benny Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 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. The ceremonial dresses of the judges are as comical as essential for the public to swallow such a legislative inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 The perversion of language is to blame. To 'discriminate' means to have a choice of what is good for you and what is not - not being allowed to use the word discriminate properly - and making it an offense to choose is a serious problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 The perversion of language is to blame. To 'discriminate' means to have a choice of what is good for you and what is not - not being allowed to use the word discriminate properly - and making it an offense to choose is a serious problem. It is all about the criteria upon which basing these choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 It is all about the criteria upon which basing these choices. Like baking a cake - any fool once they figure out the mechanizm of the system can simply add the exact ingredience and out pops the results - hate to break it to you benny but our justice system is a bio-machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Like baking a cake - any fool once they figure out the mechanizm of the system can simply add the exact ingredience and out pops the results - hate to break it to you benny but our justice system is a bio-machine. Our justice system is still an open system though. Read The Trial of Kafka to compare it with a closed one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 No, it hasn't Smallc. Yes, yes it has. It's been used to ensure that Canadians don't discriminate against other Canadians or other people. Its scope goes beyond the power of the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Yes, yes it has. It's been used to ensure that Canadians don't discriminate against other Canadians or other people. Its scope goes beyond the power of the state. Believe me, the notwithstanding clause will be used to protect French in Montreal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 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. As someone, I think Bill Maher once said, "I'm not prejudiced. Prejudiced implies Pre-judging. I'm not pre-judging, I'm JUDGING." So what if you hold hostile opinions about people because of actual and true beliefs and actual and true information? That does, after all, relate to Jennifer Lynch's desire to be able to prosecute people for making hateful statements even if they are true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 As someone, I think Bill Maher once said, "I'm not prejudiced. Prejudiced implies Pre-judging. I'm not pre-judging, I'm JUDGING." Since our judgments cannot be said definitive, prejudice is a no brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Yes, yes it has. It's been used to ensure that Canadians don't discriminate against other Canadians or other people. Its scope goes beyond the power of the state. Name a single case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Workplace anti descrimination legislation...it happens all of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 (edited) Name a single case. Owners of English-only stores in Quebec who want to defend themselves in court against the lawsuits of frustrated French-speaking consumers/population. Edited June 20, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Workplace anti descrimination legislation...it happens all of the time. That has nothing whatever to do with the Charter. Workplace anti-discrimination rules pre-date the Charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 (edited) The way the Charter is written allows it to apply to all situation. No one can take your fundamental rights away. Not the government, not anyone. Edited June 21, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 (edited) The way the Charter is written allows it to apply to all situation. No one can take your fundamental rights away. Nor the government, not anyone. With a will, the People can abolish them in carnival-like revolutions. No one should think that the jokers are always rednecks laughing at the poor. Edited June 21, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 The way the Charter is written allows it to apply to all situation. No one can take your fundamental rights away. Not the government, not anyone. There are perverts in our system who have positions of power - they will take your rights away and there is nothing you can do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Revolutionaries have faith that their suspension of fundamental rights will be judged worthwhile ex post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 The way the Charter is written allows it to apply to all situation. No one can take your fundamental rights away. Not the government, not anyone. I asked you for a situation where the charter is applied between individuals. You have thus far failed to supply one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 (edited) You're right, because I haven't looked. The basic elements of the charter however do seem to apply between individuals and between private entities. If you tried to disallow freedom of speech, I'm quite sure that the courts would have something to say about it. Edited June 21, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 In the case of linguistic rights, it is quite obvious that the Quebec government is only an intermediary in between French and English nationalists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 In the case of linguistic rights, it is quite obvious that the Quebec government is only an intermediary in between French and English nationalists. Freedom of speech IS linguistic rights --- to use the term linguistic rights is very strange in deed - no one is going to stop you from talking - you will not be gagged for speaking another language....No one is stopping the French from speaking French --- what we should be concentrating on are common human rights for all --- this seperation of the sexes - seperation of peoples ...makes no sense --- it's nit picking..and it has to stop.....It's like this ----We have no serious proplems in this nation - we should be happy - instead we search for difficulties and problems as if we are bound and determined to suffer needlessly - are we crazy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Freedom of speech IS linguistic rights --- to use the term linguistic rights is very strange in deed - no one is going to stop you from talking - you will not be gagged for speaking another language....No one is stopping the French from speaking French --- what we should be concentrating on are common human rights for all --- this seperation of the sexes - seperation of peoples ...makes no sense --- it's nit picking..and it has to stop.....It's like this ----We have no serious proplems in this nation - we should be happy - instead we search for difficulties and problems as if we are bound and determined to suffer needlessly - are we crazy? Still, bad jokes hide more frustrations than happiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Still, bad jokes hide more frustrations than happiness. You can't hide happiness - if you are not going to make sense I am going...see ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 You can't hide happiness Fat skin can hide sadness about the omnipresence of sarcasms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 You're right, because I haven't looked. The basic elements of the charter however do seem to apply between individuals and between private entities. If you tried to disallow freedom of speech, I'm quite sure that the courts would have something to say about it. How could I possibly dissallow freedom of speech other than by breaking some kind of law with regard to threats or violence? The Charter does not apply to me. It applies to how the government treats me, not how I treat you. 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.