Remiel Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 Out of curiousity, what are your views on physical violence, Jerry? If a man hits you hard in the chest or the shoulder, kicks you in the thigh, or whatever, and it leaves a bruise, would you count it differently than in you insulted a man and you "hurt his feelings"? Would you call one assault, while protesting not having the right to engage in the other? Quote
Peter F Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 Here is the crux of my "de-sensitivity training" argument:If 10% of people are left handed, and 3% are gay, why is it that if I say to some guy who is left handed "you are not normal - you're a south paw" he'll chuckle, but if I say that to a gay person, they have a fit and call the CHRC. The point is: everyone should take some de-sensitivity training, stop being so "offended" and calm the f*ck down. Why? To please you? Who the hell are you to say I shouldn't be offended by your offensive behaviour? Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 18, 2009 Author Report Posted June 18, 2009 Out of curiousity, what are your views on physical violence, Jerry?If a man hits you hard in the chest or the shoulder, kicks you in the thigh, or whatever, and it leaves a bruise, would you count it differently than in you insulted a man and you "hurt his feelings"? Would you call one assault, while protesting not having the right to engage in the other? Yes. as per classical liberalism, the key determining factor is direct harm. Quote
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 18, 2009 Author Report Posted June 18, 2009 Why? To please you? Who the hell are you to say I shouldn't be offended by your offensive behaviour? Go ahead. My suggestion is that, for your own mental health, you go take the de-sensitivity training. Because I ain't changin'. Quote
Peter F Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 Go ahead. My suggestion is that, for your own mental health, you go take the de-sensitivity training. Because I ain't changin'. Actually its much better for my mental health to confront fools. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 18, 2009 Author Report Posted June 18, 2009 Actually its much better for my mental health to confront fools. And it's beetter for mine to speak freely in a free society. Quote
Peter F Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 And it's beetter for mine to speak freely in a free society. And who's stoppin ya? Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Remiel Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 Yes. as per classical liberalism, the key determining factor is direct harm. What is not direct about calling someone a derogatory, hurtful name to their face? Emotions exist as surely as flesh and blood do. I would even bet that most people would say that our ability to think and feel is one of our most important traits. And yet, barely consequential violations on flesh and blood are not tolerated under the law, while you suggest the most grievious wounds of the other sort are perfectly fine. Quote
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 18, 2009 Author Report Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) And who's stoppin ya? Have you been following the news? They're tryin'. Usin'the CHRC. It's scary, actually, that an avenue to censor my speech actually even exists. Edited June 18, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote
Peter F Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 Have you been following the news? They're tryin'. Usin'the CHRC.It's scary, actually, that an avenue to censor my speech actually even exists. "They", Jerry? "They"? If a complaint has been laid before the CHRC there'd be a name, Jerry - not "They". So who's filing a complaint with the CHRC against you and what part of the statutes is this person/group saying you have contravened? Any specifics at all or is this just a pile of BS you're using to make up for the fact that you don't actually have a victim card to play. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
scorpio Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 What I'm saying is I should have the right to my opinions and to express them. People get offended too easily. Might want to mention that to Palin. Talk about over-reaction. Quote
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 18, 2009 Author Report Posted June 18, 2009 Might want to mention that to Palin. Talk about over-reaction. Totally agree. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 Might want to mention that to Palin. Talk about over-reaction. No it's not - why should we lose and lower our standards of behaviour - Is it all right for some stranger to call your daughter a whore - or your father a sodomist? Of course not - we are so conditioned that disrespect is exceptable - it's not! Quote
Army Guy Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 If we separate the legal from the moral issues here, what is the difference between saying you don't like gays, and you don't like blacks? In both cases, you are condemning people for circumstances that they cannot change. 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... Damn right you need to make that clear! You "dislike" terrorists? So I guess that means you don't hate terrorists then. i don't hate terrorists , i do hate thier tatics and acts that may force me to take a a life.... Could you explain how you do not tolerate gays on the job without violating laws against discrimination and harassment? 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..... You're expressing your belief on a public forum, so you should expect to be called out for it. You're acting like it's some God-given right to condemn a minority without having to answer for it. 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... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 Army Guy, you're such an (English) Canadian.Our bilingual country works because of teh nature of its two basic cultures. Thanks.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 18, 2009 Author Report Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) "They", Jerry? "They"? If a complaint has been laid before the CHRC there'd be a name, Jerry - not "They". So who's filing a complaint with the CHRC against you and what part of the statutes is this person/group saying you have contravened?Any specifics at all or is this just a pile of BS you're using to make up for the fact that you don't actually have a victim card to play. Lesbian Lorna Pardy launches human rights complaint against Comedian Guy Earle in Vancouver for making durogatory comments about her sexuality Link Now connect these very simple dots: When someone launches a complaint against you in this Kangaroo court with a 100% conviction rate, you must defend yourself at YOUR expeense, and typically the conviction results in some kind of monetary reparation in the thousands of dollars. At the same time, there is no expense to the complainant. What this results in is that, sincee Ms. Pardy has launched this complaint, the burden, the hassle, the expense, have ALREADY been leveed onto Mr. Earle. Not to mention that the commission has a 100% conviction rate, so there's a good chance he's gonna hev top pay a $20,000 reparation to Ms. Pardy too. With that kind of precedent, this has a "chilling" effect on free speech in this country. It may be "only" one case, but from this point forward, what penny pinching comedian (ie. ALL comedians) in his right mind would ever try making an offensive joke again in this country? For fear of "offending" someone and being hauled offf into an expensive "human rights" battle, we're about to enter the "beaver cleaver" era of comedy. Talk about censorship. A large group of comedians is fighting this tooth and nail. But it shouldn't even be an issue. Ms. Pardy should go get some de-sensitivity training. It's a COMEDIAN for christ sakes. Edited June 18, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote
Smallc Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 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 I don't agree with your views on gay people, but given the above, I apologize for my earlier comments. It seems I misunderstood you. Quote
August1991 Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 How many people have you met who believe what hand they write with is a fundamental part of their identity? You are comparing apples and Appalacians.Who is to judge? Eye and skin colour, or left-handedness, are as legitimate identity points as sexual preferences/orientation.Obviously, Jerry can date whomever he pleases, but if he chooses not to hire someone because they are gay, or African, or Chinese, or Dutch, or female (barring circumstances where one is a relevant qualification), then that is a problem for the state. You can say all you want that the Human Rights Commission is the wrong response, but the fact remains that a response is required.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? If Jerry chooses to hire a gay prostitute (and refuses to hire a straight prostitute), should he be subject to Human Rights Tribunal? If Jerry refuses to hire a woman barber and insists on hiring a man to cut his hair, should the woman have the right to bring Jerry before a State Tribunal? If Jerry refuses to hire an older man as a nanny for his children and insists on a young Jewish woman, should the State intervene in Jerry's choice? ----- The Charter of Rights applies to the State alone because the State by definition is a monopoly. To be civilized, we must ensure that the State does not discriminate according to certain criteria. In private affairs, there is no monopoly. You and I are free to cross the street and deal with someone else. As a practical matter, people in their private lives discriminate constantly. They choose a spouse, friends, neighbours (when they choose a neighbourhood). Some people refuse to eat in Chinese restaurants and others refuse to shop at American chain stores. In choosing a spouse or restaurant for example, people often discriminate on racial or religious grounds. Should the State get involved in these choices? Should the State have a say in who you hire to cook your food? ----- If Jerry wants to say that gays are not normal and he decides not to deal with them, then I may say that he is impolite and discourteous but I don't want the State to intervene and re-educate him. Quote
Smallc Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 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. Quote
scorpio Posted June 18, 2009 Report Posted June 18, 2009 No it's not - why should we lose and lower our standards of behaviour - Is it all right for some stranger to call your daughter a whore - or your father a sodomist? Of course not - we are so conditioned that disrespect is exceptable - it's not! It was a freakin' joke for God's sake. I've heard far more hatred and mean spiritedness out of Rush Limpballs and Fox than from any late night comedian. Quote
Peter F Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 Lesbian Lorna Pardy launches human rights complaint against Comedian Guy Earle in Vancouver for making durogatory comments about her sexuality...Link I see. Lorna Pardy is not filing a complaint against you. So this woman has filed a complaint that you know absolutly nothing of the circumstances that led to the complaint or what, exactly, the woman is alleging the comedian did...and this is a clear-cut example of your freespeach is being curtailed? The case hasn't even been decided yet you know she'll win; know she has no case; know all complaints succeed; know what the fine will be and know who's costs are what and who pays. You are jumping to alot of conclusions and have zero to base those conclusions on. Who has shut-you-up Jerry? Admit it - nobody. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 19, 2009 Author Report Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) I see. Lorna Pardy is not filing a complaint against you. So this woman has filed a complaint that you know absolutly nothing of the circumstances that led to the complaint or what, exactly, the woman is alleging the comedian did...and this is a clear-cut example of your freespeach is being curtailed? The case hasn't even been decided yet you know she'll win; know she has no case; know all complaints succeed; know what the fine will be and know who's costs are what and who pays. You are jumping to alot of conclusions and have zero to base those conclusions on. Who has shut-you-up Jerry? Admit it - nobody. Have you read my entire introductory post, Peter. It doesn't sound like it. Read the case, Peter. She is alleging he has violated her "human rights" by making offensive comments about her sexuality while onstage doing a comic routine. Are you aware that human rights complaints have a 100% conviction rate? So yees, I do know she will win. If you throughout the history of past cases, you will see that the common fine is in the thousands of dollars. You might want to avail yourself of some knowledge, because it is a FACT that complainants file complaints AT NO EXPENSE TO THEMSELVES, while the defendant in each case is required to pay all expenses to defend themselves. What this means is that, even if the conviction rate wasn't 100% (which it is), and even if the fine wasn't thousands of dollars (which is has been in historical precendents with the Tribunals), the chilling effect on freedom of expression still applies. He is already paying a penalty, just by being dragged in front of this kangaroo court and being forced to defend himself out of his own pocket, WHILE THE COMPLAINANT PAYS NOTHING. The message is clear: if you are a comic in this country, don't make lesbian jokes or you risk being hauled up on the carpet in front of the CHRC for "hurting someone's feelings" I can't believe you don't see that. Kim Jong Il doesn't have to prosecute everyone on the country for speaking out against the regime. All he has to do is take one guy who does, then shoot him in government square. Everyone else will just shut up. So just because it's "not me" it doesn't matter? Wow. I guess when the Nazis came to town for the jews, you were the guy next door saying "shhhhh. don't say or do anything. it's only happening to THEM, not US." Edited June 19, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote
Peter F Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 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? If Jerry chooses to hire a gay prostitute (and refuses to hire a straight prostitute), should he be subject to Human Rights Tribunal? If Jerry refuses to hire a woman barber and insists on hiring a man to cut his hair, should the woman have the right to bring Jerry before a State Tribunal? If Jerry refuses to hire an older man as a nanny for his children and insists on a young Jewish woman, should the State intervene in Jerry's choice? ----- The Charter of Rights applies to the State alone because the State by definition is a monopoly. To be civilized, we must ensure that the State does not discriminate according to certain criteria. In private affairs, there is no monopoly. You and I are free to cross the street and deal with someone else. As a practical matter, people in their private lives discriminate constantly. They choose a spouse, friends, neighbours (when they choose a neighbourhood). Some people refuse to eat in Chinese restaurants and others refuse to shop at American chain stores. In choosing a spouse or restaurant for example, people often discriminate on racial or religious grounds. Should the State get involved in these choices? Should the State have a say in who you hire to cook your food? The state shouldn't be involved in the above choices and in fact doesn't get involved in the above choices. Your whole argument here is a strawman. If Jerry wants to say that gays are not normal and he decides not to deal with them, then I may say that he is impolite and discourteous but I don't want the State to intervene and re-educate him. The state isn't going to intervene and re-educate him. 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. Jerry can procure the services of any prostitute and reject another, for whatever reason's please Jerry. But if Jerry is running an escort service then Jerry must hire base on the ability of the applicant to perform the duties they are hired for. and, finally, the state will not tell Jerry that he must like Gays and think they are normal. I will, of course, but I am not the state. But if Jerry staples posters around town encouraging others to think Gays are abnormal and to treat Gays differently because of that percieved abnormality - then the state will intervene...and rightly so. This idea that the state through HR commissions/tribunals is interfering in what we whisper to each other in bed or say at a barbecue is bogus and based on no reality. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Peter F Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 Have you read my entire introductory post, Peter. It doesn't sound like it. 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'. Read the case, Peter. She is alleging he has violated her "human rights" by making offensive comments about her sexuality while onstage doing a comic routine. Read what case? you linked a Vancouver Sun article - not the case. 'Course you can't link the case because the case has yet to be heard. Here's the actual allegation from the BC human rights tribunal: [3] 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. BC HRT Decisions 2008REASONS FOR PRELIMINARY DECISION Section 8 of the BC Human Rights Code says: Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility 8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification, (a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or ( discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or class of persons In fact Pardy isn't complaining about offensive jokes but that the comedian actually went out of his way to harass her. (from the BC HRT link above) [2] Ms. Pardy alleges that she and her same-sex partner were subjected to a tirade of homophobic and sexist comments by Mr. Earle, a comic appearing on stage at Zesty’s Restaurant. As such she experienced harassment. She also alleges that Mr. Ismail, Zesty’s owner and manager, did not intervene to prevent the tirade, or the harassment from continuing. [3] 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. [4] Mr. Earle denies that he discriminated, while admitting that his interactions with Ms. Pardy and her partner were heated. He says that is because she and her companions were loud, disruptive, and heckled the comics who performed that evening, including him. Your statement that the comedian told a couple of Lesbian jokes is, I suggest, quite far from what actually occurred. 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. Are you aware that human rights complaints have a 100% conviction rate? So yees, I do know she will win. 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? If you throughout the history of past cases, you will see that the common fine is in the thousands of dollars. GOOD. You might want to avail yourself of some knowledge, because it is a FACT that complainants file complaints AT NO EXPENSE TO THEMSELVES, while the defendant in each case is required to pay all expenses to defend themselves.What this means is that, even if the conviction rate wasn't 100% (which it is), and even if the fine wasn't thousands of dollars (which is has been in historical precendents with the Tribunals), the chilling effect on freedom of expression still applies. Sorry Jerry, Freedom of Speach doe's not include treating others like dirt. Good for Chilling effects on such 'freedom of expression.' He is already paying a penalty, just by being dragged in front of this kangaroo court and being forced to defend himself out of his own pocket, WHILE THE COMPLAINANT PAYS NOTHING. 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. There is nothing wrong here Jerry. If someone files a claim against you in a court guess who pays your expenses - You do. The message is clear: if you are a comic in this country, don't make lesbian jokes or you risk being hauled up on the carpet in front of the CHRC for "hurting someone's feelings" Again Jerry this isnt about hurt feelings. Hurt Feelings are not subject to HR tribunals in BC or any other province in Canada. I can't believe you don't see that. 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. Kim Jong Il doesn't have to prosecute everyone on the country for speaking out against the regime. All he has to do is take one guy who does, then shoot him in government square.Everyone else will just shut up. well you certainly would. So just because it's "not me" it doesn't matter? That was certainly your claim Jerry. You claimed it was you that people were trying to shut up. Wow. I guess when the Nazis came to town for the jews, you were the guy next door saying "shhhhh. don't say or do anything. it's only happening to THEM, not US." Yes. That was me. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
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.