Disappointing end to haircut dispute...

[Guest]

They settled it amicably.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/22/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved/

Where's the fun in that?

[Michael Hardner]

They settled it amicably.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/22/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved/

Where's the fun in that?

Thanks to the National Post for being braving enough to give us an example of the system working.

[Guest]

Canada's only newspaper for grownups will never let you down...

[betsy]

Have you read the ensuing discussion at the bottom? Quite interesting.

[Guest]

I didn't. It is an interesting point made that with a secret agreement no precedent is set.

[sharkman]

I am uncertain what role the HRC is supposed to play in Canadian society, or whether there is a need for it that couldn't be met in the courts. I see far too many examples of it merely being used by those with an activist agenda. This case seems like another such as it's pretty unlikely that a woman would want her hair touched by a barber.

[TimG]

The article seems to suggest that the HRC played a role in mediating this dispute but I would disagree if the settlement included any money payed out by the barber. If money was extorted from the barber then the HRC was not acting as a mediator but rather a mobster who scared his victim into keeping quiet.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You're disagreeing with the definition of mediator, it seems. Also, it seems that the idea of money being involved is a conjecture.

[TimG]

You're disagreeing with the definition of mediator, it seems. Also, it seems that the idea of money being involved is a conjecture.

Why keep the terms secret if no money was extorted?

If it was just an apology and a promise to change business practices then it should be made public.

A "mediator" who is given the power to extort money from innocent business owners is no mediator.

A mediator is a third party paid by both parties to resolve a dispute.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Why keep the terms secret if no money was extorted?

If it was just an apology and a promise to change business practices then it should be made public.

A "mediator" who is given the power to extort money from innocent business owners is no mediator.

A mediator is a third party paid by both parties to resolve a dispute.

Why keep the terms secret ? Because they want to. Or, otherwise, "You know it's a conspiracy because they didn't say it wasn't".

Maybe neither side felt a public apology was necessary. Mediation involves brokering agreements that are legally binding and mutually acceptable. And I don't think a mediator needs to be paid by the litigants either.

I'm still scratching my head a little as to why a cultural difference that was resolved without a government imposed ruling isn't lauded by all sides. Isn't this what we all want to happen with such issues ?

[Guest]

I'm still scratching my head a little as to why a cultural difference that was resolved without a government imposed ruling isn't lauded by all sides. Isn't this what we all want to happen with such issues ?

I was hoping it would go to the Supreme Court.

[Michael Hardner]

I was hoping it would go to the Supreme Court.

Why ? Do you enjoy overkill, as a rule ?

[Guest]

Why ? Do you enjoy overkill, as a rule ?

Sometimes.

I thought it would be fun watching a HRC twist itself into a pretzel trying to solve an issue between two of its pets.

[Michael Hardner]

Sometimes.

I thought it would be fun watching a HRC twist itself into a pretzel trying to solve an issue between two of its pets.

But the Supreme Court isn't the HRC. Anyway, any discomfort is likely wishful thinking on your part - as this is only a legal question, the balancing of rights.

[Guest]

But the Supreme Court isn't the HRC. Anyway, any discomfort is likely wishful thinking on your part - as this is only a legal question, the balancing of rights.

Ah.

Oh well, back to cockfighting.

[TimG]

I'm still scratching my head a little as to why a cultural difference that was resolved without a government imposed ruling isn't lauded by all sides. Isn't this what we all want to happen with such issues ?

So lets say the government 'mediator' goes to one side and says:

I will give you a choice: a 4 figure settlement now that is kept secret or a 6 figure settlement after protracted public legal battle which you will probably lose.

Lets say the extorted party agrees because the secret deal is brings the issue to a close.

Is that fair? Is that just?

How can you prove it did not happen? You can't cause its secret!

We know how the HRC works because of the public cases so the default assumption is the HRC extorted money from the business owner and told him to keep quiet about it. HRC has no public record of a being a reasonable mediator so it is unreasonable to assume that it suddenly starts acting civilized when it is operating in secret.

Basically: if no money changed hands and both parties are happy then the HRC did the job I would expect. If the business paid any money then the HRC was acting as a soprano style extortion outfit.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

So lets say the government 'mediator' goes to one side and says:

I will give you a choice: a 4 figure settlement now that is kept secret or a 6 figure settlement after protracted public legal battle which you will probably lose.

Lets say the extorted party agrees because the secret deal is brings the issue to a close.

Is that fair? Is that just?

How can you prove it did not happen? You can't cause its secret!

Quite true: here's another scenario that we can't prove didn't happen, as long as we're writing stories.

The mediator pulls a knife, and the barber shop owner says "you call that a knife ?" in an Australian accent, then pulls out a bigger knife and says "THIS is a knife". The mediator pulls a bigger knife and this continues until no one in the room can safely move due to the huge knives about.

Then a genie appears and fixes it.

Basically: if no money changed hands and both parties are happy then the HRC did the job I would expect. If the business paid any money then the HRC was acting as a soprano style extortion outfit.

A settlement was reached, so we can assume both parties are happy unless you expect us to spend time in your imaginarium with you.

[TimG]

Q

Then a genie appears and fixes it.A settlement was reached, so we can assume both parties are happy unless you expect us to spend time in your imaginarium with you.

How the HRC operates is well published. Extortion is its modus operandi and unless you have evidence that the business owner was not extorted as per the usual HRC tactics then the only reasonable assumption is it did what it always did.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

How the HRC operates is well published. Extortion is its modus operandi and unless you have evidence that the business owner was not extorted as per the usual HRC tactics then the only reasonable assumption is it did what it always did.

It's not a given. And, again, this wasn't imposed - it was a negotiated agreement. If the complaintant said, in that mediation, that she simply wanted her hair cut in the store then they could have found a third way.

I realize that reasonable accommodation of cultural differences is a kind of death knell for hysterical anti-immigration sentiment but we should all remind ourselves that all's well that ends well.

[Guest American Woman]

How the HRC operates is well published. Extortion is its modus operandi and unless you have evidence that the business owner was not extorted as per the usual HRC tactics then the only reasonable assumption is it did what it always did.

If mediating is done in secret and the results are secret, how would you know what the HRC "always does?" "Per usual?" Etc.

[Guest]

If mediating is done in secret and the results are secret, how would you know what the HRC "always does?" "Per usual?" Etc.

It's not usually done in secret. Usually there's a villain. In this case, both parties were from groups that the HRCs usually advocate for. That's why I was looking forward to it.

Edited February 24, 2013 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

Thanks to the National Post for being braving enough to give us an example of the system working.

The system didn't work. It was an complete failure. The parties are satisfied, but human rights issues by their very nature are public. This was a highly publicized issue where rights conflicted. Now, thanks to the gag order by the mediators, no one gets to learn anything from this. That, in my opinion, is one of the worst outcomes we could have. It means my tax money is going towards tribunals that don't even educate the public, at least in this case.

[Michael Hardner]

Now, thanks to the gag order by the mediators, no one gets to learn anything from this.

I didn't consider that.

[cybercoma]

To be fair, that's just my opinion. The system obviously worked for the individuals involved, but my personal opinion is that human rights conflicts are a problem because they affect the community. They affect everyone. It's not a personal, individual dispute. So I don't believe the resolutions should be personal and individual. I believe they should be public for everyone to learn from. I've often defended the Human Rights Tribunals on these forums, but this example has me questioning their purpose.

[TimG]

I believe they should be public for everyone to learn from. I've often defended the Human Rights Tribunals on these forums, but this example has me questioning their purpose.

I think money needs to be taken out of equation as well. If the HRC needs a stick to compel co-operation it should be in the form of fines like speeding tickets paid to the government. The complainant should only see the HRC as a way to get public recognition of a wrong and not as a way to get a payday. If there are real losses, such as constructive dismissal from a job, then people should use the regular court system.