Truly pathetic. Superior Court three weeks ago finds that a teacher presenting as a Delegation to the School Board trustees did not engage in hateful comments, did not violate the human rights code and had her rights to free speech removed by the trustees and their eager Chairman. Then yesterday another divisional court consisting of three adjudicators (judges) decided that golly gee that very same teacher broke the procedural rules of the school board trustees by allegedly wavering away from her pre-stated subject matter of discussing how the board decides which books to remove from school libraries and classrooms. Instead she allegedly sailed off into unchartered (unpermitted) waters by describing two specific books and what she felt was inappropriate sexual matter for very young children. This three person "court" also stated that the Chairman's decision to stop her from speaking was not unreasonable as it is part of his job to "...preserve order and decorum...". The trio also claimed that the topic of her speech to the trustees was irrelevant to those outlined in her request to speak to them. Well now: Since when does a citizen require to be pre-screened by the trustees? If she goes to a school board meeting and starts talking about non-educational matters (politics, immigration, disarmament, climate change etc.) then by all means shut her down. Otherwise if the citizen's comments have anything at all relevant to education then the trustees should shut up and let them speak (less of course profanity, threats, promotion of illegal activities etc.). Oh and this brain trust of three also stated that the Board's restriction on her freedom of expression was "minimal".
This trio of trouble simply deflected the whole argument towards one they felt they might have a better chance of getting away with namely that the teacher whose polite, professional and calm Delegation was briefly posted on-line; had allegedly violated the school board's Delegation policy. Too bad that was not what the board chairman (Piatkowski) had claimed. He publicly stated at the meeting that the teacher (Burjoski) had or was about to violate the Ontario Human Rights Code. Both claims are bullshit.
Meanwhile back to the Superior Court decision three weeks ago when Justice Ramsay clearly advised that he felt that the School Board do not have a valid defence to Ms. Burjoski's defamation lawsuit. He also said that she did not violate the Human Rights Code as alleged by the Board Chair.
How does one square the circle of two separate "courts" coming to such diverse conclusions? Also I personally watched the trio of alleged judges and their on-line judicial review. I have absolutely zero recollection that the Board raised the issue of Ms. Burjoski's Delegation being irrelevant to her pre-stated topic of discussion. The Board was not yelling about procedural failures by Burjoski either at the initial trustees meeting nor at the three person judicial review . Yet here suddenly that issue is the big deal. I repeat it's all about deflection. If your team screwed up the real issue badly then search desperately for some other speck to argue about. That shows incredible bias to me.
I will discuss last evening's RAC meeting here tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment