Article content continued

Let me proceed to another point. The litigant in this case, while posting under his masculine name, Jonathan Yaniv, put up this: “We have a lot of immigrants here who gawk, judge and aren’t the cleanest of people, they’re also verbally and physically abusive, that’s one reason I joined a girl’s gym, cause I DON’T want issues with these people … They lie about shit, they’ll do anything to support their own kind and make things miserable for everyone else.”

So we have at a Human Rights Tribunal a person who speaks of ethnic immigrants, particularly women, as dirty and abusive and calls them “these people,” that they lie, “support their own kind” … and that person is the complainant?

Said complainant is also the person who most vilely went after Lindsay Shepherd, who is recently a mother, with a series of disgusting and most vulgar tweets — they are desperately ugly references to Shepherd’s own genitals and reproductive organs. When Shepherd responded with totally justified harshness, she was banned from Twitter! Twitter is the slop pail of political correctness, the idea it has a moral authority to rule on anything is benighted.

Back to the main storyline: some of these women, obviously under strain to provide for themselves and their families, have had to close their businesses over all this. The stress they are under — because of a human rights complaint — is itself something that might be filed under an abuse of human rights. The multiple and savage ironies in this case do not seem to enter the minds of those arbitrating what I regard as a degrading and narcissistic triviality.