New “Ghomeshi Rules” will turn our courts into a circus
As Canadian judges struggle with the new so-called “Ghomeshi Rules” in accusations of sexual assault, many innocent men may go to prison.
Former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi was acquitted of sexual assault in a sensational, high profile trial back in 2016. Each of the complainants were deemed by Judge Horkins in that case to have “breached her oath to tell the truth” and even the media, who were mostly salivating for a conviction, had to admit that Ghomeshi should not have been convicted.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), on whose board I sit, offers pro bono legal services to individuals or groups whose Charter rights the JCCF agrees have been breached. They have announced that they are filing a court application on behalf of the Alberta March for Life (AMLA) and its vice-chair, Jerry Pasternak, “against the City of Edmonton for its decision to cancel a scheduled lighting of the 60,000 LED-lit High Level Bridge in colours chosen by AMLA.”
First, some background on the lighting-up history of the High Level Bridge and the reasoning behind this application.
Edmonton conceived its “Light the Bridge” program with the objective of helping to “recognize major events and cultural celebrations.” Its stated aim is “to reflect the diversity of people who call Edmonton home and our connection to the global community.” The bridge has been lit, in a variety of colours, for such causes/events as Melanoma Awareness, Disability Employment Awareness Month, Rosh Hashana, the Edmonton Oilers Home Opener and Wrongful Conviction Day.
The stated criteria include: events of national or international significance; local events that positively impact community spirit; national or international issues that build community “such as Treaty 6 Recognition Day or End Bullying Pink Shirt Day or World Cancer Day.” The city “reserves the right to deny requests that do not merit public support or are mainly personal, private, political, polarizing or commercial in nature.” (emphasis mine)
This is the second time Edmonton has cancelled a pro-life group’s scheduled bridge-lighting on the grounds that it was “polarizing,” as per its criteria caveats. In May 2017 AMLA received permission to celebrate a March for Life via the bridge, lit up in pink and blue, but was cancelled. The JCCF observes that the city does not offer any precise definition of what “polarizing” means, and furthermore:
“The City of Edmonton is home to a diverse population with a wide variety of views, values and beliefs including, unsurprisingly, persons who express pro-life views. As a government that is constitutionally obligated to be neutral regarding the expression of its citizens, it is not the proper role of the city to elevate and promote the favoured ideological causes of some citizens to the exclusion of the lawful views of others,” stated Justice Centre staff lawyer James Kitchen in a JCCF press release.
In the lawsuit, the JCCF will argue that Edmonton is offering state property to the public to utilize for expression, and can therefore only limit expression in a justified manner. Obviously hate speech, or overt racism or obscenity would run counter to the values and purposes underlying freedom of speech. But, they argue, expression of a pro-life opinion is none of these things, nor can it be considered any more “political” or “polarizing” than other causes for which the bridge has been lit.
According to the JCCF, the arbitrary decision is procedurally deficient in that neither notice of cancellation nor opportunity to respond was provided. The lawsuit requests that the City only light the bridge “without political or ideological favouritism” or in “neutral colours” (perhaps blue and gold, the province’s colours), as well as a declaration that the cancellation was unjust.
Edmonton naturally set out with the best of intentions in planning the Lights program. However, when they wrote the words “personal, private, political, polarizing,” did their committee members actually have a discussion about what the words meant, or wonder if their own assumptions about “political” and “polarizing” were the gold standard of settled opinion? Did they ask themselves whether polarizing meant the same thing as, say, “opposition” of opinion?
Perhaps they had in mind anything that might give offence to certain groups. One might easily deduce this since in our current era pro-life groups are often held up to ridicule and contempt without consequence, because pro-abortion is treated by most politicians and virtually all members of our cultural elite as the default opinion of all civilized and enlightened people.
And yet the offence is purely ideological. Those who do believe in the sanctity of human life from conception are not promoting violence, or actively preventing anyone from having an abortion. They seek to persuade fellow citizens to their belief, but the freedom to attempt to persuade others is the basis of democracy. The judgment that it is “polarizing” has not come down from some objective, disinterested court. It is a subjective judgment that has come down from activists and ideologues whose opinions our progressive elites defer to. How is it the city’s business to privilege one ideology over another?
One could argue that the city has grounds for rejecting the light display because of its “community-building” criterion. It is true that any and all pro-life displays cause social tension. But one could say the same for Pride, which in recent years has become extremely politicized, and which contains indecent presentation and performance that offend many people, especially parents of young children. But since LGBT feelings are routinely privileged in our institutions of education and governance over the feelings of those who find elements of the Pride brand off-putting, the city apparently does not find Pride polarizing at all, only “community-building.”
Likewise, the bridge is open to a request for the Walk a Mile in Her Shoes movement, which raises consciousness for violence against women, an important cause to be sure. But would it be open to, say, Male Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Awareness Week? The statistics on male victimhood within relationships are (I know, hard to believe, but true) almost equal to female victimhood, but I am guessing that any attempt to use the Bridge to raise awareness of that fact would be considered “polarizing.”
It may be that pro-life displays are not community-building, but that is not their fault. Pro-lifers are always willing to engage in civil dialogue with pro-abortionists, and civil engagement is the most fundamental community-building exercise (remember Norman Rockwell’s famous painting?). But those who consider pro-abortion the only admissible position in public life do not usually willingly engage with pro-lifers. Yet in the present cultural climate, their intransigence, their insistence that there can be only one correct opinion on this subject is not considered polarizing, while the opinion that the subject should be up for debate is considered polarizing, a faulty and undemocratic assumption that the City of Edmonton has demonstrated in their cancellation.
If the city cannot exercise ideological neutrality in its assignment of the Lights, then it should get out of the ideas and “rights” business altogether. Governments, after all, have no obligation to promote “causes” at all. Edmonton could reserve the Lights for a narrow swath of indisputably community-building communication, such as support for the city’s sports teams, physical-disease awareness weeks/months, national holidays and other apple-pie messaging.
But if they wish to go beyond those parameters and offer a podium for philosophical positions or ideals, then they have an obligation to treat groups that dissent from popular opinions with the same respect and rights to that tax-funded space as those with popular opinions.
Misandry—the hatred of men—has been a staple of my polemical writing for more than fifteen years. I felt a special obligation to hammer away at gender myths such as intimate partner violence (women are about as likely as men to initiate violence against their partners as men), false sexual allegations (a disturbing percentage of such allegations) and demonstrable bias against fathers in family court, because male journalists who dared to write sympathetically about men and/or critically about women put their careers in jeopardy (no exaggeration), and most had learned to keep shtumm in this domain.
That situation has been changing slowly but steadily. Some men have decided they aren’t going to spend their lives in rhetorical purdah on the subject of their own cultural dhimmitude, and have been stepping up to the plate, whatever the personal cost. The university campus is home to the feminist commissariat—and it’s a brave man who dares to stick his head above that formidable parapet. Because the cost of doing so can be high.
This is the story of one such activist who paid a price, which only fueled his resistance efforts, and which in turn inspired others, in reversing a decades-long erosion of men’s rights on campus.
In a meeting held in June, 2017, Kursat Christoff Pekgoz was pressured by his academic director at the University of Southern California into terminating his PhD degree in English Literature on what Pekgoz considered spurious and unprecedented grounds, accompanied by “many threats and irrational exaggerations” (the meeting was recorded). His contract was not renewed and his funding was cut off. This is extremely uncommon. In fact, Pekgoz is unaware of any other PhD student being denied a doctoral degree in English Literature [at USC].
The real reason for his PhD termination, Pekgoz alleges, is his history of gender activism via a series of Title IX complaints against a number of universities, such as Rutgers, Northeastern and Georgetown, to which he added one against USC at the end of May. As he told a PJ Media reporter, “They all know that I am a Title IX activist for men, with strong libertarian/conservative views.”
Title IX’s language is very plain. It prohibits any institution from funding, sponsoring, or listing gender-discriminatory programs and initiatives, so for example, even listing a woman-only scholarship or placing an employment ad specifying only women need apply runs counter to Title IX, though such breaches happen all the time. Title IX also prohibits discrimination in terms of counselling or health benefits. That should mean that both men and women are treated with equal objectivity and respect when, say, sexual-assault allegations come up for assessment. But universities have not covered themselves in glory, to say the least, on that front.
Indeed, motivation for Pekgoz’s robust activism arose in part from a Title IX complaint against him for sexual harassment. In response, he went on offence with a forceful and persuasive counter-charge that his accuser had in fact sexually assaulted him (it’s worth reading, because it offers a formidable sample of the kind of meticulous research and annotation Pekgoz applies to every single thing he says and writes. It does not seem to leave much wriggle room for his accuser, and I think any objective reader would come away from it with, minimally, doubts as to the accuser’s credibility.)
In 2018 Pekgoz complained to the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) about both USC and Yale University, prompting an investigation into both schools’ women-only scholarships and programs, such as a USC Women in Science and engineering group that excludes males.
Last January, Pekgoz and two former lawyers (not affiliated with Harvard University) filed a Title IX complaint with the OCR against Harvard, in which they rebut the received wisdom of female victimhood with an abundance of impeccably-sourced evidence demonstrating the various ways in which men are discriminated against in society and on campus. Notably, “the overwhelming majority of all persons sanctioned under Title IX theory are male. However, there is good evidence that men and women experience sexual victimization at equal rates and the majority of male victims report female perpetrators. The majority of Title IX administrators are women.”
Also in the Harvard complaint is a reference to Supreme Court prohibitions against male-gender discrimination. In Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, for example, the Supreme Court held that denying male admission to nursing courses was impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They wrote that a sex classification must be “…determined through reasoned analysis rather than through the mechanical application of traditional, often inaccurate, assumptions about the proper roles of men and women. … Thus, if the statutory objective is to exclude or ‘protect’ members of one gender because they are presumed to suffer from an inherent handicap or to be innately inferior, the objective itself is illegitimate.” This statement would seem to undermine the reflexive argument adduced by feminists that affirmative action for women is still necessary because of historic disadvantage or because there are more Fortune 500 male CEOs than women.
The most interesting complaint to the OCR, because it reveals the distance the men’s rights movement has come from its first tentative and atomized beginnings two decades ago, is the one led by Pekgoz against Cornell University in February, which Pekgoz described in an interview with Campus Reform as “one of the worst in the nation” for anti-male bias.
The document contains a “list of exclusionary programs” at Cornell, such as the lack of a Men’s Resource Center to balance the women’s Center, or a Men’s Health Center to balance the Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center. Likewise – even though “men are twice as likely to have heart attacks through life than women” – there is a women’s Heart Program, but none for men.
But the list itself, while interesting, is not what is most significant about the Cornell complaint. Rather it is the public support for the complaint amongst Pekgoz’s colleagues and from many respected public intellectuals, such as American Enterprise Institute scholar and feminist critic Christina Hoff Summers, that lend unusual moral weight to its claims. More than 185 professors, scholars and activists signed on to it, including Canada’s own Jordan B. Peterson, arguably the most recognizable and inspirational spokesman for gender equality in the world today. Peterson referenced Title IX’s long association with women’s rights succinctly: “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, told Campus Reform that he had signed the complaint because it “addresses a fundamental unfairness in contemporary America, centred in our colleges and universities” and because “it shows that exclusionary practices create a hostile environment” for men, some caused by an “animus against males perpetrated by feminist ideology.” Lawrence Alexander, a law professor at the University of San Diego, told Campus Reform that he signed because “its allegations are true and even understated.”
Such public affirmation on men’s behalf by high-status academics in prestigious institutions represents something like a tipping point in the gender wars, it seems to me. Margaret C. Valois, a Virginia-based Title IX attorney who specializes in defending accused male students filed a similar Title IX complaint against Tulane University and obtained a win recently. Valois, Pekgoz and another aggressive veteran in the battle for gender equality, Professor Mark Perry of the University of Michigan-Flint, are profiled by anti-feminist Canadian vlogger Janice Fiamengo, a signatory to the Cornell complaint, in Episode 94 of her popular Fiamengo File series, titled “Will 2019 Be the Year of MRA Lawsuits?”
Will it? It does seem that we are at a pivotal moment—that there is a powerful current of social unease, running just below the still hegemonically feminist surface, with the unfettered misandry that pervades our culture. In Pekgoz’s Harvard complaint, for example, he notes that whenever the Department of education investigates an institution for anti-male discrimination, public attitudes on the issue are on the side of men: “[A]ccording to a recent poll conducted by YouGov, 69% of all Americans believe that men face discrimination to some extent. 74% of men believe that such discrimination occurs, while 63% of women agree that men face some degree of discrimination.”
Fiamengo points to what she (and I) consider radical feminism’s shark-jumping moment, the publication in the Washington Post of Northeastern University academic Suzanna Danuta Walters’s odiously misandric June, 2018 article, “Why can’t we hate men?” which earned her a Title IX complaint filed by the National Coalition for Men (NCFM). Walters doubtless expected her screed would find the passive acceptance such anti-male rants often have done in the past, but was clearly startled by the fierce blowback she received.
A final word about Kursat Christoff Pekgoz. I don’t know him personally, but from his history, I would say that the USC Literature department picked the wrong guy to tangle with when they forced him out of his PhD program. This is a young man, now 30-something, who comes from Turkey, a land where they play political hardball, and backing the wrong horse can earn you something worse than a Twitter mobbing. He learned about activism in what we might call an “unsafe space.”
Pekgoz’s curriculum vitae informs us that In Turkey Pekgoz went out on potentially dangerous political limbs. He took part in the Republic protests of 2007 against fundamentalist Islam, as well as a protest against Islamist hate speech targeting Armenian and Jewish minorities in 2009, amongst other forays. He advocated against electoral fraud by the Islamist regime. He taught pro bono for an anti-Islamist organization that seeks to eliminate illiteracy among young women in Ankara (real feminism in action).
All this speaks to character. For relentless discipline and determination in achieving goals, add this salient fact: As a long-distance swimmer, Pekgoz has covered 11,000 m in the open sea, with the best speed of 5,000 m in 130 minutes. This is in seawater with a temperature of 17C. Don’t look to such a man to truckle to latte-sipping ideologues trafficking in gender injustice. Ever.
According to his bio, Pekgoz has “perfect pitch.” He means musically, of course. But it may be the case that he has perfect cultural pitch as well.
EXCLUSIVE: Mining industry implicated in multiple rapes and murders faces no "real consequences" after lobbying Trudeau 33 times in just over a year
On January 17, 2018, then Minister of International Trade, Francois-Philippe Champagne, announced the establishment of a new position.
For many, it was good news. Trudeau’s promised Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise came with the “ironclad” guarantee that an independent official would have the power to compel documents and witnesses for their investigations into corporations.
The commitment to the ombudsperson was not only verbal, but was included in Trudeau’s campaign promises and was stated explicitly on the Q&A page of the government’s website once he was in office.
Critics of Canada’s mining industry were particularly hopeful. The multi-billion-dollar industry is one of the largest in Canada and has long been suspected of crude human rights abuses—abuses that would warrant an investigation.
“A cultural habit”
Among the industry’s possible violations of international law—as bodies like the UN and Amnesty International might attest—is the chemical poisoning, rape, murder, and serious beating of hundreds of men, women, and children by people the industry directly or indirectly employed: all over the course of little more than a decade.
Taking just one example, in the mid-2000s researchers rushed to an area in Papua New Guinea, pursuing local reports of murder and abuse at a Canadian-owned mine (owned by Barrick Gold). One report was painstakingly gathered by villagers who travelled six hours to send documents in the closest area with internet.
Asides from victims of murder and beatings, researchers were surprised to find, when they arrived, that more than a hundred women and children had been raped by the mine’s security forces.
Barrick Gold Mining Company tried to cover up their security forces indiscretions, even at parliamentary hearings. Barrick’s founder, Peter Munk defended his company’s inaction complaining that human rights organizations did not understand how “gang rape is a cultural habit” in Papua New Guinea. But after dozens of human rights lawyers threateningly swarmed the island, the company gave in with a small compensation mechanism for 119 women.
Barrick made the compensated victims sign a legal waiver promising that they wouldn’t pursue legal action against the company. One lawyer working on the island found Barrick Gold to be executing a similar harm-and-sign practice in Tanzania. This is only a small glimpse into the array of telling cases.
Trudeau’s “ironclad commitment”
It is understandable why such a large and profitable industry—operating in the most remote corners of Latin America, Asia Pacific, and Africa—with a questionable history of human rights practices, would not want to be investigated. A powerful ombudsperson with a mandate to “review alleged human rights abuses arising from a Canadian company’s operations abroad,” would be particularly threatening.
Yet, Trudeau had made a commitment, a sealed promise, to create an ombudsperson with the powers to compel witnesses and documents as they carried out inquiries into violations of international law.
“We had an ironclad commitment by the government of Canada that this would be the mandate of the office,” MiningWatch Research Coordinator Catherine Coumans recalled in conversation with The Post Millennial.
“These companies are headquartered here, they’re getting tax-breaks here. They needed to be held to account here.”
But when in April 2019 the experienced and well-qualified Sheri Meyerhoffer was publicly appointed to the position of ombudsperson, she didn’t even know which tools or powers would be available to her, whether she could compel information from companies—or merely rely on existing research.
“We’ll see what the toolbox ends up having at the end of the day,” Meyerhoffer told reporters.
Indeed, it was made clear in this 2019 April press conference that “at the end of the day” Meyerhoffer and the public would have to hear from an independent legal opinion that would help establish the complete extent of her investigative powers. The expert’s advice was planned for release in early May.
This legal opinion never came out.
An undisclosed source told Coumans that the experts’ report took a wrong turn in the government’s eyes upon suggesting the new ombudsperson could be legally equipped with all the powers to subpoena initially promised. Others have suggested publicly that a legal disagreement took place on the best legal mechanism for giving Meyerhoffer serious investigative tools. Either way, the legal opinion was kept behind the political curtain.
Without the once-promised ability to compel witnesses and documents, the ombudsperson became limited in her investigations. She could still carry out inquiries and supply recommendations to the government. However, her reports would lack crucial specifics and credibility.
“Three months later, the study has not been made public, [and] the [ombudsperson] remains without meaningful powers to serve impacted communities and workers,” wrote several members of the Advisory board charged with overseeing the appointment of an ombudsperson, as they resigned this month in protest.
“We are increasingly convinced that the government has no intention to fulfill its commitment to create an independent office before the next federal election.”
Now, several months after Meyerhoffer was announced as ombudsman, a recent report highlights the campaign of intensive lobbying launched by the mining industry between the pivotal time frame of January 2018 to April 2019, a campaign that may have influenced impressionable politicians.
The Mining Association of Canada (MAC) and the Prospector and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC), both organizations representing Canadian mining corporations, lobbied the federal government on 530 occasions. The Prime Minister’s Office opened their doors to lobbyists of the industry 33 times in this same time period.
The contents of those meetings are not known. However, the data available does indicate those most lobbied by the industry.
These names include senior policy advisor for Natural Resources Canada and former employee of the mining industry, Guillaume Julien—lobbied 38 times—and Sarah Goodman, policy advisor in the Prime Minister’s Office—lobbied 18 times.
Jim Carr, now Minister of International Trade Diversification, who announced Meyerhoffer and her limited purview at the aforementioned press conference, also met with lobbyists from the mining industry a total of four times.
Moreover, Carr’s chief of staff took part in three meetings.
In contrast, only a single civil society organization was granted a meeting with the PMO. That organization, the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, was given just one meeting to discuss the mining industry despite continued and relentless attempts to arrange discussions. Adding insult to injury, the meeting was with a junior staffer, not the high-level policy advisors that entertained the mining lobbyists.
“We were being warned by staff members within the ministry that we needed to get a meeting because the industry is lobbying the heck out of the PMO. We were constantly concerned that the ombudsperson’s powers be removed. We were clear that if these powers were removed, they would effectively be duplicating the failures of the Harper government to put a strong ombudsperson in place,” Coumans said.
However, Coumans was not necessarily surprised by the political influence the mining industry seems to have demonstrated. The industry has long had a “revolving door” with the government, regularly handing out positions to “retired” politicians.
Take for instance, Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Both worked for the mining industry after leaving office.
Chretien went around the world, at the end of his political career, lobbying for the energy sector, while Mulroney has sat on the board of corporate directors for the largest gold-mining company in the world—Barrick—based in Toronto. The former leader has also had the privilege of being Chairman of Barrick’s International Advisory Board.
For John McKay a Liberal MP who has campaigned forcefully for accountability in the mining industry, he cannot help but echo this evidence that forces within the Canadian government are not operating on totally selfless motives.
“There are elements within the bureaucracy that don’t necessarily wish to see the ombudsperson have real abilities to access real investigations that have real consequences for real offenders,” McKay told The Post Millennial.
It is worth noting that McKay speaks with experience dating back to 2009 when he initiated efforts to hold the mining industry (as well as other members of the energy sector) accountable for human rights abuses abroad. The bill he tabled under the Harper government was consequently stopped after “possibly the most intensive lobbying interest known to mankind.”
Under McKay’s 2009 Private Member’s Bill C-300, three agencies—Export Development Canada, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade—would have to withdraw funding from companies acting “inconsistently” with the principles of corporate social responsibility.
“I’m generally a balanced budget guy, fiscally responsible, respect a competitive tax environment, competitive regulatory environment, but I have absolutely no time for companies that play on the edges of corruption and abuse of human rights,” Mckay explained.
Much like guarantees for a powerful ombudsperson, McKay’s plans would not come to fruition.
Despite a minority Conservative government (voting unanimously against the bill), and support from the Bloc and NDP, the 2009 motion failed by six votes.
“A few of my erstwhile liberal colleagues seemed to go south on me just at the wrong time. Apparently, they had a severe case of ‘diplomatic flu’ when the vote came up,” McKay said tellingly.
Indeed, despite possibly record attendance by Conservative MP’s, “diplomatic flu” seems to have struck 14 Liberal MP’s who did not turn out to vote. Bill C-300 would be buried.
This is the legacy of the mining industry in Ottawa, that has proceeded to perpetuate itself with continual “pressure and lobbying” observed by people like the Secretary-General of Amnesty International. Similarly, men like the Secretary-General have not failed to comment that action by the current government “doesn’t take us a step forward.”
Of course, there are options open to the disappointed members of the public that want to see an effective investigation into possible human rights abuses. As always, they can stage bold demonstrations. They might also—as some have suggested—make it an issue in the coming election.
A mother and business owner was forced to end her Brazilian waxing business after being taken to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to wax a transgender woman’s male genitalia.
Marcia Da Silva, who is an immigrant from Brazil operated the business out of her home where her small children also live. Da Silva claims she refused to perform the procedure on the claimant, Jessica Yaniv, due to safety concerns raised by her husband and alleged harassment on Yaniv’s part and not because of the claimant’s identity.
Aia Da Silva, who is an immigrant from Brazil operated the business out of her home where her small children also live. Da Silva claims she refused to perform the procedure on the claimant, Jessica Yaniv, due to safety concerns raised by her husband and alleged harassment on Yaniv’s part and not because of the claimant’s identity.
Yaniv, who was formerly known as Jonathan Yaniv, has taken fifteen other B.C. women to the tribunal for refusing to wax her male genitalia citing discrimination based on gender identity and is seeking financial compensation. Many of the woman are of East Asian ethnicity and have English as their second language.
During Wednesday’s tribunal proceedings Da Silva claims that the incident directly led to her shutting down her business and losing it as a source of income for her family.
“Some of my clients have been very significantly affected on a personal level. [Another client also] closed her business, she has been depressed, anxious, sleepless and that has gone on for a period of many many months,” said her representative and Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms lawyer, Jay Cameron.
“It is a very serious thing to launch a human rights complaint against a person. My clients are people. They have a right to make a living and this has interfered with their livelihood, but also you have the stigma of being associated with this hanging over you.”
Cameron told the tribunal judge that many of Yaniv’s claims specifically target women from ethnic and religious minorities and that the procedure to perform a wax on male genitals is different than those performed on a vulva.
According to Yaniv, estheticians should be obliged to provide a service like waxing to a female-identifying trans person and religious and cultural views should not interfere with the ability to access a service.
“The people that discriminated against me are forcing their beliefs on society,” said Yaniv, who is representing herself, while cross-examining her own mother who she called as a witness to the tribunal.
During Wednesday’s hearing a publication ban on the case was also lifted. The presiding tribunal member cited public interest and the claimant’s own online activity about the case as the reason to remove it.
“I don’t think that somebody making complaints to the scale that the complainant is making should be able to hide behind a publication ban and then publicly discuss the cases online,” said Cameron.
“My perspective is that the tribunal came to the right decision and I think that’s part of the open court process.”