discrimination against Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Labour and Ontario Ombudsman that they discriminated against when they failed to even consider calling me for job interviews because of my medical condistions and I rely on Kanags Premakumar v. Air Canada, the Tribunal stated: In a case of this nature, the burden of proof is on Mr. Premakumar to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Once that is done, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a reasonable explanation for the conduct in issue. A prima facie case is one which covers the allegations made, and which, if believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in Mr. Premakumar's favour, in the absence of an answer from the respondent. (1) In the human rights context proof of an affront to the claimant’s dignity is not required because the legislature has already pre-determined which types of distinctions are sufficiently critical to human dignity that they ought to be proscribed. By circumscribing the specific areas of private activity that human rights legislation regulates (i.e., employment, housing and access to public services), the legislature has determined that decisions about where people may live, where they may work, and how they may interact in the marketplace are so fundamental that differential treatment in respect of them is presumed to impact on human dignity. It is worthy of note that, in s.15 jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Canada has mirrored these value judgments by, for example, emphasizing the importance of employment as “a fundamental aspect of …human dignity.” The difference in the human rights context is that such findings have already been made by the legislature and it is therefore unnecessary (and inappropriate) for tribunals to require human rights complainants to demonstrate an infringement of their dignity as a component of their prima facie case of discrimination. Further more, I am making a prima facie case of discrimination against Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Labour and Ontario Ombudsman that they discriminated against when they fail to remove barriers and rely on: The Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c. 32, at s. 2(1) defines a barrier broadly as “anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice.”

When I was young and healthy I was a conservative but now when I am sick and unable to work supported by my wife I know from my personal experience that when someone gets sick he or she gets automatically fired by fellow conservatives the right's opressive agenda that "ARBEIT MACHT FREI" means "WORK BRINGS FREEDOM" or those who do not work do not eat or if someone does not work does not sleep is inhuman and opressive. http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/euthan.html http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/data/articles/...hwitz_page1.htm

RB Court Challanges Program says my case has Charter merits and I am getting funds from them. I can rely on the recent decision of Ontario Human Rights Commission because Vice-Chair Kelly refused to pause a hearing when I had a panic attack and he was laughing in sadistic manner and making derogatory comments just like in Melba Braithwaite's case, who had schizophrenia, was left to shower alone "even though she was subject to seizures and supposed to be supervised while she was in the shower," her daughter wrote in an affidavit filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. When she collapsed in the shower, the nurse initially refused to attend to her, Renata Braithwaite alleged. "By the time the nurse attended to my mother, she had no vital signs...."as per recent decisron "The complainants have been denied the equal benefit of the law," Cory wrote in his 15-page decision, noting that the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee every person equal treatment without discrimination due to disability. The Commission refused to take my complaint. It dsicriminated against me when it failed to accommodate me on many occasions and call me for job interviews contrary to its own guideline. Court Challanges Program says my case has Charter merits and I am getting funds from them. I can rely on the recent decision of Ontario Human Rights Commission because Vice-Chair Kelly refused to pause a hearing when I had a panic attack and he was laughing in sadistic manner and making derogatory comments just like in Melba Braithwaite's case, who had schizophrenia, was left to shower alone "even though she was subject to seizures and supposed to be supervised while she was in the shower," her daughter wrote in an affidavit filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. When she collapsed in the shower, the nurse initially refused to attend to her, Renata Braithwaite alleged. "By the time the nurse attended to my mother, she had no vital signs...."as per recent decisron "The complainants have been denied the equal benefit of the law," Cory wrote in his 15-page decision, noting that the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee every person equal treatment without discrimination due to disability. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=969483202845 The Commission refused to take my complaint. It dsicriminated against me when it failed to even consider to accommodate me on many occasions and call me for job interviews contrary to its own guideline. In Meiorin McLachlin J. said: “Courts and tribunals should be sensitive to the various ways in which individual capabilities may be accommodated”. It deliberately violated my dignity just like in Halpern's case when he was refused to marry the same sex spouse. This case concerns intentional devaluation and marginalization of the mentally ill Applicant as a citizen and a member of society by both governments of Ontario and Canada. (Law v. Canada) The Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, also recognizes the importance of protecting the dignity of all persons. The preamble affirms that “the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. It states: t is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province. Further the Ontario Human Rights Commission failed to enforce her own following guidelines when dealing with me: Although mental disability is a form of non-evident disability, it raises particular issues that merit independent consideration. Over the years, many employers have expressed the need for specific guidance on the issue of mental disability. Section 10 of the Code expressly includes mental disabilities. Persons with mental disabilities face a high degree of stigmatization and significant barriers to employment opportunities. Stigmatization can foster a climate that exacerbates stress, and may trigger or worsen the person's condition. It may also mean that someone who has a problem and needs help may not seek it, for fear of being labeled. In Gibbs v. Battlefords the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the distinct disadvantage and negative stereotyping faced by persons with mental disabilities, and has held that discrimination against individuals with mental disabilities is unlawful. Discrimination under the Code can be direct (refusal to grant a job or provide access to services or housing, for example, because of a disability), indirect, constructive (adverse effect) or based on society's failure to accommodate actual differences. In some cases, it will be clear that discrimination has occurred. In others, a preliminary assessment tool may be helpful. The Supreme Court of Canada has suggested three broad inquiries to determine if discrimination has taken place: (1) Differential Treatment Was there substantively differential treatment, either because of a distinction, exclusion or preference, or because of a failure to take into account the complainant's already disadvantaged position within Canadian society? (2) An Enumerated Ground Was the differential treatment based on an enumerated ground? (3) Discrimination in a Substantive Sense Finally, does the differential treatment discriminate by imposing a burden upon, or withholding a benefit from, an individual? The discrimination might be based on stereotypes of a presumed group or personal characteristics, or might perpetuate or promote the view that an individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society who is equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration. Does the differential treatment amount to discrimination because it makes distinctions that are offensive to human dignity? Given the clear historical disadvantage experienced by persons with disabilities, it is likely that most differential treatment because of disability will result in a finding of prima facie discrimination. This would include not only unfair treatment because of disability, but also neutral factors or requirements that have an adverse impact on persons with disabilities. It would also include inappropriate responses or a lack of response to the complainant's condition or stated need for accommodation. Discrimination under the Code can be direct (refusal to grant a job or provide access to services or housing, for example, because of a disability), indirect, constructive (adverse effect) or based on society's failure to accommodate actual differences. The duty to accommodate a disability exists for needs that are known. Organizations and persons responsible for accommodation are not, as a rule, expected to accommodate disabilities of which they are unaware. However, some individuals may be unable to disclose or communicate their needs because of the nature of their disability. In such circumstances, employers should attempt to assist a person who is clearly unwell or perceived to have a disability, by offering assistance and accommodation. Before terminating or sanctioning an employee for "unacceptable behavior", an employer might first consider whether the actions of the employee are caused by a disability, especially where the employer is aware or perceives that the employee has a disability. Employers should always inform all employees that a disability-related assessment or accommodation can be provided as an option to address performance issues. Progressive performance management and discipline as well as employee assistance supports ensure that all employees have a range of opportunities to address performance issues on an individualized basis before sanctions or termination are considered. For example, severe change in an employee's behavior could signal to an employer that the situation warrants further examination. Mental illness should be addressed and accommodated in the workplace like any other disability. In some cases, an employer may be required to pay special attention to situations that could be linked to mental disability. Even if an employer has not been formally advised of a mental disability, the perception of such a disability will engage the protection of the Code. Prudent employers should try to offer assistance and support to employees before imposing severe sanctions. It should be borne in mind that some mental illnesses may render the employee incapable of identifying his or her needs. Once disability-related needs are known, the legal onus shifts to those with the duty to accommodate. For example, counseling or referral through Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) could be the solution for an underlying disability that might be aggravated by workplace or personal stress. In Grismer, the Supreme Court of Canada therefore defines accommodation in generally as “what is required in the circumstances to avoid discrimination” In Thwaites v. Canadian Armed Forces, the Tribunal stated “the employer must show that it could not have done anything else reasonable or practical to avoid the negative impact on the individual.” In Cameron, Mr. Justice Cumming wrote: “The objectives of the Code’s handicap provisions as they relate to employment are several. First, there is an objective of securing for the handicapped person equality of opportunity with respect to employment. Everyone deserves the same opportunity and chance to make the most of life, regardless of physical or mental handicap. A corollary is to require an employer to make a decision respecting employment of a handicapped person based upon a fair and accurate assessment of her true ability, and not based upon a stereotype or misconception about her handicap.” In Engel v. Mount Sinai Hospital, the Tribunal stated as follows: “The focus of the legislation is to protect the rights of disabled individuals, among other groups, and to ensure that they have access to the employment opportunities, dignity, and respect that the able-bodied have”. In Martin, the Court stated that it “has consistently recognized that persons with mental disabilities have suffered considerable historical disadvantage and stereotypes.” In Morris v. British Columbia Rail, the Tribunal stated that “There are few illnesses as little understood as mental illnesses. While societal understanding and acceptance of persons suffering from mental illness is improving, it remains the fact that persons with mental illness may be subject to prejudice and stereotyping.” In Morris v. British Columbia Rail, in which a decision was made by an employer to terminate an employee living with major depression while away from work on a medical leave of absence. the Tribunal stated that “the fact that an employer makes the decision to terminate a disabled employee’s employment while that employee is on a leave related to disability should be taken into account in determining whether one can infer that the employee’s disability was a factor in the employer’s decision-making.” In Bernard v. Waycobah Board of Education, an employee was terminated because of a concern that people in the community considered her to be “crazy.” In Bultemeyer, the Court stated that “properly participating in the interactive process means that an employer cannot expect an employee to read its mind and know that her or she must specifically say ‘I want a reasonable accommodation,’ particularly when the employee has a mental illness. The employer has to meet the employee half-way, and if it appears that the employee may need an accommodation but doesn’t know how to ask for it, the employer should do what it can to help.” In Miller, the Court stated that “f, moreover, the nature of the disability is such as to impair the employee’s ability to communicate with his or her needs, as will sometimes be the case with mental disabilities, the employer, provided of course that he is on notice that the employee has a disability, has to make a reasonable effort to understand what those needs are even if they are not clearly communicated to him.” David Lepofsky in "Equality Rights for Handicapped Persons in the Charter: Putting the Accent on Individual Ability" Proceedings of Cambridge Lecture Series (1985) (forthcoming) at 27 states the following purposes underlie section 15's promise of equality for disabled persons: (1) Section 15 seeks to ensure that in its dealings with mentally and physically disabled persons, all agencies of government, legislative, judicial and administrative, respect the dignity, worth, individuality and personal autonomy of these persons, recognizing that these individuals are first and foremost individuals and not merely members of some socially-created category such as "the handicapped"; (2) Section 15 seeks to ensure that when governments make or implement laws and policy or undertake initiatives having an impact on the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations or opportunities of handicapped individuals, government should conduct these activities based on a fair and accurate assessment of the individual abilities of handicapped persons, and not based upon stereotypes, preconceptions, prejudgments, paternalism, or morally unacceptable indifference to handicapped persons' rights to full participation; (3) Section 15 seeks to ensure that governments recognize that every individual is equal, but that every individual is not identical to all others. Thus, the business of government should be carried on based on respect for the similarities between individuals, and a recognition and accommodation of differences between individuals, in order to ensure equality of opportunity for all. Beginning with Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, the Court favour substantive equality approach in which a claimant does not need to prove discriminatory intent and the focus is placed on the effect of the discrimination on him or her. In Andrews, McIntyre J. stated: Discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society because it epitomizes the worst effects of the denial of equality, and discrimination reinforced by law is particularly repugnant. The worst oppression will result from discriminatory measures having the force of law. The Commission ignored all the evidence and Rose De Stefano did lie when she stated she could no find witnessess. She told me to drop my complaints because the Commission did not like that type and at the time it allocated all resources to guarantee a right to party for naked, drunk lesbians in bathhouse. The Respondents ignored the difficulty recognized in the case law of proving discrimination. The basis for requiring that ethnic origin or race be only a factor in the termination is the recognized difficulty in proving allegations of race discrimination by way of direct evidence. As was noted in Basi v. Canadian National Railway Co. (No. 1) (1988), 9 C.H.R.R. D/5029 (C.H.R.T.) at para. 38481: Discrimination is not a practice which one would expect to see displayed overtly. In fact, rarely are there cases where one can show by direct evidence that discrimination is purposely practiced. It has been held consistently that intent or motive to discriminate is not a necessary element of discrimination. In Ontario (Human Rights Commission) and O’Malley v. Simpson-Sears Ltd. the court said: The proof of intent, a necessary requirement in our approach to criminal and punitive legislation, should not be a governing factor in construing human rights legislation aimed at the elimination of discrimination. It is my view that the courts below were in error in finding an intent to discriminate to be a necessary element of proof. Further, it is not the motivation or knowledge of the employer that is in issue; it is the effect of the discrimination on the complainant. This is highlighted most notably in cases of constructive dismissal, such as Ontario (Human Rights Commission) and O’Malley v. Simpson-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536 (S.C.C.). There is ample judicial authority for the principle that an employer has a positive duty to familiarize himself and be aware of circumstances at the workplace that may result in anxiety and excessive stress. Ignorance because of willful blindness does not accord with the standards demanded in determining whether or not discriminatory treatment has taken place. When there are clear and ample signs that an employee is working in an environment that is unsafe and when the employee exhibits signs that clearly indicate that the work environment is causing her health to become deleterious, the employer is deemed to have an obligation to be aware of and ultimately responsible for eradicating and eliminating the factors and conditions which cause the threat to the employee’s health. Many persons who are unwell are often unaware of their condition and therefore cannot communicate it to the employer or any other party in a timely fashion. This is so even when they exhibit clear symptoms of their disability. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the Applicant’s employers were not aware of or only should have become aware of the Applicant’s disability when he raised it explicitly. Just because I did not carry a white cane, use a hearing aid, or get around in a wheelchair, did not make me any less deserving of accommodation recognition of his debilitating condition. The refusal ignores the fundamental principle of human rights law that accommodation is a right, not an indulgence granted by one’s employer or, worse yet, an act of charity. The Supreme Court of Canada in Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504, struck down time limit provisions as contrary to the equality guarantees of section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that they deprived such disabled persons of the continuing benefits that were available to “mainstream” recipients. Even if one accepts that the employer was not aware that its conduct was discriminatory or did not know of the my disability, if its conduct has a discriminatory effect, the intent of an employer is irrelevant. Andrews v Law Society of B.C. (1989) 1 S.C.R 143 at 164-171; Law v Canada at par 25, 38 and 81. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that the focus of the discrimination “must always remain upon the central question of whether, viewed from the perspective of the claimant, the differential treatment imposed by the legislation has the effect of violating human dignity.” As Justice Iacobucci stated in Law: “[h]uman dignity within the meaning of the equality guarantee does not relate to the status or position of an individual in society per se, but rather concerns the manner in which a person legitimately feels when confronted with a particular law.” Writing for the Court, he explained that “human dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment” and with “the realization of personal autonomy and self-determination.” Law, supra, at paras.53 and 70 (emphasis added); Corbiere v. Canada, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203 at para.59; M. v. H., supra at para.70; Rodriguez v. B.C., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519 at para.61 A human rights Tribunal engaged in a “dignity” analysis should therefore ask whether, viewed from the perspective of the complainant, the differential treatment imposed by the respondent has the effect of violating human dignity. In answering that central question, the Tribunal may consider such factors as (1) whether the respondent’s impugned conduct had an adverse effect on the complainant’s feelings of self-respect and self-worth, (2) whether it impaired the complainant’s physical and psychological integrity and empowerment, or (3) whether it interfered with the complainant’s realization of personal autonomy and self-determination. The jurisprudence calls lower onus for mental disabilities. These disabilities come in many varieties, are often difficult to detect and assess, and employees are usually reluctant to reveal them because of the enormous attendant social stigma. The breadth of this stigma has been expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Swain. Where an employee’s capacity for rational judgment is impaired by a mental disability, human rights tribunals and labour arbitrators have placed a higher onus on employers to accommodate the employee. In Lussa v. Health Sciences Centre, Mr. Justice Kroft said: It seems to me that when we are dealing with people of questionable mental capacity, there is some obligation to show, not only that the necessary information was given, but it was understood; or alternately that the person in question was unable to understand. The fact that the employee did not disclose the mental disability when she was hired, did not provide the employer with a medical diagnosis while in the throes of the illness, did not disclose the mental illness until two years after being terminated does not necessarily disentitle him or her to accommodation. Nor can an employer rely upon the unsympathetic attitudes of others to justify terminating an employee with a mental illness. As well, where the illness causes erratic behavior at work, recent rulings have said that the employer in some cases ought to have been aware of a link between the work problems and the employee’s condition. In Allbright Cleaners Ltd., the employee had been hospitalized for depression, and a distinct change in her behavior had been observed by the employer. The human rights tribunal found that it was already apparent to the employer, when it dismissed her, that she was suffering from a mental disability. Instead of firing her, the tribunal ruled, the employer should have sought to accommodate her. It upheld the employee’s complaint. An employee who is recovering from depression is entitled to be reasonably accommodated by her or his employer when attempting to return to work In McConnell v. Yukon (Public Service Commission), a Yukon Territory board of adjudication held that the employer’s efforts to accommodate an employee seeking to return to work after recovering from depression were inadequate. On occasion, an employer, and even an employee, will be unaware of the disability until after the employee’s termination for apparently culpable reasons. While the duty upon an employer to accommodate is not triggered until the employee notifies the employer of the need, the duty remains alive even if the notification does not occur until after the termination. In Re Ottawa Civic Hospital, the employer only learned of the griever’s drug and alcohol dependency after terminating her for excessive absenteeism. The arbitration board ruled that: Even if the [Human Rights] Code does not apply to a dismissal which occurred before a handicap is known, this legislation would apply to a refusal to reinstate the complainant once the disability has been revealed Similarly in Re Canada Safeway Ltd., medical information about the mental disability of a terminated employee was provided to the employer only after the dismissal. He had been fired following a long history of poor performance, lack of response to criticism, and baffling behavior. Just before the commencement of the arbitration hearing, almost two years later, the employee was diagnosed as suffering from controllable schizophrenia. In its award, the arbitration board ruled that the employer had cause at the time of the termination to suspect a mental illness. Since the illness was controllable, it directed that the employee be reinstated, subject to specific conditions, and without back pay: The investigator reached conclusions regarding the legitimacy of the Applicant’s employers’ version of the events as compared to the legitimacy of the Appelicant’s version of the events. It is a fundamental principle that an investigator should not reach conclusions of credibility during the investigation stage when that function should have been left to a later assessment by the Tribunal at a hearing. In any event, on the entirety of the evidence, unresolved issues of credibility warrant a hearing. Bryan v Premark Canada Inc., (1999) O.H.R.B.I. D. No. 5 (Ont. Bd. of Inq.); Larsh v Canada (Attorney General), (1999) F.C.J. No. 508 (T.D.); Khan v University of Ottawa (1997), 34 O.R. (3d 535 (C.A.) and Anselm v Ontario H.R.C., (1998) O.J. No 2577 (Gen.Div.). The Applicant submits that the Respondents have not maintained an open mind and have wrongly concluded that the complaint should not proceed beyond the investigation stage. Ms. De Stefano has thus predetermined an issue which should have been decided by the Commission at the hearing stage. Bell Canada V C.E.P.U. (3d) C.H.R.R. Vol. 31, Decision 3, par 31 While purporting to make a decision as to whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prove the Appellant’s complainants, the investigation report usurped the proper function of a Board of Inquiry which is the arena where the merits of a complaint should be decided on the balance of probabilities. Moagi (1986), 69 N.R. 229 (F.C.A.); Owusu-Ausah (1989), 8 lmm. L.R (2d), 106 (F.C.A.); Tung (1991), 124 N.R. 388 (F.C.A.) at pps 393-394 and You Zen Wu (F.C.A.) May 25, (1992), p.2. Res Ipsa Loquitor As you see I have knowledge and bviously the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Labour and Ombudsman Ontario discriminated against me when they failed to call me for job interviews. In Kanags Premakumar v. Air Canada, the Tribunal stated: In a case of this nature, the burden of proof is on Mr. Premakumar to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Once that is done, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a reasonable explanation for the conduct in issue. A prima facie case is one which covers the allegations made, and which, if believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in Mr. Premakumar's favour, in the absence of an answer from the respondent. (1) In the human rights context proof of an affront to the claimant’s dignity is not required because the legislature has already pre-determined which types of distinctions are sufficiently critical to human dignity that they ought to be proscribed. By circumscribing the specific areas of private activity that human rights legislation regulates (i.e., employment, housing and access to public services), the legislature has determined that decisions about where people may live, where they may work, and how they may interact in the marketplace are so fundamental that differential treatment in respect of them is presumed to impact on human dignity. It is worthy of note that, in s.15 jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Canada has mirrored these value judgments by, for example, emphasizing the importance of employment as “a fundamental aspect of …human dignity.” The difference in the human rights context is that such findings have already been made by the legislature and it is therefore unnecessary (and inappropriate) for tribunals to require human rights complainants to demonstrate an infringement of their dignity as a component of their prima facie case of discrimination.

Challenge to which law exactly? Is there a law that forbids you from discriminating against Pepsi in favour of Coke? Are you not free to discriminate against a Jewish shopkeeper and choose a Korean one instead? Are you not free to be sexist and have your hair cut by a woman instead of a man simply because you prefer a woman? Needless to say, these tribunals now have cases backlogged for several years and they pick and choose according to their own agenda. The fact that Ontario Human Rights Commission told me to drop my complaints and ignored all evidence and did not want to interview my witnesses because it allocated all resources to gurantee a right to party for drunk, naked lesbian violates Section 15 of Charter. The complainants have been denied the equal benefit of the law," Cory wrote in his 15-page decision, noting that the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee every person equal treatment without discrimination due to disability. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=969483202845 Needless to say, these tribunals now have cases backlogged for several years and they pick and choose according to their own agenda. Canada's Charter of Rights places restrictions only on how the government can treat us. It says nothing about how we treat one another. You are free to discriminate in your choice of spouse, hairdresser, friends, shopkeeper and so on. Following an American practice, we have developed in Canada Human Rights Tribunals which examine cases of discrimination in private transactions. The tribunals typically examine only alleged discrimination by one side of the transaction. Needless to say, these tribunals now have cases backlogged for several years and they pick and choose according to their own agenda. ---- Michael, it is logical that a Charter of Rights circumscribes the powers of the State (although the Charter need not be a single explicit document). The State, even democratic, is a monopoly. A local club or bar or hairdresser is not a monopoly. If you don't like their service, prices or clientele, you are free to go elsewhere. Do you think your decision not to use the services of a particular taxi driver should be subject to review by a human rights tribunal? And, why do stores have the right to discriminate on the basis of poverty anyway? Should not stores treat rich and poor alike, without discrimination?

Have you sent letters to newspapers? sent to CTV, Toronto Star & Globe but it seems they do not care just like theloniusfleabag

Dear Mr. President, Please intervene on my case because I have nobody to turn to. I wrote letters to Prime Minister Harper and Onatario Premier MacGuinty but they failed to stop this oppresive treatment. * Note: This post has been removed due to cross-posting. *

I read that working illegally on construction site pays more than $600 bi-weekly in taxes which is twice as much as my disability. If government allows to trade this productive person for my person that he can stay and I go somewhere I do not know where because with my medical conditions no country would have taken me it would benefit Canada, Ontario and Toronto. Ontario government can arrange for a state assisted suicide then they have my problem solved. injusticebuster View Public Profile Send a private message to injusticebuster Find all posts by injusticebuster Add injusticebuster to Your Buddy List

What I meant that admitting to your employer in Ontario that you sick means automatic termination just like then being selected by SS to be unfit to work and in my case when I want to work and my life has no sense without contributing means death