Released on January 02, 2014, 11:30 PM EDT
Tag #: 664
Lack of Accountability: "Gravy train" all over again
hired private lawyer to cover-up for their assistant solicitor,
City’s "cover-up" lawyer Khoraych, had her request denied in
the Toronto case
(from left) Canapini - "Bad legal advice", Khoraych - City's "cover-up" lawyer
WikiLeaks Sudbury has learned that the City hired a private
lawyer to cover-up for their assistant solicitor, Kristen Newman.
Newman is facing allegations of violations of human rights. The
human rights case is scheduled to be heard before the Ontario Human
Rights Tribunal and more information will available to the public
thereafter. Newman’s controversial practices are highlighted by
the the information and privacy commissioner’s office of Ontario.
Newman is also facing allegations regarding violation of the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, with
an attempt at preventing the public access to the information.
Benkovich, Director of Water and Wastewater Services; and Kevin
Fowke, Director of Human Resources and Organizational Development
are facing the allegations along with Newman. According to the
sources available to the WikiLeaks Sudbury team, seven human rights
complaints were filed against the bureaucrats in the Ontario Human
Rights Tribunal within the last few years. A large amount of tax
dollars were unnecessarily wasted on legal fees to defend
bureaucrats, as the City`s legal service department consists of 11
full time staff with lawyers. All this and Newman continues to rake
in thousands of tax dollars towards her salary and benefits each
month. Despite this, she never even appeared before the Tribunal to
represent the City’s top bureaucrats.
Human Rights Tribunal cases were continually assigned to the
City’s “cover-up” lawyer, Mireille Khoraych. This provides
clear evidence of secrecy behind the external legal service contract
and the City. There are many qualified lawyers within the Greater
Sudbury district that are perfectly able to handle any labour or
employment related issue. City’s “gravy obsessed” bureaucrats
however did not even think about the value of tax dollars,
continually hiring out-of- town lawyers to defend them. This
resulted in paying additional air fares and hotel fees. It was
estimated that there was a 30% legal fee increase on the final bill
that the burden of its payment was passed to the tax payers.
Khoraych’s request is denied in Toronto case
Recently, the City’s “cover-up” lawyer, Mireille Khoraych
attempted to dismiss another Human Rights application submitted by
an employee of Ryerson University, Toronto, using her same old
tactics as those in the Sudbury cases. She
requested that the Tribunal remove the personal respondents and
dismiss the application.
applicant however, filed a reply in response to the submissions to
the Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) submitted by
Khoraych. While the applicant disputes Khoraychs’ various
requests, the applicant agrees to defer the Application pending the
completion of the arbitration.
tribunal granted the applicant`s request. Khoraych`s same old
habitual tactics failed. Unbelievably, the City is continually
seeking her advice, as if it were a game, and allow her to play with
her infamous, questionable, habitual tactics at the cost of tax
of the disputes raised in the workplace can be resolved very quickly
with no cost to tax payers. But “gravy obsessed" bureaucrats
continually hired private lawyers. WikiLeaks Sudbury also uncovered
that tax dollars amounting to $ 717,123.22 were being pumped to
Khoraych’s legal firm in Toronto within last few years, and that
this amount has now already reached over one million dollars.
Sudbury will not disclose the name of the private legal firm in
order to protect third party economic interests.
Canapini, leading the Legal Service department and Kevin Fowke,
leading the Human Resources department must be held accountable for
spending vast amounts of tax dollars on legal proceedings. This is a
waste of tax dollars and their "gravy train" must be
stopped immediately. Not only that but they should also provide tax
payers with some answers.
The clock is
Toronto Case - 2012 HRTO
Released on January 02, 2014 at 11:30 PM EDT
article initially published on International Journal, 53(1), 94 –
116. Excerpts from the
article as follows.
Human rights and the culture wars:
Globalization and the universality of human rights
can sympathize with the feeling of being culturally besieged. The
danger is that such sympathy might result in the belief that culture
should override universal human rights. Cultures are not the
highest ethical value; there is no intrinsic moral reason to assume
that a cultural practice bears a higher ethical value than, for
example, equality between honoured and despised ethnic groups or
castes. Cultures can also change, as much through cultural diffusion
(voluntarily borrowing a practice) as through cultural compulsion
(having a cultural practice forced on you). In any case, a change in
one aspect of a culture does not bring down the entire cultural
edifice. And there are disputes among individuals within a 'culture'
about its meaning and its value. Powerful people can impose customs
on others, yet they are the ones usually acting as spokespersons for
the culture as a whole.
are certain criteria that can be used to determine when a practice
that violates human rights is cultural: strong popular
support for the violation, based in religion or custom; the
government does not promote the violation; and the government has
tried to eradicate the violation, only to find that there is too
much popular support for it to be able to do so. But if it is a
gross violation, one might not wish to permit a custom, even if it
is rooted in culture. Thus, for example, one might tolerate child
betrothal (engaging children to be married) on the grounds that it
is an important part of traditional culture not promoted by the
state: for example, in a very isolated tribal group in Papua New
Guinea or the Amazon rain forest. But one might not wish to permit
female genital mutilation, on the grounds that even though it is a
cultural practice, it is a gross violation of children's and women's right to
health. It is extremely important to respect the cultures of
nonWestern peoples, especially given that European imperialists were
busy until the 1960s trying to destroy those cultures by imposing
'Christianity, commerce, and civilization.' But it is equally
important to remember that all cultures are composed of individuals
who often exploit or oppress each other and who often wish for
freedom from that oppression.
is a real danger that culturalist social movements will have
increasing influence in the twenty-first century. They may well join
with authoritarian governments of various kinds to suppress the human
rights movement as an inauthentic, non-indigenous, 'Western'
cultural imposition. To argue this point, it is necessary to review
a series of debates about human rights that have been
occurring since the 1970s. In discussing these debates, I will refer
to culturalist reaction because it is a more descriptive and less
polemical term than fundamentalism or Barber's jihad. In the end,
the culturalist reaction against the West could be one factor in a
standard definition of human rights is that they are rights possessed
by all biological human beings, merely by virtue of being human.
They are equal for all: all human beings are of equal
moral worth and deserve the same protections. Human rights do
not depend upon a particular social status (such as male or female,
upper or lower caste). They are individual rights, independent
of group membership and held primarily against the state. But they
are also held against society or even against the family, as in the
case of women's and children's rights. Nor do they have to be
earned, although they can be limited under certain legally defined
circumstances (for example, if the country in which the rights'
holder lives is at war). Human rights are a 'trump': they
trump any other claims that can be made.
rights are often described as belonging to three 'generations.'
The first generation includes civil and political rights such
as the right to a fair trial or the right to
vote. The second generation includes economic, social, and cultural rights,
such as the right to work or the right to eat.
The third generation is dubbed 'collective' rights and
includes, inter alia, the right to self-determination and
the right to development; bothrights, it is thought, that
can be enjoyed only by groups, not by individuals.
three-generation division of rights is dangerously facile.
It makes, roughly, the following equivalencies. Civil-political rights are
rooted in Western history and are based on claims by the selfish individual against
the community. Furthermore, they are 'negative': all they require is
state abstinence from certain actions (such as torturing citizens)
to be implemented. Economic, social, and cultural rights were
introduced by the socialist world and require positive action to be
implemented; for example, the redistribution of food. Collective rights
were introduced by the developing world; they also require positive
state action. Economic, social, and cultural rights and
collective rights both show a respect for the collectivity
and community not found in the individualist Western approach to rights.
rights do reflect one particular philosophy: liberalism.
Liberalism may have originated in the West, but it can be applied
elsewhere. And it is increasingly attractive to many people who do
not live in the West, including many who, for reasons of cultural
pride, simultaneously criticize human rights as Western
yet try to find the same principles of justice in their own cultures
and religions. To mask the anti-liberal reaction as anti-Western
permits a political disagreement to be masked as a nationalist one.
Thus the Chinese commentator cited above can hide his country's
interest in maintaining an authoritarian political system behind a
stance of being insulted by Western cultural arrogance.
rights are a particular way of looking at questions of justice
that is suitable to the modern world in which everyone everywhere
lives, including the most remote tribes in Papua New Guinea or the
Amazon rain forest. The philosophy of human rights is
suitable in the modern world given the ubiquity of the state, the
ubiquity of pressures to conform to social norms or rules, and the
near-ubiquity of racism, religious prejudice, patriarchal institutions,
and homophobia. Liberalism as it has developed over the twentieth
century protects individuals from all forms of rights abuse,
and it also -- at least in its social democratic variant -- focusses
heavily on economic and social as well as civil and political rights.
The assertion that 'Western' human rights ignore economic rights,
or would ignore development, is false.
universalism originally intended by the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights implies that what humanity
shares is greater than the cultures that divide humanity into
groups. There are universal causes of human rights violations;
every society is capable of cruelty. The notion of an unbridgeable
gulf between 'us' and 'them,' between the formerly dominant white
world and the rising world of the coloured, as promoted especially
by postmodernist identity politics, obscures the universality of human suffering. Human suffering
becomes localized in a peculiar way: if Westerners notice and
criticize human suffering elsewhere they are imperialists,
except when they blame their own institutions and policies
for that suffering.
Howard, R. E. (1998).
Human rights and the culture wars: Globalization
and the universality of human rights. International
January 02, 2014