Time to Abolish Cdn Human Rights Commission, They Hate Debate

[Goober]

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.

No, I was referring to the Criminal Code as some Muslims considered this Hate Speech.

Next - never stated to abolish, as i do not think they should- stated they have reached beyond the code and their mandate, they are a self serving body that needs to justify their existence.

Next- No meat at all =- Other wise the police would have laid a charge. If the Police did not, and they were displeased they can swear an information with the local CP who is required by law to lay a charge and it then is placed on the Court docket. Guess why they did not - no case.

They went to the HRC in another prov who refused their case, they then went to BC HRC which took up the case.

 

[BornRuff]

No, I was referring to the Criminal Code as some Muslims considered this Hate Speech.

Next - never stated to abolish, as i do not think they should- stated they have reached beyond the code and their mandate, they are a self serving body that needs to justify their existence.

Next- No meat at all =- Other wise the police would have laid a charge. If the Police did not, and they were displeased they can swear an information with the local CP who is required by law to lay a charge and it then is placed on the Court docket. Guess why they did not - no case.

They went to the HRC in another prov who refused their case, they then went to BC HRC which took up the case.

The criminal code is a different issue. I think we need to stick to the same issue, prosecuting a potential breach of the human rights code, or this discussion is not going to make any sense.

 

[JLM]

A lot of people make a big deal about rights and freedoms but really they are just some nebulous things out there where they don't do any good. Sure, you can speak, you can pray, you can move, you can assemble, you can vote, but when it's all said and done what have you actually got?

 

[Colpy]

The criminal code is a different issue. I think we need to stick to the same issue, prosecuting a potential breach of the human rights code, or this discussion is not going to make any sense.

That is the entire point.....there should NEVER be a prosecution outside the criminal code.

And, of course, there should never be hate speech laws either.

 

[JLM]

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

The Slither returns- Going on another Red rampage.
Signed
Karma man.

Is it the idiot I think it could be? (Never mind, I'll know within 5 minutes)

 

[BornRuff]

That is the entire point.....there should NEVER be a prosecution outside the criminal code.

And, of course, there should never be hate speech laws either.

That is just silly.

 

[petros]

Oh yeah....missed that. I jumped in late on the thread....and I can't view the interview.

But it is really quite simple. It is valuable because Levant is working to expose the anti-free speech agenda of a kangaroo court that denies the accused not only their right to speak as they please, but their right to face their accuser, to be considered innocent until proven guilty, etc etc etc.

These people do not want to live in a free society.

Does that mean the hard hat guy can come home?

 

[DaSleeper]

That is just silly.

That was a great argument... right there!

 

[Colpy]

That is just silly.

Free speech is silly???

Yeah, right.

 

[BornRuff]

Free speech is silly???

Yeah, right.

No, saying you want to abolish all legal proceedings other than criminal ones is silly.

This is a pretty funny argument though. If you abolish all legal proceedings other than criminal ones, and someone infringes on your right to free speech, what are you going to do about it? What good is a right with no mechanism to enforce it?

 

[Colpy]

No, saying you want to abolish all legal proceedings other than criminal ones is silly.

This is a pretty funny argument though. If you abolish all legal proceedings other than criminal ones, and someone infringes on your right to free speech, what are you going to do about it? What good is a right with no mechanism to enforce it?

Once again, don't be obtuse.

I want to remove the power of non-criminal proceedings to apply what are the equivalent of criminal sanctions.........

No one can infringe on my right to free speech except for the government itself. That is what rights are; protection from gov't power.

It is the HRCs that are a threat to free speech, as well as idiotic and Orwellian 'hate speech" laws. Hate is a human emotion.
To make hate illegal is to create thought crime.

 

[BornRuff]

Once again, don't be obtuse.

I want to remove the power of non-criminal proceedings to apply what are the equivalent of criminal sanctions.........

No one can infringe on my right to free speech except for the government itself. That is what rights are; protection from gov't power.

It is the HRCs that are a threat to free speech, as well as idiotic and Orwellian 'hate speech" laws. Hate is a human emotion.
To make hate illegal is to create thought crime.

I think you are being obtuse, since you keep swinging back and forth between criminal issues like hate speech laws and human rights code violations that are dealt with by the tribunals whenever it suits your arguments.

How on earth do you think that the tribunals are imposing "criminal sanctions"? They can't sentence anyone to jail time. They can only issue orders for monetary compensation or specific action, which is similar to a civil case.

It is nice that you understand what your rights are, but you avoided the question of exactly how you would enforce your rights if they were infringed on. What is the point of a right if there is no mechanism to enforce it?

 

[Colpy]

I think you are being obtuse, since you keep swinging back and forth between criminal issues like hate speech laws and human rights code violations that are dealt with by the tribunals whenever it suits your arguments.

How on earth do you think that the tribunals are imposing "criminal sanctions"? They can't sentence anyone to jail time. They can only issue orders for monetary compensation or specific action, which is similar to a civil case.

It is nice that you understand what your rights are, but you avoided the question of exactly how you would enforce your rights if they were infringed on. What is the point of a right if there is no mechanism to enforce it?

What part of NO HATE SPEECH LAWS and NO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS do you not understand??

Seems fairly consistent to me.

Any tribunal that can force you to take a specific action as a punative measure is not acting as a civil court............

Once again, only the gov't can violate my right to free speech, and you retain that right by exercising it.........

 

[BornRuff]

What part of NO HATE SPEECH LAWS and NO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS do you not understand??

Seems fairly consistent to me.

Any tribunal that can force you to take a specific action as a punative measure is not acting as a civil court............

Once again, only the gov't can violate my right to free speech, and you retain that right by exercising it.........

Specific action is a common remedy in civil court cases.

You are still ignoring the simple question here though, in your situation, what would you do if your rights were being infringed on? What good is a right with no mechanism to defend it?

You seem a bit confused on the whole set up of our human rights in Canada though. There is the human rights code, which is the law defining what rights people have in each province. There are the human rights commissions, which administer the law. They most do research and policy development work. Then there are the tribunals that sort out complaints.

Exactly what part are you hoping to do away with? Do you want to eliminate the human rights code that guarantees you rights such as the freedom of expression that you are so fond of? Do you want to eliminate the tribunals that allow you to enforce your rights if you feel they are being infringed on?

 

[pgs]

Specific action is a common remedy in civil court cases.

You are still ignoring the simple question here though, in your situation, what would you do if your rights were being infringed on? What good is a right with no mechanism to defend it?

You seem a bit confused on the whole set up of our human rights in Canada though. There is the human rights code, which is the law defining what rights people have in each province. There are the human rights commissions, which administer the law. They most do research and policy development work. Then there are the tribunals that sort out complaints.

Exactly what part are you hoping to do away with? Do you want to eliminate the human rights code that guarantees you rights such as the freedom of expression that you are so fond of? Do you want to eliminate the tribunals that allow you to enforce your rights if you feel they are being infringed on?

I would like to abolish all of it .My freedom of expression is guarantied in the charter . Humans rights code has nothing to do with such .

 

[taxslave]

It would seem to me that since your rights are guaranteed in the charter infringing upon them would be a criminal rather than civil matter anyway. And sofar the human rights commissions have violated more rights than they have protected.

 

[pgs]

I think you are being obtuse, since you keep swinging back and forth between criminal issues like hate speech laws and human rights code violations that are dealt with by the tribunals whenever it suits your arguments.

How on earth do you think that the tribunals are imposing "criminal sanctions"? They can't sentence anyone to jail time. They can only issue orders for monetary compensation or specific action, which is similar to a civil case.

It is nice that you understand what your rights are, but you avoided the question of exactly how you would enforce your rights if they were infringed on. What is the point of a right if there is no mechanism to enforce it?

Yes good method to enforce human rights , appoint a policy analyst from Alberta Dept. of Housing as adjudicator .
A bigoted one at that . Your sure to get a fair hearing .

 

[BornRuff]

I would like to abolish all of it .My freedom of expression is guarantied in the charter . Humans rights code has nothing to do with such .

You need to appreciate the difference between having something like the charter written down on paper, and having a mechanism to actually ensure that those rights are enforced and respected.

Yes good method to enforce human rights , appoint a policy analyst from Alberta Dept. of Housing as adjudicator .
A bigoted one at that . Your sure to get a fair hearing .

Any organization has bad apples in it. There are some pretty terrible judges in criminal courts as well.

It would seem to me that since your rights are guaranteed in the charter infringing upon them would be a criminal rather than civil matter anyway. And sofar the human rights commissions have violated more rights than they have protected.

Lol, that is a pretty bold statement that I'd like to see even a shred of evidence to support.

Just because you only hear about the controversial cases doesn't mean that is all that they deal with.

The cases they deal with are complex because often people's individual rights conflict with other people's individual rights.

 

[JLM]

Any organization has bad apples in it. There are some pretty terrible judges in criminal courts as well.

Traffic courts too, probably because they don't know H.T.F. to drive!

 

[DaSleeper]

What part of NO HATE SPEECH LAWS and NO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS do you not understand??

Seems fairly consistent to me.

Any tribunal that can force you to take a specific action as a punative measure is not acting as a civil court............

Once again, only the gov't can violate my right to free speech, and you retain that right by exercising it.........

You will have to re-read what Marc Twain said.... about arguing with idiots