CANADIEN Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) See, this is why normal people snicker behind the backs of all the PC cretins who see "homophobia" and "racism" at every corner, because it's so clear they don't know what the words are and simply use them as all-purpose epithets. We can discuss normal people anytime..... Your m*nure is anything but normal. Since your insight into the human condition leaves me wondering whether you are, even on your best days, capable of tying your shoes without written directions and a government paid personal assistance worker to help. :lol: Edited May 22, 2009 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 What's a galazy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Discriminatory acts are not crimes under the Criminal aCt even though they're illegal. Well, I understood that anything counter to the law was a crime; however, I'll assume that you're probably right. But the potential result of a HRC hearing is still serious enough, as I said, to warrant the need of a lawyer to defend one's self, against you know not whom, I might add. Why do defendants feel the need to go to this personal expense if not because there could be some relatively serious consequences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) The HRC seems to be a type of alternate civil court really. Maybe that's where this should all be directed? Edited May 22, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Well, I understood that anything counter to the law was a crime; however, I'll assume that you're probably right. But the potential result of a HRC hearing is still serious enough, as I said, to warrant the need of a lawyer to defend one's self, against you know not whom, I might add. Why do defendants feel the need to go to this personal expense if not because there could be some relatively serious consequences? There should be serious consequences for discrimination. One more reason why the party investigating complaints cannot be the judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 What's a galazy? A typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Those things happen from time to time, with our without HRCs. I see no evidence that the existence of HRCs has affected that in the slightest. The HRCs have dealt with businesses that denied people access based on gender, religion and ethnicity. I don't know, but whatever I think it's my thought, as oppposed to coming from party meetings and muck-raking strategy offices where people with the moral strength of pimps and drug dealers try to imagine ways to scare people with distortions and lies.I'm not a Conservative supporter, bt. It's more like I'm a Liberal Opposer, because that party is infested with the sleaziest, slimiest, self-promoting, dishonest political scum in the country. Seems that your opposition is through support of Conservatives who want to allow for discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 There should be serious consequences for discrimination. But, as has already been pointed out, discrimination is an ingrained and unavoidable part of human civilization; we need structure and strata in which one person will invariably be favoured over another. So it isn't discrimination that the HRCs are doling out consequences for, it is only certain examples of the act that they choose to look at. Ironically, HRCs discriminate in their selection of discriminations. So, what discriminations are worthy of HRC attention and the accompanying "serious consequences"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 There should be serious consequences for discrimination. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 You really do think that racism and discrimination are not harmful? What distant galaxy are you from? Can you demonstrate the harm? Can you show what it is? Do you have any evidence of this harm? Any statistical basis for claiming that it even exists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 And when an employer makes it known to its manager that women should not be hired to ll tv's, is it because of their lack of skills? I'm not sure I understand the question. There was one position we regularly filled for "accomodation". This involved moving furniture, small repairs, arranging for various services like IT, cleaning, deliveries, etc. We invariably filled this position with a man because, over time, we realized most women didn't like it and weren't very good at it. The exception being one pretty, well-endowed woman who got men to do all her work for her anyway. You chose to reserve the whining about immigrant emplouee this and immigrant employee that for after the hiring. Want some brownie point? I may be mistaken but I don't believe I've ever complained about immigrant employees. Perhaps you can cite me a few cases. If they're not caught, it's OK? My point was that unless you're an idiot it is virtually impossible to be caught anyway. If people want to discriminate they will discriminate. Having a whole host of HRCs has done nothing to change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Considering that I said six months max, this says a lot about your reading skills. What you said was that every one of them should get their lawyer and have full access to the Charter protections of Canada. That means seven or eight, or in some cases twelve or more years of appeals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 What's a galazy? A gay lazy is a person that was brought up via liberal indoctrination - It is a male to lazy to take on the resonsibity of husbanding a female so he opts out for the "alternative" live style and "orientation" - where he can be a pretend pill popping homo-sexual or a dumb guy that jerks off to computer prono - because he lacks dating skill and the few bucks it takes to take out a real woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Yet you lament the good 'ole days when your surroundings were all white. No, when my surroundings were all Canadian. They were white too, of course, but that wasn't the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 No, when my surroundings were all Canadian. They were white too, of course, but that wasn't the point. We regret the passing of the good old days not because we were surrounded by whites - and some of them were nasty inferiour violent idoits - It's not that white thing - It is to be surrounded by people from else where who hate whites - is what is bothersome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.