Time to right some wrongs

[Moonbox]

I think my English was fairly plain. If had said the Tories were doing something, I wouldn't have said appeared.

And I think you are reading what you want to read. There wasn't any legalese in what I wrote. I said the Conservatives appear to be heading in a direction of ending the human rights commissions.

Just because you qualify your statements with, "It appears" doesn't mean you weren't trying to spin anything.

If I said:

"It appears Ignatieff wants to bring back Trudeau-style social welfare spending" you and dozens of other posters would be up in arms.

The implication was made and that's all that matters. Either you can defend the logic of your argument or not. "It appears," doesn't nullify good criticisms of weak arguments/statements.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

Yes, I rememer the bad old days, before Human Rights Commisions,

No need to go over your gay baiting.

I guess we can point out that discrimination also applied to Jews not being allowed to buy homes in certain areas, Indians being denied entry to hotels and restaurants and the like.

I'll await the Jew baiting now.

[Peter F]

Flanagans article is a load of crap. Are we to be satisfied that over time discrimination in the private sectoris self-liquidating because of the costs it imposes on discriminators? Apparently so. Not to worry, he says, you may be unjustly discriminated against now but in 20 or 30 or 40+ years time be happy that such discrimination will be 'eroded'.

Hurrah Hurrah.

If this is present day Conservative thought - I want nothing to do with it.

[Argus]

No need to go over your gay baiting.

I guess we can point out that discrimination also applied to Jews not being allowed to buy homes in certain areas, Indians being denied entry to hotels and restaurants and the like.

I'll await the Jew baiting now.

Do you honestly think that in the abscence of HRCs we'll see Jews congregating in ghetoes again because no one will rent to them? I'm sure there's an occasional person who doesn't want to rent to a Jew or a fairy, and as is usually the case, there'll be no evidence of this and the would-be renter will move on and get another place just as nice somewhere else.

But I can see this will be the talking points the Liberals will use, determinedly defending something they don't actually believe in anyway in active pursuit of ethnic votes, doing their damndest to scaremonger and mislead like the lying sleazy party of shysters and carpetbaggers they are.

[Argus]

Flanagans article is a load of crap. Are we to be satisfied that over time discrimination in the private sectoris self-liquidating because of the costs it imposes on discriminators? Apparently so. Not to worry, he says, you may be unjustly discriminated against now but in 20 or 30 or 40+ years time be happy that such discrimination will be 'eroded'.

Hurrah Hurrah.

If this is present day Conservative thought - I want nothing to do with it.

Oh there's a surprise. And I'm sure they were counting on your vote too.

[jdobbin]

Just because you qualify your statements with, "It appears" doesn't mean you weren't trying to spin anything.

As I said, I never stated anything as fact. I was accused of that. And that is how it was spun.

If I said:

"It appears Ignatieff wants to bring back Trudeau-style social welfare spending" you and dozens of other posters would be up in arms.

I can't speak for others but I certainly would not have stated that you were trying to deceive people by stating it a fact.

The implication was made and that's all that matters. Either you can defend the logic of your argument or not. "It appears," doesn't nullify good criticisms of weak arguments/statements.

Exactly. Your argument that I stated a fact is a weak one and an attempt to start an argument over something that wasn't said.

Edited May 20, 2009 by jdobbin

[Peter F]

Oh there's a surprise. And I'm sure they were counting on your vote too.

So you think Flanagan is in agreement with present Conservative thought? I thought folks were castigating dobbin for that implication.

[jdobbin]

Do you honestly think that in the abscence of HRCs we'll see Jews congregating in ghetoes again because no one will rent to them? I'm sure there's an occasional person who doesn't want to rent to a Jew or a fairy, and as is usually the case, there'll be no evidence of this and the would-be renter will move on and get another place just as nice somewhere else.

Do you honestly think that discrimination is gone and the market will settle things?

But I can see this will be the talking points the Liberals will use, determinedly defending something they don't actually believe in anyway in active pursuit of ethnic votes, doing their damndest to scaremonger and mislead like the lying sleazy party of shysters and carpetbaggers they are.

And the discriminatory, nasty and angry frothy mouthed anti-gay, anti-immigrant types will have a field day.

[Dave_ON]

The HRC does not require admissions of guilt. If it were to receive a complaint about a factory in Toronto refusing to employ blacks, for example, the mere fact there were no blacks would be considered ample proof of active discrimination, and would be punished accordingly.

You don't think it's odd that in a city the size of Toronto that there would not be at least one truly qualified black person to work in the factory? That doesn't strike you as odd? Come on be realistic about this.

Does the HRC require reform? Absolutely, but scrapping it does not equal reform we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. Clearly Argus and others from a similar school of thought have never experienced discrimination or prejudice on a significant level. Now I’m sure we’ll have a flood of “but now white Anglo straight protestants are the ones being discriminated against” arguments that will be forthcoming. Be that as it may the CPC really needs to get out of the mindset that everything the Liberals did was wrong and needs to be rescinded. It's not productive and it's not at all realistic. Instead they should realize the merit in it and work to correct the perceived problems with the system.

The HRC definitely fills a gap that existed previous to its creation. The problem is it isn’t sufficiently regulated and according to many critics lacks adequate investigative resources. To use Argus’ example again the absence of a black factory worker in Toronto is statistically unlikely but not necessarily indicative of wrong doing. It is however, at the very least a red flag and does warrant a thorough investigation. To assume that all people are fair minded, well intentioned and law abiding citizens is naïve to say the least. We’ll never be able to eliminate discrimination entirely, but that doesn’t really give us an excuse to stop trying simply because our first attempt at it was somewhat lackluster.

Argus if we allow the rights of one individual or group to be infringed upon what it to stop the rights of any individual or group to be infringed on?

[Argus]

Do you honestly think that discrimination is gone and the market will settle things?

You have squirmed out of answering any of my questions, but being more honest than you, I will respond.

Of course there is discrimination today. And there will be discrimination next year, and next decade, and next century. The HRC does NOTHING to hinder that. It addresses a very few cases, annoys a lot of of people, and does very little to hinder active discrimination. If people want to disciminate they will, and it's most unlikely anyone can show they're doing it. If I don't rent a room to someone there could be a hundred reasons, none of which I generally am expected to justify. And just what great harm does this sort of thing cause anyway? If someone doesn't want to rent to you then in all likelihood you wouldn't have been happy there anyway, and are better off living elsewhere.

And the discriminatory, nasty and angry frothy mouthed anti-gay, anti-immigrant types will have a field day.

I understand that is how you have been instructed to paint the CPC and anyone else who doesn't admire your corrupt, degenerate party, but I don't think it will work much except with the illiterate cretins who tend to vote for you already.

[Argus]

Argus if we allow the rights of one individual or group to be infringed upon what it to stop the rights of any individual or group to be infringed on?

Your assessment of what constitutes a right appears to be one of those taken from the human rights industries as opposed to the fundamental human rights as guaranteed in constitutions and such.

Governments violate your human rights. Some guy named Big Al who doesn't want to hire you to work in his garage is not violating your "rights". Discrimination is a part of life, be it against fat people, old people, short people, ugly people, or black white and blue people. Deal with it yourself rather than running crying to the government.

[Borg]

You don't think it's odd that in a city the size of Toronto that there would not be at least one truly qualified black person to work in the factory? That doesn't strike you as odd? Come on be realistic about this.

If there was - how do you know this person even applied? Even if this person did apply - why should he / she go to the top of the pile?

Lots of places to find jobs - you believe the company should actively recruit "others"? I do not - it is an expensive process.

Affirmative action? Reverse discrimination?

Competition for jobs is fierce and sometimes qualifications is not the deciding factor - team building, personality and ability to get along are three other reasons.

People get hired and or not hired for a hell of a pile of reasons - colour is low on the list to the point of not being on the radar - all you have to do is look around - and those who bitch about it do so if only to further their own causes.

Do not get the job - cry racism - that really makes the rest of the world love you more - not!

Walk in to an office for an interview - the person forms an opinion of you within a few minutes. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose - that is the way it is.

Lots of white folks - they are also a people of colour - do not get the jobs either - and the reasons are various - so quite your whining folks.

Even California dropped affirmative action.

Borg

[fellowtraveller]

Time to right some wrongs

Wow, this premise is even weaker than usual from the Liberal Cheerleader.

His proof that The Conservatives are going to eliminate all HRCs?

A link to an op-ed piece by nobody that matters, and not a single reference to enabling legislation or quote from a govt member.

Classic.

[Borg]

His proof that The Conservatives are going to eliminate all HRCs?

Classic.

Actually it is an absolutely stellar idea - HRC should never have come into existence - an expensive kangaroo court

Borg

[Dave_ON]

If there was - how do you know this person even applied? Even if this person did apply - why should he / she go to the top of the pile?

Lots of places to find jobs - you believe the company should actively recruit "others"? I do not - it is an expensive process.

Affirmative action? Reverse discrimination?

Competition for jobs is fierce and sometimes qualifications is not the deciding factor - team building, personality and ability to get along are three other reasons.

People get hired and or not hired for a hell of a pile of reasons - colour is low on the list to the point of not being on the radar - all you have to do is look around - and those who bitch about it do so if only to further their own causes.

Borg

Clearly you’re missing the point. You’re working from the premise that discrimination happens and we should just accept it and move on. That in my mind is no different than accepting the fact that crime happens and we should just move on and quit whining about it. Why bother with our expensive judicial system it clearly hasn’t eliminated crime entirely so let’s just scrap it. Truly this is no less ridiculous.

I’m not suggesting affirmative action, that minorities get special treatment or that companies should have to actively recruit minorities. What I am suggesting is that the HRC fulfill its true purpose as a watchdog to ensure EQUAL treatment.

Honestly all the criteria you listed are in fact qualifications. That’s why especially in a city the size of Toronto that it is nigh on impossible that there is not even one qualified black man in the entire city to work at this much cited hypothetical factory. Do you honestly believe that to be a realistic line of thinking?

[Borg]

Clearly you’re missing the point. You’re working from the premise that discrimination happens and we should just accept it and move on. That in my mind is no different than accepting the fact that crime happens and we should just move on and quit whining about it. Why bother with our expensive judicial system it clearly hasn’t eliminated crime entirely so let’s just scrap it. Truly this is no less ridiculous.

I’m not suggesting affirmative action, that minorities get special treatment or that companies should have to actively recruit minorities. What I am suggesting is that the HRC fulfill its true purpose as a watchdog to ensure EQUAL treatment.

Honestly all the criteria you listed are in fact qualifications. That’s why especially in a city the size of Toronto that it is nigh on impossible that there is not even one qualified black man in the entire city to work at this much cited hypothetical factory. Do you honestly believe that to be a realistic line of thinking?

So, we need to make a law stating you will hire one person of minority status to every ..... 10 people who are not minority status?

Or perhaps every time a business opens in China Town the store will have to hire a white guy / gal?

That should go a long way to eliminating white unemployment in Vancouver.

Or whatabout the Korean on the west coast that refused to re-new leases to anyone who was white?

HRC has never indicated it can do anything other than bring nusance complaints to non binding arbitration through unrealistic solutions..

I am all in favour of making this law - I can just see it now - Mohawk gas station opens and the local indian population forced to hire whites. Or better - the local gay community book store forced to hire Catholic church members due to HRC rulings. Annual Black movie and enertainment awards night forced to allow enties from mulem community. What the heck - one more - black community holds their annual "Black is beautiful" celebration and is forced to hire white promotion company AND allow Tamil entries.

You are on a slippery slope. But your heart is in the right place - just need to engage the mind ... oh, and tell those who cannot find a job that maybe there is more to it than their colour. In fact even this "I am entitled due to my race" attitude makes me figure that I would not want them working for me.

Borg

[Dave_ON]

So, we need to make a law stating you will hire one person of minority status to every ..... 10 people who are not minority status?

Or perhaps every time a business opens in China Town the store will have to hire a white guy / gal?

That should go a long way to eliminating white unemployment in Vancouver.

Or whatabout the Korean on the west coast that refused to re-new leases to anyone who was white?

HRC has never indicated it can do anything other than bring nusance complaints to non binding arbitration through unrealistic solutions..

I am all in favour of making this law - I can just see it now - Mohawk gas station opens and the local indian population forced to hire whites. Or better - the local gay community book store forced to hire Catholic church members due to HRC rulings. Annual Black movie and enertainment awards night forced to allow enties from mulem community. What the heck - one more - black community holds their annual "Black is beautiful" celebration and is forced to hire white promotion company AND allow Tamil entries.

You are on a slippery slope. But your heart is in the right place - just need to engage the mind ... oh, and tell those who cannot find a job that maybe there is more to it than their colour. In fact even this "I am entitled due to my race" attitude makes me figure that I would not want them working for me.

Borg

I agree with you 100% race, religion, orientation etc. should not be the reason you get a job, by the same token it should also not exclude you based solely on the aforementioned criteria. I'm not speaking of forcing anyone to hire a certain number of minorities I'm speaking of ensuring that the various minority statuses don't exclude people from employment.

This is indeed a real issue in our society and it needs some form of redress. This is not to say that all claims made are valid, this is the reason the HRC was created. To determine the veracity of the claims made. Now in its current incarnation it is utterly incapable of fulfilling its mandate, and as such needs to be reformed. The idea is good even though the implementation was poor.

As mentioned forcing employers to hire X amount of X minority group is ridiculous and unrealistic, however so is not hiring a member of X minority even if they are qualified just because they aren't a WASP.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Dave_ON

[jdobbin]

Wow, this premise is even weaker than usual from the Liberal Cheerleader.

Says the Conservative cheerleader.

His proof that The Conservatives are going to eliminate all HRCs?

A link to an op-ed piece by nobody that matters, and not a single reference to enabling legislation or quote from a govt member.

Former close adviser to Harper and still prominent member of the party.

Classic.

As is your response.

[jdobbin]

If I don't rent a room to someone there could be a hundred reasons, none of which I generally am expected to justify. And just what great harm does this sort of thing cause anyway? If someone doesn't want to rent to you then in all likelihood you wouldn't have been happy there anyway, and are better off living elsewhere.

It is more than that and you know it. It is denying placements in schools, jobs, neighbourhoods. And no, sometimes you are not better off.

I understand that is how you have been instructed to paint the CPC and anyone else who doesn't admire your corrupt, degenerate party, but I don't think it will work much except with the illiterate cretins who tend to vote for you already.

I understand that some Conservative supporters are angry and spout filth in their attacks on people they don't like such as gays, immigrants and a host of others but really, do you think it is going to make people want to eliminate human rights legislation so that you can act openly that way?

[myata]

Eliminating human rights legislation may or may not have anything to do with eliminating these special commissions to enforce such legislation. If there's a substance to the first claim, we should indeed have a very loud discussion about it, as rights became one of the cornerstone principles of our society and we shouldn't allow to change that unless we know what and why, we're doing.

Regarding the role of commissions, as a matter of principle, I dont' see any benefit in a parallel pseudo justice system. The only caveat is accessability. Justice has grown extremely slow, and very expensive in Canada, and making defence of one's basic rights, as defined in the Constitution, subject to ability to pay, and wait, would be inacceptable. I'm not sure if developing sideways justice streams for specific sets of issues is the right strategy in the long term (I'd prefer investing into universal accessability, at least for some, e.g. Charter-related issues), but I'm not familiar with the situation well enough to comment whether there's in fact a viable alternative right now.

[CANADIEN]

Flanagan is speaking for an entire movement in the Conservative party both federally and at the provincial level is associated PC parties. You know this. Flanagan often floats trial balloons for the party as "former campaign manager." You know this as well.

Some of the PCs in Ontario are asking for the elimination of the Human Rights Tribunal now.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tional/Ontario/

All last week, conservative radio commentators were commenting on ending the human rights commissions and act altogether.

Now, we have Flanagan floating the idea that all discrimination should be settled by the market.

I can't recall the Liberals saying that discrimination is something that should be market driven.

And I don't believe that Flanagan simply speaks for himself. He speaks for the conservative movement in Canada and often floats these trial balloons.

He's speaking for more than just himself.

But until the government endorses his point of view with legislative action, I have no reason to state that it is the government position.

Anyways, what is the most likely to happen, if the government move in that direction, is an attempt to remove section 13.1 from the perview of the commission.

[CANADIEN]

I agree with that. However, people have been hauled before commissions for less direct discrimination than that. The mere implication that someone turned down an applicant based on their race, gender, sexual identity, hair colour, what-have-you, can lead to an accusation, and accusations are all Human Rights Commissions apparently need to proceed with a case.

Which is why I think the Human Rights Tribinals should become an investigative body and leave court proceedings to... the courts.

[CANADIEN]

Yes, I rememer the bad old days, before Human Rights Commisions, the long, sad - but gayly painted - caravans of homeless homosexuals in black leather chaps and G-strings, sadly waving thousand dollar bills at every uptight landlord they passed, only to be snubbed again and again, rooting through the garbage in their quaint, dainty fashion, with plastic gloves of course, for partially consumed bottles of Avian water and black eyeliner - goods they could never purchase openly because no one would sell to them. Oh it was sad sad. To think such days might return in our lifetimes...

The "fine" example of homophobia aside...

The moment our Government says "discrimination by the private sector is no business of the Government", there will be more businesses and employers discriminating. Not as much as the good old day when that kind of practices helped ensure that neighbourhood were white only, but it will happen. And you know it... you'd do it yourself at every opportunity.

[CANADIEN]

Do you honestly think that in the abscence of HRCs we'll see Jews congregating in ghetoes again because no one will rent to them? I'm sure there's an occasional person who doesn't want to rent to a Jew or a fairy, and as is usually the case, there'll be no evidence of this and the would-be renter will move on and get another place just as nice somewhere else.

I doubt that there would be many people not willing to rent or sell to Jews only. But to let's say, Blacks? Considering how much you like the idea of having them as neighbours, I think we've just got example #1.

[CANADIEN]

Of course there is discrimination today. And there will be discrimination next year, and next decade, and next century. The HRC does NOTHING to hinder that. It addresses a very few cases, annoys a lot of of people, and does very little to hinder active discrimination. If people want to disciminate they will, and it's most unlikely anyone can show they're doing it.

And most illegal immigrants are not caught. I for one think we should put more resources into stopping them. Same her.

And just what great harm does this sort of thing cause anyway

Discrimination is an attack on a person's dignity as a human being. it's telling him/her "no matter what, you're not worthy enough". I am sure this is fine by you. Fortunately, most of society does not think so.