A pseudo-court recently declared June “Pride Month” and fined a small Canadian town and its mayor for refusing by a 3-2 vote to display the colors of LGBT activists. According to The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that failure to meet obligations to activist group Borderland Pride amounted to discrimination.
Harold McQuaker, a small construction business owner and mayor of Emo Township, Ontario, just north of the Minnesota border, remains defiant. tell “We flatly refuse to pay $5,000. It's extortion,” the Toronto Sun reported Monday.
Mackaker said the town council, which he has the power to decide, will jointly decide what to do with the $10,000 the court ordered Emo to pay. The amount is “more severe than most criminals have ever received,” The Sun noted.
“I have a lot of respect for the four city council members,” McQuaker said. “A special council meeting will be held to decide on that and what to do next. Will we pay the fine or appeal?”
“There is no flag flying for straight people.”
Borderland Pride overjoyed after verdict noticed McQuaker may also have to repay taxpayers for legal fees associated with his years-long defense, which are estimated to total at least six figures.
In addition to imposing financial penalties for democratic votes against outside radicals, Karen of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (which, despite being a non-judicial government body, issues judicial-like rulings) Mr. Dawson also ordered Mr. MacQuaker and the current township chief administrative officer to: The Local Government Act 2001 does not protect councilors from liability under the Human Rights Act for allegedly discriminatory practices in completing a woke court re-education program entitled 'Human Rights 101'. .
After all, McQuaker dared to point out to the City Council that “there is no flag raised for the other side of the coin. There is no flag raised for straight people.”
“We don't have a flagpole at City Hall.”
so-called e-learning module Human Rights 101 asserts that discrimination can be overt, covert, constructive, or systemic. Clearly, where the courts are concerned, what really matters is the perception of the crime, not the intent. In other words, someone's bigoted statements or neutral actions can become discriminatory depending on a flimsy ideologue's interpretation.
“I won't pay the $5,000 fine and I won't take the training,” McQuaker told The Sun. “I didn't do anything wrong.”
“If anyone needs training, it's LGBTQ2+ to stop pushing their weight and making demands that people can't bear,” MacQuaker added.
Contrary to suggestions from community activist groups, Mr MacQuaker maintained that all claims of bias were projections.
“I don't hate anyone,” McQuaker said. “We don't have a flagpole at City Hall.”
“This is about the unilateral power of unelected, unaccountable government agencies to compel speech.”
“I have been a husband to my wife for 51 years, a father of two children, a grandfather of seven children and a great-grandfather of one,” he said. “I consider myself a very reasonable person and a good leader for our community, and I would have a lot of support if elected.”
Borderland Pride slammed Mackaker on Monday over his comments, but it's hard to please. states“What we are seeing are public tantrums by elected officials, emboldened by a pattern of attacks on institutions and the rule of law by the political right. This is disturbing, inappropriate and Yes, it is illegal.”
“Mayor McQuaker's comments reflect gross disrespect for the laws that apply to his office, and he should retract them,” the activist group continued. “Mayor McQuaker is further governed by the City's Code of Conduct, which requires him to respect the authority of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Failure to do so may result in sanctions from the Integrity Commission. “I warn him not to engage in any activity whatsoever.” Further misconduct of this type clearly falls outside the expectations and demands of his office. ”
Alan Stratton, a gay Canadian playwright and longtime LGBT activist, condemned Borderland Pride in a recent op-ed in the National Post. write“This is about the unilateral power of unelected, unaccountable government agencies to compel speech.”
Stratton also noted that the case shows that the pseudo-court has “lost sight of its mission, undermined public confidence in its legitimacy, and presented a counterproductive example of left-wing authoritarianism.”
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Please register here!
