Disband The Kangaroo Courts Misnamed The Human Rights Tribunals

[gerryh]

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.

Reminds me of a texan friend of my Dad's (he was the one that taught me how to make gunpowder) proudly told us........ "niggers? I got nuthin agin em, I got nuthin fer em, but I think everyone should own at least 2 of em"

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

Ummmmm...if there is cause for the complaint then the complainant bears the full cost? I will assume you mean the opposite, if it is found that there is no basis for the complaint then the complainant bears costs.

I agree, as long as money does not stop a complainant from laying a legitimate complaint or stop a legitimate complaint from being heard through to the end.

 

[CDNBear]

Reminds me of a texan friend of my Dad's (he was the one that taught me how to make gunpowder) proudly told us........ "niggers? I got nuthin agin em, I got nuthin fer em, but I think everyone should own at least 2 of em"

Not at all alike.

Ummmmm...if there is cause for the complaint then the complainant bears the full cost? I will assume you mean the opposite, if it is found that there is no basis for the complaint then the complainant bears costs.

You assume correctly, my apologies.

I agree, as long as money does not stop a complainant from laying a legitimate complaint or stop a legitimate complaint from being heard through to the end.

They should pay only if they lose. Just like in civil court.

 

[gerryh]

They should pay only if they lose. Just like in civil court.

ummmm...no...... not like civil court. In civil court, if you don't have deep pockets to pay for a lawyer....... those that do have deep pockets can keep you from pursuing litigation through appeal after appeal....... unless you can find a lawyer to take your case pro bono or willing to front the costs untill after a judgment......... This is one of the things I liked about the tribunals, it gave the average man the ability to take the "big wigs" to task.

 

[CDNBear]

ummmm...no...... not like civil court. In civil court, if you don't have deep pockets to pay for a lawyer....... those that do have deep pockets can keep you from pursuing litigation through appeal after appeal....... unless you can find a lawyer to take your case pro bono or willing to front the costs untill after a judgment......... This is one of the things I liked about the tribunals, it gave the average man the ability to take the "big wigs" to task.

I was referring to the fact that if you file a law suit in civil court and you fail to make your case, you are libel for court costs. Which is how it should be at the tribunals.

 

[Colpy]

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.

Fair enough....and you are right about one thing....I should have remembered you are Catholic.....sorry about my lapse.

Still, attacks on religion are hardly racist.........and in my opinion all religions should be open to intellectual challenge, or simply assinine attacks, as no one can properly judge the difference between the two......

I don't think Christianity needs to be defended by the law, it can stand on its merits.........and laws forbiding attacks on religion protect ideas that badly need to be challenged.

 

[gerryh]

Fair enough....and you are right about one thing....I should have remembered you are Catholic.....sorry about my lapse.

Still, attacks on religion are hardly racist.........and in my opinion all religions should be open to intellectual challenge, or simply assinine attacks, as no one can properly judge the difference between the two......

I don't think Christianity needs to be defended by the law, it can stand on its merits.........and laws forbiding attacks on religion protect ideas that badly need to be challenged.

I agree with you, and as far as I know, we have no laws that protect Muslims or Christians specifically. Inciting hatred, and as far as I am concerned levant was guilty of that, should be prosecuted.

 

[CDNBear]

I agree with you, and as far as I know, we have no laws that protect Muslims or Christians specifically. Inciting hatred, and as far as I am concerned levant was guilty of that, should be prosecuted.

UN Resolution 62/145, which is non binding, but certainly does begin the tilt to the slippery slope, specifically highlights Islam for protection.

 

[gerryh]

UN Resolution 62/145, which is non binding, but certainly does begin the tilt to the slippery slope, specifically highlights Islam for protection.

I'm not even going to waste my time reading ANOTHER U.N. resolution. They mean nothing. NOBODY listens to them or abides by them.

 

[CDNBear]

I'm not even going to waste my time reading ANOTHER U.N. resolution. They mean nothing. NOBODY listens to them or abides by them.

That's not necessarily treu, although i will concede that they are increasingly a toothless Tiger, this represents a shift in global commonsense.

If you wish to see how similar concepts are used at home, look no further then the tribunals records themselves.

 

[Slim Chance]

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

Oops... Sorry

 

[AnnaG]

CHR is right up there with the WCB, IMO: arrogant, arbitrary, and stuffed full of bureaucratic BS.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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.

Again, you have the theory right, but some facts on the ground. The person who is accused must spend, have spent, thousands of dollars on legal counsel. The accuser, nothing. The accuser gets the full force of Canadian bureaucratic power arrayed behind them against one individual who has not violated the criminal code. Considerable amounts of money and time must be spent to go before a HRT, and then appeal?

Plus, I heard on CBC Tuesday morning this comic say he is being punished by being out of work. He has done nothing for a year or so. Further unjust punishment by one group using the govt as their tool against an individual. Why should govt censors determine what can be said in a nightclub?

Correct details of law can lead to injustice, which is why Human Rights Tribunals must be disbanded.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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.

1. Name an instance when Parliament has intervened in HRT case.

2. They did not originate undemocratically, but they now violate what people consider to be fair and democratic. Unfortunately, the hue and cry that made them is lacking to abolish them. Political will here is lacking in the country.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Back to the subject:

Mark Steyn:

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.

Wow, fantastic post. The cost of criticizing Islam just went way up in Canada due to these events. So if you want to run a business in these recessionary times, you steer clear of this topic. Happy happy happy talk all the time.

This popular Dutch politician is being persecuted beause he is against non-Western immigration. He is no fringe pol, but leader of the opposition. Funny, these kangaroo courts are like the Gestapo, but this time they love non-Aryans. lol

A post like that urges me to lower our immigration numbers. Aren't we in a recession?

 

[FiveParadox]

dumpthemonarchy, as far as I know, the Parliament of Canada has never intervened in a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal—but that doesn’t render the authority of Parliament irrelevant. Members of the House of Commons are of course reluctant to exercise their authority in this regard because they would be immediately labelled bigots.

Also, I think it’s very important here that we distinguish the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from the Canadian Human Rights Commission; the Tribunal is an impartial body that hears complaints that cannot be resolved by the Commission. The Commission’s responsibility, as per our elected representatives, is to do whatever it can to enhance Canadians’ human rights and freedoms as an advocate. The Commission’s role is to advance rights and freedoms as much as it can, whereas the Tribunal’s role is to adjudicate issues that cannot be resolved at the Commission’s level. These are two distinct organisations, but members (CDNBear) seem to be using the two interchangeably.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

dumpthemonarchy, as far as I know, the Parliament of Canada has never intervened in a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal—but that doesn’t render the authority of Parliament irrelevant. Members of the House of Commons are of course reluctant to exercise their authority in this regard because they would be immediately labelled bigots.

Parliament doesn't generally intervene in a commission or a tribunal's work. They tend to last forever in Canada, create independent power bases, and/or serve the party in power. They tend to operate at arm's length from our feeble Parliament and flaccid MPs.

Baseless accusations seem to demean Canadian democracy. To avoid being called a bigot, pols would have to do some research and present a list of injustices and abuses by HRT/Cs. That would mean the media would have to become more responsible. But there are votes in it as people are getting quite sick of being on the defensive against govt funded multiculters, minorities and lawyers.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Personally I wouldn't let them have a rope unless it was to hang the whole bunch.
Far as I know they have the same power as a real court. This is what happens when we let socialists have a little bit of power.
But we all know that political correctness is the most important thing for governments to do.

Pardon me, but I don't see what political affiliations have to do with this; unless perhaps, the illegal tribunals set up by the Americans to prosecute those held in Guantanamo Bay are considered socialist.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

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

Actually, Jews are a race; you can choose to be a Muslim, but you cannot choose not to be a Jew. My favorite story comes from columnist George Jonas, who is a Jew but was raised catholic, and wanted to marry to Barbra Amiel in a synagogue. The Rabbi objected to George's catholic upbringing stating he was not Jewish enough, George replied that he was Jewish enough for Hitler, having lived through the pogroms, NAZI and Soviet occupation of his native Hungary, (Beethoven's Mask).

 

[FiveParadox]

Actually, Jews are a race; you can choose to be a Muslim, but you cannot choose not to be a Jew.

:?::?::?:

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Asia is such a problem.

But now you can be an Israeli without being a Jew. People still call people from India, Hindus. This connection Harper and Co makes with being attacked with Israel, time to make a cordon sanitaire from Asia. Just send exports and they give us money.