Friday December 2, 2005
See today’s LifeSiteNews stories
Lesbians Want More Than Just Fine for Knights of Columbus: Launch Appeal
Blogger captures “travesty” K of C v. lesbians Human Rights tribunal decision
By Terry Vanderheyden
EDMONTON, December 2, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Two lesbians, Tracey Smith and Deborah Chymyshyn, said yesterday that they are appealing a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision that granted $2,000 in damages for the “humiliation” they suffered for being denied a hall to celebrate their same-sex “wedding” from the Knights of Columbus.
“This is going to be the first real legal test of the (same-sex marriage law),” said the couple’s homosexual advocate lawyer, Barbara Findlay. Findlay is the founder of both provincial and federal “national queer lawyers’ groups” at the Canadian Bar Association. “We want the court to make the call – how far does freedom of religion extend under the charter? Where do we draw the line?”
“Basically the Knights were punished for bad manners, not discrimination,” Findlay emphasized. “We won the battle. We’re nowhere near winning the war.”
Meanwhile, a web-logger (blogger) has succinctly captured the essence of a decision by the Tribunal that awarded the lesbians damages for a supposed failure on the part of the Knights to act nice: “Pathetic.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews.com Wednesday: https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/nov/05113006.html, the Tribunal demanded that the Knights of Columbus award a lesbian couple damages – not for refusing to rent them a hall for their same-sex “wedding,” but for the supposed “humiliation” it caused them.
In reading through the decision, Bob Tarantino at Let It Bleed described the decision as “a freakin’ travesty . . . The three panellists furrowed their brows, quoted a whole bunch of irrelevant case law, contradicted themselves about a jillion times and then, when not even that mash-up could get them to the result they wanted, they just made it up.”
The first thing that Tarantino points out is that the lesbians, who launched the complaint ostensibly for the “embarrassment” the Knight’s caused them, were the ones who in fact leaked the story to the media. Even the Human Rights judges acknowledged this, in paragraph 31 of their decision: “. . . Ms. Chymyshyn typed a letter setting out the situation, with input from Ms. Smith and a friend who was with them at the time. They then sent the letter to the media.”
Another writer, DCardno, commenting at Let it Bleed, added: “But I’m deeply troubled by an award for ‘dignity’ after it was this couple who themselves, according to their own evidence, took the extraordinary step of notifying the media! How truly humiliated must they have been that they had to seek publicity for it! Yet the Panel agreed that all parties wanted to settle the matter privately. Sounds a bit dicey to me.”
Tarantino also pointed out, in paragraph 83, where it describes how “Both parties spent considerable time describing the Hall and the placement within it of the crucifix, a picture of the ascension of the Virgin Mary, a picture of the Pope and pictures of the leaders of the Knights.” The tribunal then acknowledged, “Even if the complainants had noticed those items, the Panel is not persuaded that they would have made the connection between them, the Knights, and the fact that the Hall was a building with religious significance that may have had restrictions as to the types of events that could take place there.”
“Laughably,” Tarantino added, “(well, not really, but what else can you do?) the Court awarded $1,000 to each of the complainants ‘for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect’ (para. 151). What’s pathetic is that the panel is not able, even once, to identify the actions which lead to these supposed injuries. There is absolutely no enumeration of what the Knights actually did to injure the complainants. Other than a reference at paragraph 42 to one of the complainants feeling ‘that their comments were offensive’ (which ‘comments’ these are is never explained), and noting that the Knights didn’t offer a written apology (although everyone agreed that multiple verbal apologies were offered), it’s unclear what the Knights did wrong.”
Tarantino also points out how, in paragraph 124, the Tribunal asserts that “the Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation . . .”
“They did do this,” Tarantino explained. “The panel admits they did this (see: paragraph 29, where the panel describes the Knights having called the complainants to explain the situation; paragraph 37, where the panel describes more calls, from another Knights representative; paragraph 40, where the panel describes a Knight representative meeting with the complainants; etc.)”
The tribunal said the Knights had the obligation of “. . . immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred . . .” (Par. 124)
“Again, the Knights did this,” Tarantino said. “The panel admits they did this (paragraph 37). This decision is positively Kafkaesque.”
The tribunal also said “. . . perhaps offering assistance in finding another solution” was warranted.
“This is where things get really funky,” Tarantino quipped. “First the panel says that quote (in paragraph 124), then they let out this: ‘This should not be taken to mean that the Knights were required to find another hall for the complainants, but they were required to consider whether they could assist the complainants in that process, if necessary.’”
See the remainder of Tarantino’s insights at: https://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2005/11/knights_in_the_.htm…
A National Post column, appearing only in the print edition, commented on the ruling, “This raises the question: When did the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal become Miss Manners? Enforcement of rules of etiquette are surely one responsibility that falls outside legitimate government power.
The Post column, titled “B.C.’s Busybodies,” contended that the Tribunal’s involvement should have ended at determining if a human rights violation had occurred. “But the only legal issue in this case was whether the Knights had a right to discriminate against certain rental customers based on the group’s genuinely held religious beliefs. Once that matter had been settled by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in the Knights’ favour, its involvement should have ended.”
“When Parliament passed the bill legalizing same-sex marriage, there was a great deal of concern that the new law would result in the infringement of the religious rights of groups opposed to such unions,” the Post author added. “That fear has not found support in the Knights’ case. But an equally vexing precedent has been set. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has usurped the role of Emily Post.”
See Edmonton Sun coverage:
https://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2005/12/01/1331941-…
See LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Knights of Columbus Forced to Pay Damages to Lesbians for Refusing to Rent Hall for “Wedding” Reception
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/nov/05113006.html
Read the Humans Rights Tribunal decision:
https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshy…
DCardno said, “I’m gonna help with their fine:”
To contact the Knights:
Grand Knight Tom Carr
Knights of Columbus
2245 Fraser Ave.
Port Coquitlam, BC
V3B 6G8
SHARE THIS STORY: E-mail Print Newsvine Digg Reddit Del.icio.us Facebook