De-sensitivity training

[JerrySeinfeld]

sic

Edited June 19, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[JerrySeinfeld]

I did indeed read your introductory post. You claim that you should be able to say whatever you like to whoever you like and they should smile and say 'thankyou'.

No I said I should be able to say whatever I want. You added the last bit.

Ms. Pardy alleges that she was discriminated against in the provision of a service, in breach of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, on the basis of her sex and sexual orientation.

Exactly. Get over it. So what.

Your statement that the comedian told a couple of Lesbian jokes is, I suggest, quite far from what actually occurred.

Once again you are guilty of putting words in my mouth and setting up straw men.

WHy don't you learn to read:

Here is my exact quote:

Lesbian Lorna Pardy launches human rights complaint against Comedian Guy Earle in Vancouver for making durogatory comments about her sexuality

in fact the BC HRT determined that (from the BCHRT link again):

[15] In this case, Ms. Pardy is a member of two protected groups, because of her sex and her sexual orientation. She alleges that the respondents discriminated against her on both of those grounds when she was harassed. The public comments made by Mr. Earle were related both to Ms. Pardy’s sex and her sexual orientation and, if Ms. Pardy’s evidence is accepted at a hearing, were intended to humiliate her. Further, Zesty and Mr. Ismail, as service providers, have an obligation to ensure that their services are provided in a non-discriminatory manner.

...but I understand. You don't like her or anyone else having the ability to make such charges.

Wow. You just make smoke come out of my ears from your lack of understanding. Your above cite is precisley the reason why this entire kangaroo court must be abolished. It's beeen turned into a body of censorship for those who can't handle getting their feelings hurt and it's dangerous. This case is an extremely dangerous precedent.

You are correct. I don't like her or anyone else having the ability to stifle debate, shut people up and censor them just because they don't like something someone says. The true test of true freedom of speech is to listen to the thing you think is the most vile being said, and still respect others' right to say it.

These women are attempting to set up a dangerous precedent.

LOL. There are 11 years worth of BC HRT decisions here BC HRT decisions and you are actually claiming that the complainants have won every one of them?

GOOD.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with a bona fide, self described supporter of speech police.

Sorry Jerry, Freedom of Speach doe's not include treating others like dirt. Good for Chilling effects on such 'freedom of expression.'

Wow. You, Hitler and the Chinese politburo would have got along.

Forced to defend himself out of his own pocket? Whats wrong with that? Of course he pays the expenses of his defence and if it is found that he did what she claims he did (which happens 100% of the time) then he may have to pay for her expenses too.

She has no expenses. That's part of the problem.

There is nothing wrong here Jerry. If someone files a claim against you in a court guess who pays your expenses - You do.

This is not a court of law.

Again Jerry this isnt about hurt feelings. Hurt Feelings are not subject to HR tribunals in BC or any other province in Canada.

and I can't believe you think that Human Rights Tribunals/commissions hear cases about feelings being hurt. Perhaps you should read the various enabling statutes. You'll find that Hurt Feelings are not cause for anything.

Pure bullshit. The word "offended" is code for "feelings hurt". And under the Human rights code, and you can look it up, if someone says something that is TRUE and you are offended, it is no defense that it is true. Under this bullshit kangaroo court, TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE. Look it up.

well you certainly would.

That was certainly your claim Jerry. You claimed it was you that people were trying to shut up.

Hmm. All I can say to this is, if ONE gay is refused service somewhere, is it just HE who is being discriminated against? Or is it all gays?

I think you should have a listen to what one of Canada's most respected commentators has to say about the commissions and their role.

Link to 2 minute video

[Smallc]

The commissions have an important role. They simply need better legislation that is more limiting.

[Bonam]

Honestly the witch hunt against anyone who doesn't conform with leftist ideology is quite scary. Do you know if they have these commissions in the US too? Maybe I'll flee the country before the thought police catch me.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Please do.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Honestly the witch hunt against anyone who doesn't conform with leftist ideology is quite scary. Do you know if they have these commissions in the US too? Maybe I'll flee the country before the thought police catch me.

You know what is interesting is the stranglehold the left wing has over language.

Think about the news, or conversation. People are literally handcuffed to using specific words and phrases deemed "acceptable" by left wing elites who try to tell us

"This is how we talk...this is how we act...this is what we accept.."

and if you don't go along to get along, you're hauled out in front of some trumped up quasi court.

sounds like something out of a george orwell novel, and it's disgusting.

Edited June 19, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[Remiel]

Think about the news, or conversation. People are literally handcuffed to using specific words and phrases deemed "acceptable" by left wing elites who try to tell us

"This is how we talk...this is how we act...this is what we accept.."

" You are either with us or you are against us. "

[tango]

Who is to judge? Eye and skin colour, or left-handedness, are as legitimate identity points as sexual preferences/orientation.

Remiel, you raise good points that strike at the heart of this issue (and this thread).

According to you, Jerry can discriminate in his choice of date but not in who he hires? Why?

Because that's the law.

Denial of good, service, facility or accommodation

5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

( to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 5.

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

I have my doubts that the Human Rights Act would apply to this situation, as the women in question were not denied anything. However, they might try to make a case for "hate speech", but I doubt that too.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Because that's the law.

Denial of good, service, facility or accommodation

5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

( to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 5.

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

I have my doubts that the Human Rights Act would apply to this situation, as the women in question were not denied anything. However, they might try to make a case for "hate speech", but I doubt that too.

The human rights act may be law, but it's not in the charter. The real key would be to somehow get hauled up on one of these bogus complaints by one of these whining ninnies and then intentionally get found "guilty" - so you could then challenge the vertdict based upon the CHARTERin a REAL court, and get the whole thing thrown out once and for all.

Of course, that would require tonnes of dough, time, effort, travel etc. It's horrendous. No one would try it, which is what the lefty language police are counting on.

Edited June 19, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[tango]

The human rights act may be law, but it's not in the charter. The real key would be to somehow get hauled up on one of these bogus complaints by one of these whining ninnies and then intentionally get found "guilty" - so you could then challenge the vertdict based upon the CHARTERin a REAL court, and get the whole thing thrown out once and for all.

Of course, that would require tonnes of dough, time, effort, travel etc. It's horrendous. No one would try it, which is what the lefty language police are counting on.

You are missing my point:

I don't believe the situation of the lesbians and the comic can be taken to the Human Rights Commission as discrimination, because there was no denial of "good, service, facility or accommodation".

[JerrySeinfeld]

You are missing my point:

I don't believe the situation of the lesbians and the comic can be taken to the Human Rights Commission as discrimination, because there was no denial of "good, service, facility or accommodation".

That may be - but it sure sounds like they're gonna hear it on some grounds.

We as Canadians, left or right, need to stand up against this kind of censorship and heavyhandedness.

The reason EVERY major publication in Canada - even the marxist rag the Toronto Star stood behind Mark steyn is because the media and news outlets realize something:

It's a right wing guy THIS time. But if we accept it, what if next time it's YOU.

[tango]

That may be - but it sure sounds like they're gonna hear it on some grounds.

We as Canadians, left or right, need to stand up against this kind of censorship and heavyhandedness.

The reason EVERY major publication in Canada - even the marxist rag the Toronto Star stood behind Mark steyn is because the media and news outlets realize something:

It's a right wing guy THIS time. But if we accept it, what if next time it's YOU.

I try not to make offensive remarks to people.

Maybe the 'right wing' should try that sometime.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I try not to make offensive remarks to people.

Maybe the 'right wing' should try that sometime.

That's fair. I think the normal thing to do is to be aware of peeople's feelings, but also to be vigilant that your language isn't being "guided" or "policed" by expectatoins set out by some elite academic or bureaucrat.

It's important to stur debate about these thing. People are sheep. They'll be herded if you let them.

FIGHT THE POWER!

Edited June 19, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[benny]

It's important to stur debate about these thing. People are sheep. They'll be herded if you let them.

To stir debate, there is nothing like treating bad jokes as Freudian slips.

[August1991]

I get the distinct impression that you have no idea what the various HR statutes actually say.

Jerry can hire whoever he likes to cut his hair. But if Jerry owns a hair salon catering to the public then Jerry doe's not get to reject qualified people because of thier sexual orientation/handedness/eyecolour-orwhatever-other-characteristic-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-performance-of-the-duties-of-the-job.

Jerry can hire a whoever he likes to be nanny to his kids. But if Jerry runs a Nanny business then Jerry must hire based solely on the ability of the applicant to perform the duties required.

I know very well how Human Rights Tribunals operate and that is precisely what I am questioning.

I have never understood why one side of a transaction is subject to these State tribunals but the other side is not. Why shoudl teh State have anything to say about how you, Jerry or I measure the ability to perform their side of contract? How do you define "cater to the public"?

This is all so arbitrary and ultimately it is unjust.

In case you don't know Peter, there is an ongoing debate not only on this forum but in Canada in general about the legitimacy of these Human Rights Tribunals. Their decisions are arbitrary and Jerry in his OP has only provided one example of this arbitrariness.

Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, gave a speech Monday in which she addressed the growing chorus of complaints about the CHRC and its various provincial counterparts. The National Post has been a leading critic of the commissions and their assault on the rights of Canadians, wrapped in the guise of protection.

Link

In my post above, I tried to examine logically the existence of State Human Rights Tribunals to control private transactions and to ensure that people do not discriminate along certain grounds. The State cannot do this and if it tries, the results will be worse. Some 40 years after their creation, that's exactly what is happening.

I am fully in favour of a civilized society where in our private dealings we treat our fellow citizens with respect and decency. I just don't know how the State can explicitly enforce this treatment. For example, IMV, a public schoolteacher should reprimand a pupil who makes a derogatory remark about another pupil. But I don't think the State should do the same of a citizen.

The Charter or Rights is not the US Constitution and it does not apply to the state alone (and there's even debate about that)....sorry, it applies universally.

Smallc, you're wrong. The Charter restricts solely the actions of Canadian governments. Where our Charter differs from the amendments to the US Constitution is in the existence of notwithstanding clauses. Our governments can in some cases exempt themselves from the Charter's restrictions.

[benny]

How about a training to be able to laugh with someone instead of laughing at someone!?

[Smallc]

Smallc, you're wrong. The Charter restricts solely the actions of Canadian governments. Where our Charter differs from the amendments to the US Constitution is in the existence of notwithstanding clauses. Our governments can in some cases exempt themselves from the Charter's restrictions.

That may be the way it was originally intended, but its use has obviously been expanded into daily life...not such a bad thing in most cases.

[Argus]

no problem but the minute they bring thier life stlye to the job, ie gropping asses in the shower, bragging about thier sexual exploits , or showing an effection towards another soldier, then they are cautioned to cease, just as any hetro person would be

Ahm, does the "caution to desist" include a hospital stay? Because I'd assume groping asses in the shower - on a combat base - would likely result in a disability pension.

[benny]

My suggestion is that we look at it from the other way: everyone should take some "de-sensitivity" training. ie. some lessons in how to develop a thicker skin.

How to develop a thicker skin? Learn to laugh at yourself.

[August1991]

That may be the way it was originally intended, but its use has obviously been expanded into daily life...not such a bad thing in most cases.

No, it hasn't Smallc.

The Charter (then and now) only restricts government activities. Specifically, the Charter protects the individual against the power of the State. (As a side point, before the Charter was added to our Constitution in 1982, a large body of laws, practices and conventions already restricted Canadian governments. Trudeau, like the writers of the US Constitution, had an Enlightenment approach to this, very much like the Civil Code approach to law. Trudeau preferred a clear statement of the restrictions on the actions of the State and he begrudgingly accepted a watered down version that included a "notwithstanding clause" sop to the common law.)

Human Rights Tribunals and Commissions are involved in adjudicating private transactions. Above in this thread, Peter F implies that this State intervention in private dealings works. In fact, after some 40 years of experience, it doesn't. IMHO, these tribunals will not exist in 80 years. To quote Trudeau again (as I did above), "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The State has no business getting involved in the decision of a hairdresser to cut only men's hair or to refuse to cut Afro hair. If the State tries to get involved in such private choices, it will eventually be hounded out.

Edited June 19, 2009 by August1991

[WIP]

Sticking with the moral issues , there is a big difference in my beliefs, i think being Gay is a life style choice, one that can be changed..being black is for me just a color, and does not for the most part define a person...

Is that an informed opinion? I could say:"I think the Moon is made of green cheese," but what value is it if it is not based on any real evidence? Before I am willing to accept any arguments built on the foundation that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, I want to see some real evidence to back it up. If it is not a "lifestyle choice" than that means millions of gay men and lesbians have been scorned, abused and murdered for something they had as much control over as my lack of ability to write with my right hand.

For real evidence of the causes of homosexuality, a good place to start is right at Wikipedia and religioustolerance.org, read the case studies, and then decide which side has the evidence.

i don't hate terrorists , i do hate thier tatics and acts that may force me to take a a life....

You've misunderstood me, There are Gays in the military, allowed by law...and protected by law from discrimination....and for the most part keep being gay to themselfs....if they can soldier and do thier jobs fine...no problem but the minute they bring thier life stlye to the job, ie gropping asses in the shower, bragging about thier sexual exploits , or showing an effection towards another soldier, then they are cautioned to cease, just as any hetro person would be .....if it continues they are history moved to another unit or company....regardless of what the laws say....it's done to protect moral within the section or platoon....keep in mind the nature of our job, and the fact our lifes depend upon one another, and if there is a lack of trust then it could prove deadly.....

I didn't know you were still active duty, but it sounds like the policies you describe strike the right balance of accepting someone's sexual orientation, while preventing sexual misconduct. Back when I did most of my Armed Forces stint 30 years ago, a gay man would have been discharged, but during that time when women were just being introduced into more active roles, we were told by many of of our officers that it wasn't just our imaginations that they didn't seem to be the kind of girls we wanted to hang out with -- they were deliberately trying to recruit butch lesbians for female recruits, partly because they were presumed to make better soldiers than regular girls, and they figured it would cut down the risk of sexual misconduct with the enlisted men, especially at remote, isolated radar stations.

I've not condemned anyone, except exericise my rights , freedom of speach, freedom of choice, freedom of religion....please show me how me saying i dislike gays have in anyways condemned anyone.....But while you are quick to condemn my action, and compare it to racistism or hate thats not what this is about....it's also about Jerrys rights....and you've yet to prove that any comments made so far fall into the hate or racist catogory...

And my position remains that if people hold hostile opinions about people because of unfounded beliefs and misinformation, then they need to be challenged to back up their prejudicial attitudes, just like white supremacists have been over the years. If you guys want the freedom to proclaim that homosexuals have made a lifestyle choice to be deviants and could be heterosexual if they wanted to, then I have the same freedom to challenge unfounded belief claims like this that cause pain and suffering for a minority of the population.

[Oleg Bach]

Are those who are under the auspice of the state or agents of the state immune from prosecution when they breach the rights of the common person? If that is the case - where does the line that is state- begin and where does it end? You can sue representatives of the government - but you will never win - so what's the point of the charter if you can not weaponize it?

[benny]

so what's the point of the charter if you can not weaponize it?

I see no role for a sense of humor here.

[Oleg Bach]

I see no role for a sense of humor here.

ooh ooh - here comes benny - I liked you better before I knew you....but I will get use to it - you are right - flashy words like weaponize are sensational...guess I can't stop being creative with out real purpose....I will re-phrase the statement. The Charter is not respected or utilized as it was designed to be. I asked a legalist about mobility rights in regards to the removal of drivers licences from what they call "dead-beat' dads...The reply I got from this lawyer was ----That has been heard in the Supreme Court--and it did not fly....so I checked it out - He lied to me - Any person without making a big deal of it should be able to take a copy of the Charter and challenge any court at any time on any level - the layman can use this document with out problems - It's a very simple and straight forward piece of draftmanship. BUT - they want it to be complex and by making it more complex then it really is - the Charter becomes in effect - lifeless.

[Peter F]

Human Rights Tribunals and Commissions are involved in adjudicating private transactions. Above in this thread, Peter F implies that this State intervention in private dealings works. In fact, after some 40 years of experience, it doesn't. IMHO, these tribunals will not exist in 80 years. To quote Trudeau again (as I did above), "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The State has no business getting involved in the decision of a hairdresser to cut only men's hair or to refuse to cut Afro hair. If the State tries to get involved in such private choices, it will eventually be hounded out.

August, after 40 years of experience, they work just fine. As far as private choices go, the state has been involved in regulating private choices since Socrates was given Hemlock.

What do you think the courts of the land are? Government getting involved in private choices. The provinces legislatures have all passed legistlation regarding discrimination and they have all set up tribunals and commissions to deal with the results of those various acts. They are as legitimate as any court of queens bench or the Canadian criminal code or the Quebic Civil Law.