Saipan Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Right. A "fact" in Saipan's dirty little world. As opposed to Shwa's dirty little world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 As opposed to Shwa's dirty little world. No. The reason I say "Saipan's dirty little world" is to acknowledge your fixation on caucasian males. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 No. The reason I say "Saipan's dirty little world" is to acknowledge your fixation on caucasian males. Sorry. I'm married to Asian. And it's female Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 If you would take the time to get to know what the CHRC actually does, you will see that they act on legal "complaints" of violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act. If you're Caucasian, and 'specially male they don't. And that is a fact. So now is your chance to prove your "fact" Saipan. Show me evidence that the CHRC don't/won't act on complaints from Caucasians, especially male Caucasians. I am sure you have some citations or statistics or some other data from a legitimate source. Right? So how about coughing some up and letting us all know about this "fact" you speak of. Come on Saipan, here's your chance. Go for it. LOFL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 So now is your chance to prove your "fact" Saipan. Show me evidence that the CHRC don't/won't act on complaints from Caucasians, especially male Caucasians. Show me they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Show me they do. Mr. "Saipan" No-Facts strikes again. And that's a fact! LOFL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Meaning you can't prove it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Meaning you can't prove it? No, meaning you can't prove something you say is a "fact." Mr. No Facts. Go ahead Saipan, prove your "fact." Can't? Didn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 No, meaning you can't prove something you say is a "fact." Mr. No Facts. He probably won't answer, but I can. If you can't prove your claim don't ridicule yourself by asking for the same. Take for example case of Ezra Levant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 If you would take the time to get to know what the CHRC actually does, you will see that they act on legal "complaints" of violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act. If you're Caucasian, and 'specially male they don't. And that is a fact. If you can't prove your claim don't ridicule yourself by asking for the same. I see, so you are talking to yourself. That only makes sense from someone who states self-evident facts. Take for example case of Ezra Levant. So how does that prove that the CHRC won't take complaints from caucasian males? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 So how does that prove that the CHRC won't take complaints from caucasian males? Post specific case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 Post specific case. I most certainly will...right after you post your proof of your "fact." Can't? Didn't think so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 I most certainly will... Ezra Levant? That would beat your claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 Ezra Levant? That would beat your claim. Ezra Levant doesn't prove your claim. Not even one little bit. But I do look forward to your evidence that the CHRC doesn't respond to claims made by caucasian males. Have you found any yet? No? Didn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 Ezra Levant doesn't prove your claim. Not even one little bit. Yes, it does. Deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silas XIV Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 The CHRC is strictly against whites. Find me a case where a white won against an Arab, Black, or Jew, because they were racially attacked. It hasn't happened for a reason! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 The CHRC is strictly against whites. Find me a case where a white won against an Arab, Black, or Jew, because they were racially attacked. It hasn't happened for a reason! You're absolutely right. And these "human rights commissions" and their associated "tribunals" are also anti-Christian. It's 100% minority-identity politics BULLSHIT. They should be abolished, and where's the Conservative Party on this one? Nowhere to be found... outside of a few hollow comments here and there.... I want to see Harper take a strong position on this and make real moves towards abolition of these kangaroo courts that censor free speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silas XIV Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 You're absolutely right. And these "human rights commissions" and their associated "tribunals" are also anti-Christian. It's 100% minority-identity politics BULLSHIT. They should be abolished, and where's the Conservative Party on this one? Nowhere to be found... outside of a few hollow comments here and there.... I want to see Harper take a strong position on this and make real moves towards abolition of these kangaroo courts that censor free speech. I like you Bob! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 (edited) The CHRC is strictly against whites. Find me a case where a white won against an Arab, Black, or Jew, because they were racially attacked. It hasn't happened for a reason! They are also against one legged diabetic redheads with Tourettes. Still spewing your junk are you? Two peas in a pod, start calling you Pete and Re-Pete Edited September 12, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 They are also against one legged diabetic redheads with Tourettes. Still spewing your junk are you? Two peas in a pod, start calling you Pete and Re-Pete Be careful here, guyser! There are two separate issues here. Yes, racism is wrong. Yes, we all like to be seen as champions of tolerance. Sometimes however, we may think we are taking a stand for the good fight and really what we've done is grabbed an issue that only LOOKED like the good fight! We didn't look close enough and made it a symbol of what we wanted, rather than a true incidence of what we thought. More clearly, don't you think it's possible that our HRCs ARE biased? That they may be more defenders of political correctness than true vehicles to help fight racism? That instead of standing up for real equality they just make lowbrow decisions against white folks? Lord knows we've had enough long threads showing that HRCs are biased! And the fact that defendents are hamstrung by not paying their legal bills, unlike the complainants, is an OBVIOUS bias! It can make it all but impossible for a defendant to have a fair change. You may also be right in your character judgements of these two posters. I don't know and I really don't approve of ad hominem insults but I have to grant the possibility. Still, again that it something totally SEPARATE to the point of discussion! Are the HRCs biased against whites or aren't they? After watching what they tried to do to Ezra Levant I would say YES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 After watching what they tried to do to Ezra Levant I would say YES! So if Ezra were black or tan , he would not have faced the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silas XIV Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 They are also against one legged diabetic redheads with Tourettes. Still spewing your junk are you? Two peas in a pod, start calling you Pete and Re-Pete Way to build a strawman argument; right on! You are swaying from my point and assuming I am a racist simply because I stick up for the rights of whites. Once again, I ask, show me a case of a White person winning in the CHRC. If you fail to do so, I am right, it's as simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I ask, show me a case of a White person winning in the CHRC. Mark Steyn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Mark Steyn. I don't know if you can be classified as a winner if you are obliged to pay thousands of dollars in legal costs and take many days of your time to defend yourself agsinst frivolous charges, without choice, recourse or payment. Much better to be the 'loser' in this case, where the CHRC itself pays for legal advice and invests the time of paid staff on your complaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 If we stand in opposition to discrimination by race, religion, etc in employment, housing, etc., does it it not follow that we must have mechanisms in place to investigate and rule on such issues? Rather than just whining about the mechanism in place, can anyone suggest better processes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.