Hamalengwa v. National Post, 2016 HRTO 417

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Munyonzwe Hamalengwa

Applicant

-and-

National Post and Christine Blatchford

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: April 1, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 417

Indexed as: Hamalengwa v. National Post

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The thrust of the Application concerns two articles in the National Post newspaper authored by columnist/reporter Christie Blatchford. The applicant complains that:

…Christie Blatchford and the National Post, knowing very well the unethical, offensive, fighting nature, provocative, deeply insultive (sic) character, and humongously (sic) racist attribute it is, wrote and spelt out fully the “N” word. On October 23^rd, 2015, one thought that it was an oversight even though it was over-used within one article. But its use again on October 27, 2015 cannot be excused as an oversight. Even though the work was used by Sammy Yatim and Christie Blatchford and the National Post are merely repeating what he stated, it still begs the question as to why “F” word which was used by Sammy Yatim was not fully spelt out by Christie Blatchford and the National Post. What the “n” word means in history of the western world and what it has done to people of African descent is well-known throughout the world. Much more well-known that the “F” word!

The repeated use of the fully spelt out “N” word was and is done deliberately to insult, offend, denigrate, demean, annoy and indignify (sic) Canadians of African descent. There is no other conclusion. Just like the “F” word wasn’t fully spelt out because of it connotation, so should the “N” word not have been used because every decent grown up, especially a reporter and a mature newspaper knows what the word, fully spelt out implicates.

The articles mentioned above have offended myself and several African-Canadians that I have talked to.

I am requesting Christie Blatchford and the National Post issue a public apology to all African-Canadians.

3By letter dated March 1, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application as being outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it appeared the Applicant does not raise a social area covered by the Code.

4The applicant provided submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on March 22, 2016.

analysis

5The Tribunal must determine whether the allegations in an application implicate a right to equal treatment on the grounds listed in the Code and in relation to the social areas of employment, accommodation, or goods, services and facilities. If an application does not involve one of these social areas, the Code does not apply to the situation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the allegations. See Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 765 at para. 21.

6The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Gay Alliance Toward Equality v. Vancouver Sun, 1979 CanLII 225 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 435, makes it clear that the content of a newspaper is not a service within the meaning of statutory human rights codes. Thus the Tribunal has held that the content of a newspaper editorial is not a “service” within the meaning of the Code: Whiteley v. Osprey Media Publishing, 2010 HRTO 2152.

7Similarly, I find that the content of Ms. Blatchford’s columns in the National Post is not a “service” for the purposes of the Code.

8Accordingly, this Application does not fall within the social area of “services” under the Code.

9The Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and is therefore dismissed.