dialamah

He wasn't paid 10 million for joining the Taliban: he was paid because the court determined that his rights as a Canadian citizen had been violated. If you want a country that applies or denies rights based on whims or uninformed public opinion instead of principles, there are plenty to choose from.

Fact: Khadr's case was about charter rights, not war crimes (ignored by Conservatives) Fact: Khadr was a child when he was taken to Afghanistan and was still a child when he was caught. (Ignored by Conservatives). Fact: Khadr's confession was given after he'd been tortured (ignored by Conservatives). Fact: There is very little evidence, other than a coerced confession, that Khadr threw the grenade; there is more evidence that he could not have thrown it (ignored by Conservatives). Emotion: Khadr was a hardened terrorist who is now benefitting from his terror activities because Trudeau/Liberals.

People are allowed to express their opinion without being ordered out of the country. It is just as much Rue's country as yours.

From Espritdecorps, a Canadian Military Magazine: It seems to me that despite the Conservative claim that they are not emotionally driven, their objection to this payout is based purely on partisan emotion - they ignore both facts and basic human rights in order to try to score points against the Liberal government.

"Sleep deprivation is an inconvenience". Ignorance personified right here. Sleep deprivation causes hallucinations, mania, psychoses. It is torture. Khadr's rights were violated and there is a good evidence he was completely innocent and his confessions were coerced. Thank goodness Canada doesn't blithely violate people's rights like Egypt, SA, etc., but I understand - some Canadians think personal vendettas and hatred are much more important than respecting our own principles. Good on our government for sticking with our principles despite the Conservative push to abandon them.

That's right; DoP has bestowed that title on me.

This won't make any difference to those who have made up their mind. Clearly a boy buried in rubble can throw a grenade and the witness onsite and at the time cannot possibly have a better handle on events than an anonymous source two years later.

Not according to the judgment against the landlord, to which peter f posted a link. They were there 3 months, and in the judgment, it was stated that it was a 'mutual' decision that they leave. The couple initially asked for an hour's notice of viewings, so they could schedule prayers around that, and then dropped it down to five minutes to give the wife time to put on modest attire. The landlord claimed they were trying to prevent him from showing and re-renting the suite by asking for that 5-minute notice, which seems ridiculous to me. There were emails and text messages supporting the tenant's side of the story, while the landlord kept adjusting his story to explain away his contradictions and his behavior. Perhaps there is more to the story but vague references to what this family did are not very persuasive, especially when the 'more to the story' seems based on the landlord's claims which were rejected by the adjudicator.

Its my contention that when someone is in an unavoidable relationahip with a jerk, then it is ok if the wronged party seeks legal redress, especially when that relationship also includes a power imbalance. Employer-employee, teacher-student, medical caretaker-patient, landlord-tenant would all fall into that category. Also, generally speaking I don't think jerks should just be able to get away with it, although not sure it should always involve the legal system.

Thank goodness most Christian-types aren't like that.

You do seem to consistently miss the point that the reason for his rudeness was directly related to their religion. And perhaps between neighbors of equal footing, there would be no human rights case. A rude, boorish neighbor doesn't get invited back and one can avoid most interactions with them - so no issue. But he was their landlord, they had no choice but to let him show the suite. When showing the suite, he refused to show them consideration or respect because they are Muslim and he has it in his head that Muslims are out to 'impose' their rules on the rest of us and so even a request for a 5-minute-warning before knocking on the door or to remove shoes was unacceptable to him.

Paragraph 108 of the decision: "When considered together, I find that the comment “welcome to Ontario Canada”, the making of loud pounding noises outside the applicants’ door shortly after making that comment, and the respondent’s refusal to remove his shoes when entering the applicants’ prayer space amounted to harassment under the Code. These comments and forms of conduct, taken together, amount to a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. Due to the timing of the comments and conduct", I find that they were at least in part linked to the applicants’ requests for the accommodation of their religious practices and thus to their creed." Where would you draw the line between being a jerk and having consequences for harassing and intimidating people based on some characteristic, be it skin color, religion, political affiliation or sexual preference?

Did you read the reasons for the judgement?

I disagree. He objected to removing his shoes and respecting their request for an hour's notice because their request was related to their religion. It is not political capriciousness to make it clear that in Canada we do not accept treating people differently due to their religion.

These ones in particular.

Did you read the reasons for the judgement? I didn't read the Rebel account for obvious reasons, but this landlord was beyond just a jerk: he behaved this way because they were Muslims. Do you suppose he would have. objected to a non-Muslim asking him to remove his shoes or to give an extra hours notice for showing the suite for some other reason not related to prayer? And its easy to consider the HRC useless if you are unlikely to have need of it. P.S. Quote is from National Post, sorry couldn't get the link to work.

Not really, just throwing the dog a bone.

That has nothing to do with a landlord refusing to respect his tenant's reasonable requests within their own home.

The couple asked for an extra hours notice so they wouldn't have their prayer time interrupted, and they asked the landlord and prospective tenants to remove their shoes when viewing the unit. Who doesn't remove their shoes when entering someone's home, unless specifically invited not to? And if someone would prefer not to be interrupted during a private time, whether it's prayer time, bath time or something more intimate, why should that be a problem? If this landlord really was a Christian, why wouldn't he treat the couple and their home with respect? Claiming that this couple was trying to impose their way of life on him, in the privacy of their own home in which he is a visitor is ludicrous, even if he was an invited visitor. I would say the HR was absolutely correct in their assessment, though $12,000 does seem like a lot and I doubt it will dent this guy's stupidity.

Why would not specifying gender on a document wreck a child's life? A few years ago I watched a documentary that claimed babies differentiate between male and female from before they can talk, and they can make this determination by watching a baby of the same age walk away from them. There is no doubt that people are going to recognize this child as male/female even if the kid's gender isn't on his/her government documents. Also, did you know that people are treated differently depending on what sex they are perceived to be, with women generally considered less credible than men? There have been countless studies on this so I imagine you are aware. Perhaps removing gender from documents and forms would progress us all toward more equality, at least until someone is met face-to-face.

Is this a fact that you actually know because you've seen liberals on this board applaud Muslims expressing hate for gays, or are you assuming that's what would happen?

I am sure there is a completely illogical explanation.

Clearly, you are just as creepy as Trump.

Trump grabbing women by their genitals is ok as far as Trump supporters are concerned. Trump insulting women and generally behaving like a first class jerk is just fine. JT accidentally bumping a woman with his elbow is a national disgrace. Don't you guys get dizzy with all the rationalizing you have to do?