Angry in the Great White North

The definition of "harass" seems clear that it is up close and personal:

1. To irritate or torment persistently.


2. To wear out; exhaust.


3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

The dictionary goes on the speculate on the origins of the word:

[French harasser, possibly from Old French harer, to set a dog on, from hare, interj. used to set a dog on, of Germanic origin.]

To carry on a bit further:

Synonyms: harass, harry, hound, badger, pester, plague
These verbs mean to trouble persistently or incessantly. Harass and harry imply systematic persecution by besieging with repeated annoyances, threats, or demands: The landlord harassed tenants who were behind in their rent. A rude customer had harried the storekeeper.

So it seems clear to me that to qualify as harassment, the abuse has to be persistent, repeated, and in person.

Now keep that in mind as you consider this case:

A black employee of Canada's refugee board who alleged racism in his workplace is being accused of harassing three co-workers by going public with the complaints later deemed to be unfounded.

The nasty accusations and counter-accusations stem from an incident in April 2003, when a 15-year black employee of the board in Toronto overheard an office conversation among three white colleagues.

The employee, who filed a human-rights complaint of his own, said one of the speakers used the racially derogatory terms "spook" and "Billy Jack" to describe [Selwyn] Pieters, a refugee protection officer.

On learning about the conversation, Pieters complained of racial harassment.

So let's get this clear. An employee, not Mr. Pieters, overheard three people using derogatory language (and frankly, language that seems dated). This employee was not directly called these names, and the incident took place only once.

Mr. Pieters later heard about the conversation, and decided it constituted harassment of himself, even though the comments were never directed at him, nor were they made in his presence, nor were they made repeatedly.

By his standards, I'm probably harassing him right now.

But then Mr. Pieters did something that made him a more suitable target for the charge of harassment:

In turn, the three co-workers complained of harassment because Pieters discussed his complaint with other colleagues and the media.

Danica Shimbashi also concluded he had harassed them by "disseminating false allegations."

"You have made public statements that were critical of your colleagues and damaging to their reputations," Shimbashi said in her letter.

"You also violated the requirement in the policy that parties to complaints are expected to limit discussion of a complaint to those who need to know."

So he hears about a conversation that happened once and was about someone else, and he thinks he's been harassed.

But when he then starts to repeatedly bad mouth the people being investigated to co-workers and to the media [no media outlet ever published the names of the three employees], that's not harassment. Moreover, when he's called out on it, it constitutes more harassment targeted at him!

Selwyn Pieters was scheduled to face a disciplinary hearing Monday for allegedly violating a Treasury Board policy that requires confidentiality around such complaints. Pieters, a lawyer and outspoken anti-racism activist, denounced the planned hearing as "retribution" for daring to tackle what he considers to be a systemic problem within the Immigration and Refugee Board.

"The problems just keep festering," Pieters said in an interview Wednesday.

"The preferred approach is to try to make the victims of racist practices look as though they are the people who are the problem."

"This is a continuing pattern of persecution of black employees who dare to stand up to the powers that be in the face of racism," Pieters said.

I have to say, Mr. Pieters, that it actually does look like you are the problem. He is the kind of guy who expects special treatment, and likes to litigate. He got his Bachelor of Law from the Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, but apparently wanted a degree from the University of Toronto. The UofT did not accept his application, so of course, the only reasonable explanation was racism!

[1] Selwyn Pieters, an African-Canadian male, is presently a third year law student at York University.

[2] In 1995 and again in 1997 Mr. Pieters applied for admission to the University of Toronto Faculty of Law as a mature student for the academic years commencing in 1996 and 1998, respectively. He was denied admission on each occasion. He subsequently filed complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, asserting that his equality rights had been violated because he had been refused admission on the basis of a below-the-cuttoff-point score on the Law School Admission Test (the "LSAT"). Mr. Pieters contends the LSAT is an arbitrary and irrelevant measure of merit, which has an adverse effect on African-Canadians - they consistently score lower on the LSATs than caucasians - and the use of it by the University in denying him entrance to the law school therefore constitutes systemic discrimination.

His complaint had already been dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and this application was for a judicial review. He is persistent. Too bad he's not all that smart:

[30] For the 1998 academic year the entry class was particularly strong, according to the evidence. The average GPA of a regular applicant was 84.7%, and the average LSAT score was 165 (the 93.8 percentile). For mature applicants, the average GPA was 80.7% and the average LSAT score was 163 (the 90.7 percentile). About 25% of the class comprised students from visible minorities (although, as Mr. Pieters correctly pointed out, the percentage of African-Canadians was much smaller -approximately 3.3%). The guidelines for that year provided that the applications of mature applicants with a university record of 74% or less and an LSAT score of 154 (60th percentile) or less would be presumptively rejected.

[31] Mr. Pieters' undergraduate GPA was 71.7% and his average LSAT score was 144 (the 26.1 percentile). Both the Chair of the Admissions Committee and the Director of Admissions reviewed his application as against the admissions policy referred to above and taking into account all of the specified factors regarding which Mr. Pieters had provided information, including his race and ethnic origin and his experiences in dealing with and overcoming racial and ethnic barriers. They concluded that, given his weak academic record and very low LSAT score, his personal circumstances and work and extra-curricular activities did not justify his admittance. The results would have been the same without taking into account the LSAT score, since those reviewing the application were of the view that the balance of the contents of the application did not reveal an ability for academic achievement in the Faculty's program in comparison to other candidates.

He's in the 26th percentile, and he claims discrimination. Well, he's right. The UofT discriminates against academically poor performers.

Needless to say, the court tossed the case out. But Mr. Pieters continues on his mission on making life miserable for anyone who not only crosses his path, but veers anywhere near his path.

By the way, those three employees were cleared:

In a letter this month obtained by The Canadian Press, the board's anti-harassment co-ordinator concluded Pieters' complaints against the three were unfounded.

But if I were them, I wouldn't be breathing easy.

After taking upaid leave and qualifying as a lawyer, Selwyn Pieters will be returning to work on Monday.