Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate Debate

[Goober]

That's outrageous Alberta is just like the U.N. appointing bigots to the Human Rights Commission .

I have and still work with many minorities- and a common thread I hear from many is, it is not the older white people they encounter racism from, it is from other ethnic minorities. Anecdotal yes, but in my opinion there is truth to it.
And when reading article about the terror attack he could be from Kenya. And yep- he is.

Alberta Human Rights: Biographies of members of the Commission

Moosa Jiwaji, BSc (Hon.), MBA, LL.B.
Moosa Jiwaji has been appointed for a term beginning September 30, 2010 and his current term will expire on July 24, 2016. Born in Kenya, Moosa Jiwaji graduated from the University of Dar-es-Salaam in Tanzania with an honours degree in Science. He then came to Canada to study for his Master's in Business Administration at the University of Alberta and upon completion, he joined the Alberta Department of Housing as a Policy and Planning Analyst.

 

[DaSleeper]

This is funny coming from you, since I just asked you clearly what you think I am dodging or avoiding in this thread, and you well, avoided answering.

And all I see from this post of yours on..... and quite of few before is a whole bunch of self serving statements with absolutely no facts to back them up....
Just because you say so, does not make it a fact......

 

[Colpy]

Well, no. It was reprinted fairly widely in Europe, but major news outlets in Canada and the US wouldn't reprint it. I don't think even Sun Media printed them.

I think that at the time they were right not to reprint the cartoons. The cartoons were already out there for people to see if they wanted. Reprinting them really just fanned the flames of an issue that was actually costing people their lives.

They should have been on the front page of every major daily.

They were not.

 

[Cannuck]

This is funny coming from you, since I just asked you clearly what you think I am dodging or avoiding in this thread, and you well, avoided answering.

You're not dodging or avoiding anything. That is Das' standard regurgitation when he has nothing valid to offer the discussion (which is pretty much always). I honestly can't remember a single insightful comment by him and he's probably the only poster here I can honestly say that about.

 

[BornRuff]

How many small people ( business)have they pushed to or the brink of bankruptcy as they must pay their own legal fees.

You tell me.

How many just pay up as it is cheaper.
You are aware that each Prov has set fees for certain situations- ask a person if they are married during an interview, they do not get the job - 4 k if they file a complaint.
They are suffering from self interest - no cases- fewer cases- people lose jobs.
They are out out lunch on a number of rulings.
Others not so.

Oh yes, and that fellow from the AB HRC

Human rights judge under scrutiny for anti-immigration tweets after ruling in favour of Czech man who failed exam | National Post

These are the same issues that you have with any legal process. Costs are definitely an issue throughout our legal system. One of the main points of these tribunals is to try to keep costs down, including for the respondents. If Levant had to fight this through the courts he would have been out a lot more money.

Nothing in our legal system is perfect, but abandoning the whole system doesn't really make sense. You have a lot of sympathy for the respondents, but applicants need a forum to be able to bring human rights issues forward.

What is the point of having human rights if they can't be enforced?

 

[Cannuck]

HRC's do not have to adhere to many laws. Were you aware of that?

Don't be silly

 

[BornRuff]

And all I see from this post of yours on..... and quite of few before is a whole bunch of self serving statements with absolutely no facts to back them up....
Just because you say so, does not make it a fact......

Lol, again, it does kind of seem like you are avoiding my simple question. What am I dodging? What have I said that is self serving?

They should have been on the front page of every major daily.

They were not.

What would have been gained by that? Why fan the flames of an issue that is costing people their lives?

 

[DaSleeper]

You're not dodging or avoiding anything. That is Das' standard regurgitation when he has nothing valid to offer the discussion (which is pretty much always). I honestly can't remember a single insightful comment by him and he's probably the only poster here I can honestly say that about.

Now you're not an a.ss


You're a Douche - YouTube

 

[Goober]

Well, the crux of this case is that they did not believe this to be the case. He was told he had to take 3 additional exams because of the country that he was educated in, not based on the credentials of the program/school. He actually would have been treated differently if he was from Poland or Russia.

I can't pretend to know enough to say how things should be done in this field, but it is pretty hard to come up with any sort of reasonable opinion on this without addressing what the actual complaint and decision were about.

They are based upon the university- if they do not have that certification there is a reason why-
Certification also includes audits of there teaching. You are aware that the US Govt Depts. audit Canadian university programs? Same as they audit drug manufacturing in this country that export to the US.
Reason why Canadian Doctors, Nurses, Dentists, Engineers, and on and on can find work in the US.

If you want lower standards, then this is the road to it.

On the other side, we have many skilled immigrants that need upgrading, cannot afford it. That should be addressed.

You would be aware that Canada for years was poaching Doctors from South Africa and other countries. Why - the ones that graduated from certified universities met a standard and the country was short Doctors.

Don't be silly

Try to keep up.

Now you're not an a.ss


You're a Douche - YouTube

He's back

 

[BornRuff]

It cost him $100,000 to defeat an attack that was a blatant violation of his rights.

Do you have $100,000 to defend your rights??

It is called FREE speech, not speech for those that can afford it.

And Levant publish the cartoons for the very same reason every news outlet in the western world should have published them on their front page: to thumb their noses at the followers of a medieval murder cult, and to show solidarity in their belief in free speech.

Unfortunately, Levant was one of only a handful in the world that had the balls for it.

You can say the same thing about most legal action. Defending yourself or pushing for your rights is normally very expensive.

They are based upon the university- if they do not have that certification there is a reason why-
Certification also includes audits of there teaching. You are aware that the US Govt Depts. audit Canadian university programs? Same as they audit drug manufacturing in this country that export to the US.
Reason why Canadian Doctors, Nurses, Dentists, Engineers, and on and on can find work in the US.

If you want lower standards, then this is the road to it.

On the other side, we have many skilled immigrants that need upgrading, cannot afford it. That should be addressed.

You would be aware that Canada for years was poaching Doctors from South Africa and other countries. Why - the ones that graduated from certified universities met a standard and the country was short Doctors.

Well, that is apparently not what the tribunal found. In this case, they said that the organization was not making this decision based on the university or the program, but specifically just on the country in which he was educated.

 

[Goober]

You tell me.



These are the same issues that you have with any legal process. Costs are definitely an issue throughout our legal system. One of the main points of these tribunals is to try to keep costs down, including for the respondents. If Levant had to fight this through the courts he would have been out a lot more money.

Nothing in our legal system is perfect, but abandoning the whole system doesn't really make sense. You have a lot of sympathy for the respondents, but applicants need a forum to be able to bring human rights issues forward.

What is the point of having human rights if they can't be enforced?

Levant would never have gone to court. He would be sued, win and his costs would be paid by the plaintiffs.

 

[DaSleeper]

He's back

He's on a roll.....
Post #1872419 - Re: “Microaggression”BadCannuck
Post #1872432 - Re: “Microaggression”BadCannuck
Post #1872440 - Re: Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate DebateBadCannuck
Post #1872426 - Re: Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate DebateBadCannuck

Post #1872352 - Re: Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate DebateBadCannuck
Post #1872323 - Re: Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate DebateBadCannuck
Post #1872341 - Re: “Microaggression”BadCannuck

 

[BornRuff]

Levant would never have gone to court. He would be sued, win and his costs would be paid by the plaintiffs.

How would he win and be awarded costs if he never went to court?

Costs certainly are not guaranteed even if you win.

 

[Goober]

How would he win and be awarded costs if he never went to court?

Costs certainly are not guaranteed even if you win.

He would not have to appear and testify. Next his lawyers would ask that the case be dismissed, with costs and they would in all likelihood receive that from the judge.

So when I say he would not go to court it is based upon a reasonable person listening to their lawyer tell them they will lose and legal costs will be awarded, which they are on the hook for.
Costs in my opinion would be awarded as it would be deemed as frivolous.

He's on a roll.....
Post #1872419 - Re: “Microaggression”BadCannuck
Post #1872432 - Re: “Microaggression”BadCannuck
Post #1872440 - Re: Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate DebateBadCannuck
Post #1872426 - Re: Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate DebateBadCannuck

Post #1872352 - Re: Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate DebateBadCannuck
Post #1872323 - Re: Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate DebateBadCannuck
Post #1872341 - Re: “Microaggression”BadCannuck

Now up to 333. Getting close to a Shxts and Gilles Thread.

Oh yeah, and loves to report thread comments- Such a silly little boy.

Correction- 334.

 

[BornRuff]

He would not have to appear and testify. Next his lawyers would ask that the case be dismissed, with costs and they would in all likelihood receive that from the judge.

So when I say he would not go to court it is based upon a reasonable person listening to their lawyer tell them they will lose and legal costs will be awarded, which they are on the hook for.
Costs in my opinion would be awarded as it would be deemed as frivolous.

Based on what?

 

[Colpy]

You can say the same thing about most legal action. Defending yourself or pushing for your rights is normally very expensive.


.

Don't be obtuse.

The state pays the expenses of the complaintant.

There simply is no defense for the existence of HRCs.

 

[Goober]

Based on what?

Free speech- Not hate speech. Does not meet Canada's requirement for charges to be laid.
And rest assured they checked.

Don't be obtuse.

The state pays the expenses of the complaintant.

There simply is no defense for the existence of HRCs.

I disagree- there is - problem is they have run amok.

 

[BornRuff]

Don't be obtuse.

The state pays the expenses of the complaintant.

There simply is no defense for the existence of HRCs.

Well, the most basic reason for their existence is to enforce the human rights code. Whats the point of a code with no mechanism to enforce it?

As for the costs issue, I do agree that there should be support for respondents as well, but if we are just comparing the human rights tribunal to the regular court system, he would have to cover his own costs in both cases, which is what I am talking about here.

 

[Goober]

Well, the most basic reason for their existence is to enforce the human rights code. Whats the point of a code with no mechanism to enforce it?

As for the costs issue, I do agree that there should be support for respondents as well, but if we are just comparing the human rights tribunal to the regular court system, he would have to cover his own costs in both cases, which is what I am talking about here.

HRC can accept any file they wish. It has grown well beyond the initial reason for its existence.

 

[BornRuff]

Free speech- Not hate speech. Does not meet Canada's requirement for charges to be laid.
And rest assured they checked.

You seem to be arguing that he couldn't have been prosecuted for other offenses not related to the human rights code. That is kind of self evident since we can look back now and see that it didn't happen.

I don't think it is realistic to assume that in getting rid of tribunals they would also abandon the human rights code. It would probably be like it is in Saskatchewan, where it is pretty much all the same, except the case is decided in a regular court.

In that case, it does appear that there was some meat to this in regards to the code. Obviously they were not ultimately successful, but they did put a good amount of time into considering it.

HRC can accept any file they wish. It has grown well beyond the initial reason for its existence.

It sounds like you may be a bit unclear on the difference between a human rights commission and a human rights tribunal, and the different organizations that exist in each province.