The inference being that they must be unbiased and unmoved by a party's race, gender, appearance etc. I guess that it's a nice metaphor or pardon the pun, visual, to assist the masses in believing in the basic fairness, honesty and accuracy of their adjudication. Bias can be blatant or subtle. It can be intentional or unintentional. It can be heinous or it can be an appropriate expression of a human being's right to discriminate in extremely personal relationships. I really don't think that anyone would seriously suggest that another person is a bigot if their preference in close friends are people of their own colour. At the same time if two close friends are of different skin colour then that is nobody else's business but theirs. Discrimination and bias can sometimes be tricky matters.
Monday I saw and heard three justices ask questions and make comments during the judicial review of the Caroline Burjowski affair. Maybe I'm biased because I picked up on visual and auditory "clues" apparently as did Scott Piatkoski when he was watching and listening to Caroline Burjowski about seventeen months ago. My concerns have been multiplied when I learned today that the Mike Ramsay (trustee) judicial review is being tried by the very same three judges. What the hell is that all about??? The Board (WRDSB) are having the same two lawyers whereas Mr. Ramsay has a different lawyer representing him than Ms. Burjowski has.
Today's Waterloo Region Record has the writeup by Robert Williams of yesterday's judicial review of the Mike Ramsay situation. His lawyer has suggested that the Trustee Chair, Mr. Piatkoski, was biased when it came to dealing with Mr. Ramsay. He suggested that Mr. Piatkoski had made up his mind regarding Mr. Ramsay long before the Integrity Commissioner's decision was released. It was claimed by the Board's lawyer that the integrity commissioner acknowledged that the conduct alleged in the complaint against Mr. Ramsay was due to the Board's decision to cut Ms. Burjowski's presentation short. The Board's lawyers also told the hearing panel (3 judges) proper process was followed and that Mr. Piatkowski was not biased.
Personally I have no problem with Mr. Ramsay or any other Trustee speaking against Board decisions outside the confines of the Education Centre or the Trustees' meeting room. Whether or not the Board have passed Motions or other confining rules and regulations in order to prevent dissenting Trustees opinions from being disseminated outside "normal" channels I do not know. In other words I support Mr. Ramsay on this matter whether or not he may have violated, quite frankly, probably self-serving and not in the public interest, rules and regulations passed by the Board or Trustees designed to limit dissent or public discussion.
Again I suggest that it should not be Mr. Ramsay "on trial" but both the school board (WRDSB) and our judges and courts similar to the Caroline Burjowski case..
No comments:
Post a Comment