6 Comments

Speaking of “fatally flawed”, the Star is a liberal newspaper with a strong pro-human rights commission bias. The story managed to ignore most of the facts of the case to make the complainant sound sympathetic and the railroading of the business owner sound like a slight procedural slipup. For a more complete background, check out the Globe and Mail’s coverage

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-case-of-the-smelly-lunch/article1892245/

To be fair, the author of that Globe and Mail piece, Margaret Wente, is an opinion columnist with a strong point of view (admittedly, one I often find agreeable).

“I feel vindicated,” said Telfer, who owns Audmax Inc., a company that gets federal government money to provide job training to immigrant women.

AHA!

I think I see why, after so many other tramplings of defendants, this particular one got some sympathy from the court above…

The hyper-corrupt Canadian “human rights” commissions could not recognize human rights if they fell over them.

A comment on a comment:

Mike, you actually found the Star article sympathetic to complainant? It certainly only engendered sympathy for defendant in me.

As to the G&M article, I didn’t need Walter’s info to know that the one-sided article was the opinion of someone with strong views and no bent to tolerate any other POV.

I found the Star article to be sympathetic to the complainant in that it neglected to mention most of the significant facts of the case, all of which put the complainant in a particularly bad light. Like the snooping in desks, the fact that her religious garb consisted of leggings and a cap.

Of course you’re right that Wente is an opinion columnist, but of all that’s been written on this case her piece is one of the few that dug deeper into the facts of the case.