Why didn't this story get more play?

I think it's the durned subscriber wall over at the Globe and Mail that's responsible for the fact that another example of a strange Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, involving an Iranian-born Mountie cadet never got a good Ezra Levant and/or Mark Steyn slicing and dicing.

Here's a bit from the CP story now hidden behind the Globe's protective barrier:

The tribunal was ordered to include consideration of RCMP statistics which Mr. Tahmourpour obtained under federal access to information legislation. He concluded that the statistics show visible minorities accounted for 11 per cent of RCMP recruits between 1996 and 2001, but made up 23 per cent of the rejections during that period.

Mr. Tahmourpour told the Federal Court of Appeal there was “systemic discrimination” against visible minorities in the RCMP. At the time, the RCMP denied his allegations, saying Mr. Tahmourpour was simply not Mountie material.

He also told the court that instead of treating his request to wear the pendant during fitness classes respectfully, a sergeant told the class in a “condescending and hostile” manner that “no one is going to wear his religious jewelry, except for Ali, of course.”

Now, to clarify some confusion you might be experiencing. Tahmourpour filed human rights complaints that were originally dismissed. He appealed, and eventually the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to hear his case. So, in their latest decision, they ordered:

[267] Pursuant to its authority under s. 53(2) of the Act, the Tribunal orders the following:

(i) Unless otherwise agreed upon, the Respondent shall offer Mr. Tahmourpour an opportunity to re-enroll in the next available RCMP Cadet Training Program at Depot;

(ii) If Mr. Tahmourpour accepts the offer of re-enrollment, the Respondent shall undertake a fair assessment of his skills at the outset of the training program to determine the areas in which training is needed;

(iii) The Respondent shall pay Mr. Tahmourpour compensation for salary and benefits he lost for the first 2 years plus 12 weeks of work as an RCMP officer after graduating from Depot. The compensation shall be discounted by 8%;

(iv) The Respondent shall pay Mr. Tahmourpour the difference between the average full-time industrial wage in Canada for persons of his age, and the salary that he would have earned as an RCMP officer until such time as Mr. Tahmourpour accepts or rejects an offer of re-enrollment in the training program at Depot. The Respondent shall compensate Mr. Tahmourpour for the average amount of overtime paid to other constables who graduated from Depot in 1999, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. The compensation shall be discounted by 8%;

(v) The compensation must reflect a promotion to Corporal after 7 years;

(vi) The parties shall attempt to agree upon the measures and a timetable for addressing the issues set out in the "Systemic Remedy" part of this decision. In the event that they are unable to reach an agreement on this portion of the award within 3 months from the date of this decision, the Tribunal will make a final determination;

(vii) The Respondent shall pay $9,000 to Mr. Tahmourpour in compensation for the pain and suffering caused by its discriminatory conduct;

(viii) The Respondent shall pay $12,000 to Mr. Tahmourpour pursuant to s. 53(3) of the Act;

(ix) The Respondent shall pay $9,500 to Mr. Tahmourpour in compensation for the expenses he incurred in minimizing his losses. The Respondent shall also compensate Mr. Tahmourpour for the legal expenses he incurred in this matter;

(x) The Respondent shall pay interest on the compensation awarded in this decision as set out above.

"Signed by"

Karen A. Jensen

OTTAWA, Ontario

April 16, 2008

The Decision lays out the facts as follows:

4

] Mr. Tahmourpour alleged that from the first day of training at Depot he was singled out for negative treatment on the basis of his religion, race and national or ethnic origin. He stated that he was ridiculed for wearing a religious pendant and for signing his name in the Persian style. He was subject to ongoing verbal harassment, hostile treatment and negative performance evaluations by his instructors. This had the effect of undermining his confidence and impairing his ability to develop and demonstrate the necessary skills at Depot. When Mr. Tahmourpour challenged one of the instructors who was treating him negatively, the instructor in question began mounting a campaign to have him removed from Depot. At the urging of this instructor, Mr. Tahmourpour was given negative and inaccurate performance evaluations which ultimately led to his dismissal from the training program. The final act of discrimination occurred, in Mr. Tahmourpour's view, when the RCMP denied him the ability to return to the program on the basis of an inaccurate evaluation of his mental stability.

[

5] It is Mr. Tahmourpour's view that the negative treatment he received was a manifestation of systemic discrimination against visible minorities at Depot. According to him, the systemic discrimination at Depot consisted of the RCMP's failure to address a culture of disrespect and negativity towards visible minority cadets at Depot, as a result of which the attrition rates for visible minorities were higher than for non-visible minority cadets.

[6] The RCMP denies that there was systemic discrimination at Depot during the time that Mr. Tahmourpour was there. The RCMP states that Mr. Tahmourpour's performance at Depot was fairly evaluated and found wanting. His training contract was terminated for no other reason than that he failed to meet the standards at Depot. When he was informed that his contract was terminated, Mr. Tahmourpour's negative reaction to this event demonstrated that he could not deal with challenges. Therefore, the RCMP was justified in putting a note on his file recommending that he not be considered for re-enrollment.

[7] The Canadian Human Rights Commission did not participate in the proceedings. However, it remained a party to the proceedings and indicated its interest in any preliminary, resolution, enforcement or judicial review proceedings that might arise.

Here's some of what the "respondent" had to say about this cadet:

[67] Corporal (now Inspector) Bradley testified that from the beginning, she perceived that Mr. Tahmourpour had a great deal of difficulty in scenario training. He had difficulty reading the environment and responding appropriately. She stated that his difficulties stemmed from poor communication skills. Communication skills are more than just speaking. They involve listening, taking in information and responding appropriately. As a result of his inability to communicate effectively, Mr. Tahmourpour was poor in all aspects of risk assessment, police and public safety assessment and interactions with suspects.

[68] Corporal Bradley stated that Mr. Tahmourpour was given regular verbal feedback about his communication skills. For example, in the anger management scenario, Mr. Tahmourpour was unable to respond to the cues and to use the techniques that he had been taught. In keeping with the standard procedure, his performance was critiqued after the scenario. Corporals Jacques and Bradley testified that the feedback would have been provided in a constructive way.

[69] With regard to the Community Consultative Group, Corporal Bradley stated that Mr. Tahmourpour seemed to have formulated an approach to dealing with the problems presented in the meeting. Regardless of the information or emotion that was presented to him, he would not deviate from his plan. The result was that he did not listen to people and would not react to what they were saying. The group became increasingly angry when they perceived that Mr. Tahmourpour was not responding to the issues they were raising. He did not use the techniques that had been taught to engage in interest-based negotiation such as paraphrasing, identifying interests, asking questions, reading emotions and saying things like "ok, I can see that this is really important to you, what can we do to help you with this?"

[70] Inspector Bradley provided credible testimony regarding Mr. Tahmourpour's communication difficulties. She performed well during a rigorous cross-examination on this point. When challenged, for example, about the fact that Mr. Tahmourpour's peers thought that he remained in control throughout the Community Consultative Group, Inspector Bradley stated that it was not inconsistent to remain in control of the group (which was generally positive) and yet, be unresponsive to the needs and interests that were being raised during the meeting. She did not waiver in her assessment that Mr. Tahmourpour's performance during this meeting was unacceptable. She was able to respond to the questions put to her by counsel for the Complainant in a calm, straightforward manner. She was assertive and forthright, and spoke with conviction and an air of candour that I found convincing.

[71] In contrast, I found Mr. Tahmourpour's evidence on the issue of his communication skills to be less credible. He asserted that his performance in the Community Consultative Group was excellent because he came up with a solution. It appeared to me that he did not fully appreciate that there is more to communication than expressing one's own ideas and coming up with a solution to a problem. For example, when Mr. Tahmourpour was asked what he thought was meant by "active listening" he stated that he thought that it meant taking good notes.

[72] Mr. Tahmourpour also demonstrated his weakness in self-assessment during the hearing. He agreed in cross-examination that he might have some weaknesses in communication skills. Yet, when asked what these weaknesses were, Mr. Tahmourpour was unable to identify any area. He often repeated that, like everyone, he had areas that he needed to work on. But, when pressed on what those might be, he was evasive.

[73] Therefore, I think it more probable than not that by September 8, 1999 Mr. Tahmourpour had demonstrated that he was failing to develop certain communication skills that are essential to police work: active listening, consensus building, interest-based negotiation, and speaking in a commanding tone of voice. The first part of Mr. Tahmourpour's prima facie case, therefore, is not made out.

[74] However, Mr. Tahmourpour asserted, in the alternative, that his weaknesses at Depot resulted from the constant unfounded criticism that he received at Depot. Mr. Tahmourpour did receive a lot of attention from the instructors at Depot. Some of the attention he received came in the form of sincere efforts to assist him to overcome weaknesses in areas such as communication skills. However, as I have already noted, he was also subjected to verbal harassment and derogatory remarks by Corporal Boyer that were based, at least in part, on his race, religion and/or ethnic or cultural background. Mr. Tahmourpour stated that he felt intimidated and his confidence was seriously undermined by this treatment.

This decision did get a good slicing and dicing by the Globe's Margaret Wente, again behind that blasted subscriber wall. But here are some salient quotes:

Ali Tahmourpour always dreamed of being a Mountie. But it was not to be.
In 1999, the Iranian immigrant washed out of cadet school after he was
singled out and harassed because of his ethnicity.

Last week, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal awarded him upward of half
a million dollars and ordered the RCMP to give him another chance. "I
believe I have a lot to contribute to the force," declared the
35-year-old.

-snip-

Since flunking boot camp all those years ago, Mr. Tahmourpour hasn't
exactly displayed the resilience, resources or self-reliance you might
expect from someone who wants to be a Mountie. For example, he hasn't
held a job. He got a real-estate licence, but that didn't work out. He
qualified to be a translator, but that didn't work out, either. He
claims he was too busy fighting his case to look for work. Mercifully,
the adjudicator didn't swallow that one. That's why she awarded him only
half a million dollars, which was far less than what he wanted - 8 1/2
years back pay from the RCMP, including upgrades for promotions.

So, all in all, I guess we should be grateful. Mr. Tahmourpour got his
day in court, and then some. Now he'll get a second chance to fulfill
his dream and, this time, the people who run boot camp will be very,
very careful. Will our nation be well-served if he makes it? You decide.