Disband The Kangaroo Courts Misnamed The Human Rights Tribunals

[gerryh]

Muslim is NOT a race........

then neither are jews....... you want to split more hairs?

 

[Colpy]

That isn’t the point that I’m trying to get at.

Everyone here seems to think that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal one day appeared and morphed into its present form without our knowledge our intervention, and that’s what bugs me — the complete ignorance of how this institution came to be. It is not some evil, antidemocratic, anachronistic institution that appeared out of nowhere, or out of the vestiges of history — it came to be through the express wishes of our elected representatives in Parliament, based on what we voted for. This Tribunal is performing the functions that it was created to perform, as demanded of it by the Canadian people through Parliament. How can an institution be anti-democratic when it is subserviant to the House of Commons? Let us be quite clear here that it is the Parliament of Canada that has the final say on everything that the Tribunal does.

Unfortunately, we get a lot of undemocratic, idiotic things out of Parliament.....

Certainly you are not suggesting that we cast our vote every 5 years (or less) and STFU and take what's coming to us the rest of the time?

Government is anti-democratic by its very nature........it wishes to pull all power to itself......and needs to be watched very very carefully at all times.....not just during elections.

Although I will give you this much, the use of the word "anti-democratic" may be a misnomer.....how about a slap in the face to 800 years of English Common Law, an abuse of power, a despicable attempt to forcibly homogenize society, Big Brother gone mad, shades of the Thought Police, vicious social control....well, you get the idea.....something that has no place in a free society, democratic or not.

 

[Colpy]

then neither are jews....... you want to split more hairs?

Oh I agree....both Jews and Arabs are Semites.......I'm not splitting hairs at all........I am saying that an intellectual attack on a group because of their religious affiliation and beliefs is NOT racist.

Funny, somehow I doubt I could appeal to your outrage for support when people on this forum start jumping on Christians.......

 

[gerryh]

Funny, somehow I doubt I could appeal to your outrage for support when people on this forum start jumping on Christians.......

roflmfao...... just when I start thinkin you actually do have an operating brain under that chrome dome...... you say something as stupid as that.,

 

[countryboy]

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution; it does have the force of law behind it, but it is not the final authority when it comes to matters of discrmination and human rights. The Canadian Human Rights Commission must actually first determine that there is a real case of discrimination on its hands, at which point it passes the matter onto the Tribunal, which is a seperate and distinct entity. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal absolutely have the authority to enforce the decisions that it makes, because it is a legitimate instrument of the Parliament of Canada.

Let us also keep in mind that no decision of the Tribunal is final, as everyone has the right to appeal the Tribunal’s findings to the Federal Court of Canada in appeal. I challenge anyone to read the findings of any case decided upon by the Tribunal, and detail how the Tribunal has made a factual error. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal publishes its decisions for all Canadians to read at the Website of the CHRT.

I think that's a very tidy setup, all designed to make sure everything is done fair, square, and legally.

The problem for me is, I don't think it should exist in the first place.

 

[damngrumpy]

In a democracy, the will of the majority is the rule of law, however the minority must be respected by law. While people say oh these human rights people are this or that,
but the law is determined on What would a reasonable person believe? Now the
definition of reasonable becomes the operative word.
I don't agree that the humans right tribunal has no place in a free society. People
should be expected to behave in a respectful manner, and there is no place for
racial or sexual attacks on others, if it demonstrated to be for hateful purposes.
That becomes discrimination which is a criminal offence.
However there is two sides to every story. I think the humans rights tribunal does
go overboard from time to time but not all the time.

 

[Colpy]

roflmfao...... just when I start thinkin you actually do have an operating brain under that chrome dome...... you say something as stupid as that.,

I'm sorry, but I am afraid that my limited intellectual capacity is not sufficient to decode the nuance of your position........perhaps you could be kind enough to clarify........

From what I understand of your logic:

An attack on the religion of Islam is racist, or at least unacceptable........

An attack on the religion of Judaism is racist, or at least unacceptable...

I would assume an attack on the religion of the Hindus, or the Sikhs, or the Buddhists, or the followers of Odin.........all would be considered racist, or at least unacceptable.

Yet an attack on the Christian religion is neither racist nor unacceptable..... ..

:?::?::?::?::?::?::?::?::?::?:

 

[Colpy]

Back to the subject:

Mark Steyn:

As Khurrum Awan, head sock puppet for Mohamed Elmasry, crowed to the Canadian Arab News, even though the Canadian Islamic Congress struck out in three different jurisdictions in their attempt to criminalize my writing, the suits cost this magazine (he says) two million bucks, and thereby “attained our strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.” Likewise, whether Mijnheer Wilders is convicted or acquitted, a lot of politicians, publishers, writers and filmmakers will get the message: steer clear of the subject of Islam unless you want your life consumed.
But at that point comparisons end. Had the CIC triumphed at our trial in Vancouver, the statutory penalty under the B.C. “Human Rights” Code would have prevented Maclean’s ever publishing anything on Islam, Europe, demography, terrorism and related issues by me or anybody of a similar disposition ever again. I personally would have been rendered legally unpublishable in Canada in perpetuity. But so what? I’m an obscure writer, and my fate is peripheral to that of the Dominion itself.

The absurd trial of Geert Wilders - Mark Steyn, Uncategorized - Macleans.ca

Read the entire article...Mr. Steyn is wonderful, a rapier wit skewering the dangerous absurdities of political correctness.

 

[CDNBear]

These are not “witch hunts”—the Tribunal has no role to play when finding cases to make decisions on, this is handled entirely by other agencies and individuals. The Tribunal simply makes decisions when a case is brought before its members for consideration,

Bullsh!t!!!

Members of the HRC's have been found inciting racially charged commentary on forums, so as to formulate attacks on the forums in question.

Think of it as creating ones own job security.

it's been awhile since his rag went broke and I had a rag burning and cleaned my hard drive of the relevant excrement that I had been storing, so, sorry, can't give you specifics at this point in time why I have labeled him a racist. It had a little to do with the cartoons and a lot to do with his attitude towards Muslims in general.

So how would you characterize your love of anything American?

 

[CDNBear]

Here's some stuff to chew on...

Karen Selick: The human rights set-up - Full Comment

Fulton applied to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario for an award of costs to help pay his legal fees. He was turned down flat. The tribunal lacks the legal authority to award costs, it ruled.
True enough — but things are not quite so simple. The tribunal lacks the authority only because it has never taken the trouble to avail itself of the power which the law grants to it of adopting rules relating to costs. The opportunity is there, under sections 17.1 and 25 of Ontario’s Statutory Powers Procedures Act, but the tribunal has never bothered to set up a process for enabling it.
And indeed, why bother? The number of cases that end like Mr. Fulton’s, with the accused walking away free from conviction or having to pay out a sizable amount of money, are very few indeed. Many cases settle at the mediation stage, when the nature of the shakedown process is first revealed. Targets are told, in essence, “You can settle for $25,000 now or pay $200,000 in legal fees later. Take your pick.” Most pick settlement.

National Post editorial board: End the human rights witch hunts for good - Full Comment

Ruling in a case against Marc Lemire, webmaster of the extremist freedomsite.org,Canadian Human Rights Tribunal chairman Athanasios Hadjis concluded Sec. 13(1) violates defendants' Charter right to freedom of expression because it gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) authority to impose penalties such as fines on those it finds guilty. Mr. Hadjis, himself a human rights lawyer, argued that while the Supreme Court had found the section legal in 1991-- when its strongest provisions merely compelled the complainant and defendant to mediate their differences -- since then the addition of monetary penalties and forced apologies has amended the act to the point where it is no longer in harmony with the Charter.

CHRC employees and their sympathizers in police racism units and activist groups around the country logged onto Mr. Lemire's site under phoney names. Occasionally to cover their tracks, CHRC staffers even hacked into the wireless Internet account of a women whose apartment was near their offices. When there were insufficient hateful postings on Mr. Lemire's site, these staffers and their associates would post racist, homophobic and pro-Nazi statements themselves under their assumed names then encourage human rights activists to bring hate-speech complaints before the commission over those postings.

Since the controversy over rights commissions' power to censor political speech arose two years ago when the CHRC and three provincial commissions agreed to investigate complaints against prominent writers Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, CHRC chairman Jennifer Lynch has claimed she welcomed debate on the future of government rights bodies. Yet late last spring, she refused to attend parliamentary hearings on the CHRC and later blasted the committee's chairman for using unreliable sources and charged that the commission's critics had no right to criticize its tactics.

I encourage those that still support these witch hunters, to give these article serious scrutiny. These people haven't the skill, metal of character, nor aptitude to lead a chorus of clowns, let alone a body that has far reaching powers.

 

[Slim Chance]

Here's some stuff to chew on...

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/.../22/karen-selick-the-human-rights-set-up.aspx

Read up on Richard Warman and how he posed as a white supremeicist, incited racially charged exchanges on blogs by leading by example in order to "root out" the wrong doers whom he could drag into the HRC to prosecute - and profit personally I might add.

One of the judges in the Alberta courts was a former divorce court lawyer - clearly qualified to render judgements in this amorphous area.

Lastly, the defendent is compelled to absorb the total cost of their defence while the complaintant is required to fill out an HRC form and wait for their damages... Real fair, eh?

 

[CDNBear]

Read up on Richard Warman and how he posed as a white supremeicist, incited racially charged exchanges on blogs by leading by example in order to "root out" the wrong doers whom he could drag into the HRC to prosecute - and profit personally I might add.

Yep, but I was saving that for when the "dogooder nanny staters" started at me. Way to blow my plan, lol...:lol:

One of the judges in the Alberta courts was a former divorce court lawyer - clearly qualified to render judgements in this amorphous area.

True again...

Lastly, the defendent is compelled to absorb the total cost of their defence while the complaintant is required to fill out an HRC form and wait for their damages... Real fair, eh?

Not at all. That promotes vexatious and litigious behavior. When there are no cost incurred by the complainant, they have no need to make sure their case is valid.

 

[gerryh]

I'm sorry, but I am afraid that my limited intellectual capacity is not sufficient to decode the nuance of your position........perhaps you could be kind enough to clarify........

From what I understand of your logic:

An attack on the religion of Islam is racist, or at least unacceptable........

An attack on the religion of Judaism is racist, or at least unacceptable...

I would assume an attack on the religion of the Hindus, or the Sikhs, or the Buddhists, or the followers of Odin.........all would be considered racist, or at least unacceptable.

Yet an attack on the Christian religion is neither racist nor unacceptable..... ..

:?::?::?::?::?::?::?::?::?::?:

you got it all right except your last statement. If you had/have looked into any of the Religeous threads you would have seen that I am Catholic and do not take kindly to the bigoted attacks on my faith by the ill informed or brain dead.

 

[CDNBear]

you got it all right except your last statement. If you had/have looked into any of the Religeous threads you would have seen that I am Catholic and do not take kindly to the bigoted attacks on my faith by the ill informed or brain dead.

What about those attacks from the informed with active brains?

:lol:

 

[gerryh]

So how would you characterize your love of anything American?

When it comes to america, I am an admitted bigot. I told curiousity years ago that I was a bigot when it comes her adopted country. I have never denied this.

 

[CDNBear]

When it comes to america, I am an admitted bigot. I told curiousity years ago that I was a bigot when it comes her adopted country. I have never denied this.

And this love is based on?

 

[gerryh]

And this love is based on?

anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and watching my country get f*cked up the ass numerous times by those south of the 49th. Off the top of my head that would include softwood lumber, steel, hydro, mad cow, 911, Iraq, the big east coast power outage.............

 

[CDNBear]

anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and watching my country get f*cked up the ass numerous times by those south of the 49th. Off the top of my head that would include softwood lumber, steel, hydro, mad cow, 911, Iraq, the big east coast power outage.............

:roll: Ya, that's about as rational as some of the asshats that permeate this joint dude. I expect better from you.

Now, back to the HRC's...:lol:

Do you support them or not?

:canada:

 

[gerryh]

:roll: Ya, that's about as rational as some of the asshats that permeate this joint dude. I expect better from you.

really....... pot, meat kettle.

Now, for an explanation of that, take a trip over to TPA and read your latest confession.

Now, back to the HRC's...:lol:

Do you support them or not?

:canada:

Yes, I support them. Are they perfect? Nope, far from it. The government needs to tighten up and give them more direction so there are fewer BS complaints. One thing I could agree with, is haveing the complainant at least share the legal costs if he loses on his/her complaint. Might make people think twice about laying a complaint over hurt feelings.

 

[CDNBear]

really....... pot, meat kettle.

Now, for an explanation of that, take a trip over to TPA and read your latest confession.

What? The thread in which I confess that we should round up each and every Muslim and ship them back to wherever they came from?

That thread?

Ya, it's true. But as you are well aware of, my bigotry in that matter is not seething, it is non violent and is based on the very real fact that they (yes they) have a tendency to go from moderate to asshole in 0.0001 seconds flat. And all the while I have hired Muslims, supported Muslims in job searches and employment.
And if you wish to take me to task for it, feel free to start a thread on it here. I can back up my opinion with cold hard fact and personal experience.

Yes, I support them. Are they perfect? Nope, far from it. The government needs to tighten up and give them more direction so there are fewer BS complaints. One thing I could agree with, is haveing the complainant at least share the legal costs if he loses on his/her complaint. Might make people think twice about laying a complaint over hurt feelings.

I could live with that, except...the complainant should bare the full weight of the cost if they are found to have cause.