Human Rights Complain- Forced Atheist Morality

[Alliance Fanatic]

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of in my whole life.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/03/canada/kiss040503

First of all if people want to be gay, fine just do it in your own home. But why should we all accept everything thats gay. I think that if a same sex couple walked into a "family" oriented restaurant, I would'nt want them necking and kissing each other. I guess a loss of freedom is the price we pay for political correctness.

[Black Dog]

I wonder, does he kick heterosexual couples out for snogging and flaunting their lifestyle "choices"? I really doubt it. The bar owner is obviously a homophobic prick and this kind of discriminatory crap is why we need legal protections for minorities.

I hope they win and that the bar owner pays big.

[Hugo]

What would your reaction be if the barman had thrown out one of these women for disrobing and masturbating, urinating into a jar or somesuch act?

[August1991]

You can choose where you buy your groceries, Black Dog, so I don't see why a grocery store shouldn't have the same right to choose who to serve.

As to bars, have you ever heard of a "dress code"? How about "face control"?

The best protection against discrimination is to go across the street to another bar - assuming one exists. (State monopolies unfortunately don't offer this kind of protection.)

In this case, that's what the women did. I suspect the Human Rights complaint is PR thingy.

[Alliance Fanatic]

So your saying that because the owner does'nt really want gay's flaunting their lifestyle infront of everybody he's a bigot. Black dog you should'nt be so narrow minded on these issues, the fact is that people should not be forced to believe that homosexuality is acceptable. So lets say a gay couple goes into a church, and starts necking, would it be okay for the church to be sued due to the fact that they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle.

1984 in 2004

[Black Dog]

You can choose where you buy your groceries, Black Dog, so I don't see why a grocery store shouldn't have the same right to choose who to serve.

The Charter of Rights prohibits refusal of service on "proscribed grounds". Those include race, religion, nationality and sexual orientation.

What would your reaction be if the barman had thrown out one of these women for disrobing and masturbating, urinating into a jar or somesuch act?

What the hell does this have to do with anything (aside from being a not-so-subtle shot at those "deviant" homos)? To answer you're (stupid) question, they could probably be charged under existing decency laws. Making out in a bar, however, is not a crime. It's common, generally accepted barroom behaviour. If the barkeep wanted to establish a code of conduct prohibiting PDA's that applied to everyone, fine. But that's not the case here.

[Hugo]

What the hell does this have to do with anything (aside from being a not-so-subtle shot at those "deviant" homos)?

You've completely missed the point, as usual. All of those things only involve the body of the perpetrator, but they have the potential to offend others. If you don't approve of these things, but you do believe that nobody has a right to be offended by a same-sex couple kissing, that basically means that you feel that people only have a right to be offended by certain things, to be arbitrarily decided.

If you are going to insist that everybody accept homosexuals kissing in public and override their own revulsion, why aren't you going to insist that we also accomodate onanists and those who would defecate in public?

Furthermore, does the barman not own the premises and all the property contained therein? Does he not have the right to ask anyone he wants to leave for any or no reason?

[Black Dog]

You've completely missed the point, as usual. All of those things only involve the body of the perpetrator, but they have the potential to offend others. If you don't approve of these things, but you do believe that nobody has a right to be offended by a same-sex couple kissing, that basically means that you feel that people only have a right to be offended by certain things, to be arbitrarily decided.

People can be offended by whatever they find offensive. If people are grossed out by the sight of a same sex couple expressing affection for one another in the same manner that heterosexuals do on a daily frigging basis without reproach or rebuke, that's their perojative. But when this "offence" translates into a discriminatory action (like, oh, let's say, kicking a same sex couple out of a bar), then I get a little pissed. The fact that you link same-sex kissing with public masturbation and shitting, rather than the logical and blindingly obvious comparison with heterosexual public displays of affection is telling indeed.

Furthermore, does the barman not own the premises and all the property contained therein? Does he not have the right to ask anyone he wants to leave for any or no reason?

One more time:

The Charter of Rights prohibits refusal of service on grounds that include race, religion, nationality and sexual orientation.

The Canadian Human Rights Act bans (or proscribes) discrimination, including the unequal treatment of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. In 1996, it was amended to explicitly include sexual orientation as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. This inclusion of sexual orientation in the Act was an express declaration by Parliament that gay and lesbian Canadians are entitled to "an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives they are able and wish to have..." (Section 2). The Canadian Human Rights Commission , which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Act, provides further information about human rights and sexual orientation. Complaints, progress and other activities are all included in the commission's annual reports .

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that every individual is to be considered equal regardless of religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex, age or physical or mental disability. In Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 , the Supreme Court of Canada held that although "sexual orientation" is not listed as a ground for discrimination in section 15(1), it constitutes an analogous ground on which claims of discrimination may be based. In Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 , the Court held that provincial human rights legislation that omitted the ground of sexual orientation violated section 15(1).

Link.

More.

[Hugo]

People can be offended by whatever they find offensive.

Yes, but in certain situations they just have to swallow it, but in others, they don't. That's wrong. To my mind, a business should be free to refuse whomsoever they want and bear the consequences.

For example, say I'm a Big Nazi™ and I own a grocery store. An orthodox Jew enters and I tell him to leave because I don't serve Jews. That should be my right, it's my business and I reserve the right to do whatever I want with my property and my organisation unless it cause direct harm to somebody else. Let's say the offended Jew then goes and tells all his friends, organises a protest and a mass boycott of my store, gets all the papers, TV and radio stations to run stories about what a Big Nazi™ I am, and I go out of business as a direct result of these actions. That was his right, and I cannot complain about what has happened because I brought it upon myself. Neither the government or legislature was called upon to limit either of our rights. My right to run my own business the way I see fit was preserved. The Jewish would-be customer's right to free speech and peaceful protest was preserved.

It's foolish to believe you can legislate people's feelings. This isn't freedom of speech, it's muzzling, and it's immoral.

The fact that you link same-sex kissing with public masturbation and shitting

You are still managing to miss the point, and stooping to vulgarity again to boot. What I am saying is that you, and all those who think your way, are not particularly in favour of ending discrimination and in building an egalitarian society but in shouting for whomever happens to be the fad minority group of the day. You decry politicians for pandering to groups that sponsor them, but you are pandering to groups that catch your attention. There's not much difference, you're just selling out for different reasons.

The Charter of Rights

Who cares? It's the most ridiculous document of it's kind. I'd give you more credit if you cited Winnie the Pooh.

[Black Dog]

The Charter of Rights 

Who cares? It's the most ridiculous document of it's kind. I'd give you more credit if you cited Winnie the Pooh.

Hate to break the news to you, diddums, but it's the law of the land whether you like it or not. Deal with it.

Mr. Homophobe Barkeep will soon have to.

It's foolish to believe you can legislate people's feelings. This isn't freedom of speech, it's muzzling, and it's immoral.

I would take your carping more seriously if (a) your anti-gay views weren't already well known and ( you demonstrated one iota of concern for the rights of minorities to enjoy freedom from discrimination. You're obviously only concerned with the freedom of those whom you agree with.

Anyway, Mr. Barkeep's freedom of speech rights are intact, he can still express his revulsion with homosexuals, he can be a tiny-minded little bigot to his heart's content. But, like my homeboy Alliance Fanatic said, he should "just do it in (his) own home."

You are still managing to miss the point, and stooping to vulgarity again to boot.

Hey, you're the one who mentioned poop. (BTW I can always tell when you're floundering when you pull out the "Oh my virgin ears!" routine.)

What I am saying is that you, and all those who think your way, are not particularly in favour of ending discrimination and in building an egalitarian society but in shouting for whomever happens to be the fad minority group of the day.

'

Yeah, first it was women wanting equality, then blacks, now gays. Who will be the next "fad minority" and why won't these uppity buggers learn their place?

I and "those like me" will stop "shouting" about discrimination when jerkwads like Red Deeer Redneck stop practicing it.

:angry:

You decry politicians for pandering to groups that sponsor them, but you are pandering to groups that catch your attention. There's not much difference, you're just selling out for different reasons.

Yeah, advocating for equality is the exact same thing as whoring oneself to special interests.

[Sully]

Well I definately support the barkeep on this one. All the barkeep has to do is show that he has kicked out a heterosexual couple who performed that same "silly" act. But then again maybe those couples could petition for a human rights offence, I mean why not, its the in thing to do now. This kind of action does not need to be tolerated by anyone.

Sad that many people could make this into a bigger deal than it is, course after all the barkeep just has to be a homophobe right. I do not see him causing them bodily harm, nor do I see him publishing hate speech, also I do not see him intentionally embarassing the two women in front of the other patrons. So in the grand scheme of things WHO CARES, its all about the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[CanadaRocks]

Personally, I feel I would be uncomfortable with seeing guys kiss, tho seeing chicks kiss is a bit of a turn on I think.

That being said?

If heterosexual couples are allowed to express their sexuality in a given way in a given social situation, then homosexual couples should be able to as well.

If that barkeep didn't like it, he should have banned it for all. Thats equal rights. By the same token? If gay Persons can have parades celebrating homosexuality, then heterosexual groups should be able to do the same.

If one group wishes its rights respected, it must protect that by supporting the rights of other groups to the same privilieges.

Whats that saying?

I may not agree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

(dunno who said that but theres wisdom in those words)

[Hugo]

Hate to break the news to you, diddums, but it's the law of the land whether you like it or not.

So was the Stamp Act. Enough said.

You're obviously only concerned with the freedom of those whom you agree with.

Not at all. I'm arguing for the freedoms of everyone, including people I most definitely do not agree with, such as Ernst Zundel. Once again, I refer you to the classic line of Voltaire that August1991 has in his signature and that CanadaRocks just cited. You can say whatever you like, in my book, whether it's Christian fundamentalist gay-bashing, lesbians screaming that men are scum, or neo-Nazis, or the Black Panthers, or anyone with something to say.

Yeah, first it was women wanting equality, then blacks, now gays.

Really? Where were you during the suffragette movement and the civil rights movement?

Regardless, it's true that you're basically batting for whomever shouts loudest. I notice you don't care one iota for the minorities who get a really bum deal and don't get the press attention, like the aboriginals.

Anyway, Mr. Barkeep... can still express his revulsion with homosexuals... But, like my homeboy Alliance Fanatic said, he should "just do it in (his) own home."

But not his own business? That doesn't make any sense. He owns his business as surely as his home, and his patrons are there by his leave as surely as a guest in his home. "Public house" is a misnomer, a bar is actually a private establishment and legally, all patrons are there by invitation only and can be asked to leave at any time for any or no reason. That's why it is legal for some so-called "public houses" to charge door fees.

[August1991]

You're funnier than usual Hugo.

True, the Charter of Rights is the law of the land but in the grand scheme of things, this is not what protects us against discrimination. It is the freedom to cross the street that protects us against idiots (such as this Red Deer bar guy - IMO).

I think any member of any minority understands this instinctively. Who operates most of the small businesses in Canada? BD, have you ever wondered why?

Fad minority of the month. I'm sure tonight somewhere there is an old drunk Indian (can I say that?) being tossed out of some bar some place. How about a Korean-Canadian who can't pronounce English well being misunderstood in some hospital waiting line? Will anybody even notice? (In a normal world, there would be Korean speaking health clinics, run for profit, but paid by the State. Instead, we've got in loud, guttural English: Take a number!)

Yeah, advocating for equality is the exact same thing as whoring oneself to special interests.

Do you really want equality, BD? Should we really treat everyone the same? Should everyone earn the same salary? Get the same marks in school? Would you really want to live in a world where everyone is treated equally?

And what about freedom? If a woman refuses to go out with a man because of his race, can the man sue the woman for discrimination? Should a company be able to refuse to hire a person on the grounds the person is too "ugly"?

The problem, BD, is that Americans (the country you adore) have elevated this idea of equality of rights to the equivalent of our Canadian Health Care System. And you, BD, have bought in to this American Self-Definition.

[Black Dog]

Sad that many people could make this into a bigger deal than it is, course after all the barkeep just has to be a homophobe right. I do not see him causing them bodily harm, nor do I see him publishing hate speech, also I do not see him intentionally embarassing the two women in front of the other patrons.

Maybe it's not a big deal to you. But to members of the LGBT community, who experience discrimination on pracically a daily basis because of who they are, it is. And yes, the passive brand of homophobia displayed by the bartender may not be as virulent as others', nor is it violent, but it's all-too typical.

 

Hate to break the news to you, diddums, but it's the law of the land whether you like it or not.

So was the Stamp Act. Enough said.

I see. Can't win an argument based on the law, so the law is bad. Why not explain what's so wrong with the Charter, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and the Universal decleration of Human Rights.

Really? Where were you during the suffragette movement and the civil rights movement?

Uh...not born?

Regardless, it's true that you're basically batting for whomever shouts loudest. I notice you don't care one iota for the minorities who get a really bum deal and don't get the press attention, like the aboriginals.

Whatever. Start a thread on the systematic discrimination facing Canada's Naitve population and I'll be more than happy to weigh in. Or just keep deflecting, it's what you do after all.

But not his own business? That doesn't make any sense. He owns his business as surely as his home, and his patrons are there by his leave as surely as a guest in his home. 

I was, of course being tounge in cheek. However, once again: yes the bartender has teh right to deny service to anyone on any legal basis. It just so happens that being black, Jewish or gay are not legal reasons to deny service.

True, the Charter of Rights is the law of the land but in the grand scheme of things, this is not what protects us against discrimination. It is the freedom to cross the street that protects us against idiots (such as this Red Deer bar guy - IMO).

That's great in theory, but not always in practice. Red Deer is hardly a gay oasis, and it's entirely possible this kind of discrimination could become even more widespread if allowed to go unchecked. Which is why we need protections, even ones as imperfect as the Charter.Then again, maybe the women should just stick to more queer friendly places (what they used to call "sticking with their own kind.").

Do you really want equality, BD? Should we really treat everyone the same? Should everyone earn the same salary? Get the same marks in school? Would you really want to live in a world where everyone is treated equally?

Equality means equal treatment under the law and equality of opportunity, whereby individuals are not discriminated against because of who they are. Pretty basic stuff here.

And what about freedom? If a woman refuses to go out with a man because of his race, can the man sue the woman for discrimination?

No. Bigotry remains a personal choice, and can be freely expressed. there's no law requiring anyonme to give anyone else the time of day, however, there is a law which says you cannot refuse to serve someone becaus eof their sexuality.

Should a company be able to refuse to hire a person on the grounds the person is too "ugly"

I'm sure this type of issue has come up, but IANAL, so I can't comment on past cases. I expect that discrimination based on physical apperance contravenes the Charter unless it can be demonstrated that being hot is a bona fide occupational requirement.

The problem, BD, is that Americans (the country you adore) have elevated this idea of equality of rights to the equivalent of our Canadian Health Care System.

Yeah because there's no racism, sexism or homophobia at all in the States...

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here on a couple of fronts. The first is that there are very few successful complaints lodged under the Charter, which has been effect since 1982, so it's not the creeping wedge of communism some would see it as. It is simply a recognition that discrimination exists and that legal remedies are often required to address such wrongs.

The second is a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be gay and the discrimination that homosexuals face all the time.

Being gay is to be condemned by most churches as sinful, by some health professionals as pathological and curable, and by the law as criminal. It’s to live two separate lives, never being able to be completely honest in either.

It means listening to your friends talking about “queers” and making jokes about effeminate males and athletic-looking females as you stand there, knowing they would say the same thing about you.

It means going along with the guys/the gals as they watch women/men, when you would much rather watch someone of your own gender.

It means awakening every morning, living every day, and going to sleep every night fearing discovery, and/or rejection by family, friends and co-workers.

It means dating people of the opposite gender when you really don’t want to, just to maintain a cover.

It means pretending to be ignorant about homosexuality, and quietly listening to your straight friends display their ignorance while you dare not correct them.

It means meeting someone you really like, but being too afraid to find out if they’re gay because they’re wearing the same mask you are— or for fear of being beaten.

It means going to a public place with your lover and never being able to display any physical affection toward each other.

It means being taught to hate yourself, knowing that you cannot change, and knowing that you can never share that wonderful feeling of being in love with your family and most of your friends.

Tina M. Wood

Canadian University Press, 1991

If heterosexual couples are allowed to express their sexuality in a given way in a given social situation, then homosexual couples should be able to as well.

Exactly.

If gay Persons can have parades celebrating homosexuality, then heterosexual groups should be able to do the same.

They do. There's 364 heterosexual pride days a year.

[Hugo]

I see. Can't win an argument based on the law, so the law is bad.

One should fight an unjust law. The Charter promotes discrimination and does not guarantee important rights.

Why not explain what's so wrong with the Charter

There's another thread here where that was done in great detail. I'm not going over it all again, go read it and post in it if you think you can add anything. I notice you had precious little to say in that one, though.

Start a thread on the systematic discrimination facing Canada's Naitve population and I'll be more than happy to weigh in.

No, you won't. Once again, a thread on this topic can be found here, and once again, you had nothing to say.

Are you through humiliating yourself yet?

They do. There's 364 heterosexual pride days a year.

Ah, you're not. Please provide some links to the parades that are held in celebration of heterosexuality, and some figures for the amount of tax money that is given to providing these.

[Black Dog]

The Charter promotes discrimination and does not guarantee important rights.

Here's what you had to say on the Charter.

The Charter protects the right of an employer to refuse to hire me because I am a white male. The Charter protects the right of a university to refuse me admission because I am Christian. The Charter does not acknowledge that I have the right to own property. It was intended to, but thanks to the NDP, it didn't.

Can you cite an example where an individual was denied an opportunity because of their whiteness of because they are Christian (two of the least discriminated against groups in this country)?

Since the Charter prohibts discrimination based on race and religion, if such discrimination were to occur to a white Chritian outside the boundaries of specific programmes designed to "ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups", they would have every right to file a complaint to the Human Rights Commission (say, if a white person isn't served at a bar or restaurant).

So your allegation that the Charter allows discrimination for certain groups is not supported by facts and is, quite frankly, nothing more than paranoid, right-wing fear mongering disguised as pseudointellectual debate.

No, you won't. Once again, a thread on this topic can be found here, and once again, you had nothing to say.

I have other pursuits outside of this forum and can't post on each and every subject. As well, there was a good spell last year (at least four months, which included the period in which both threads you linked to occurred) where I didn't even visit this board, so your feeble ad hominems only show how pathetic you really are.

Please provide some links to the parades that are held in celebration of heterosexuality, and some figures for the amount of tax money that is given to providing these.

How many tax dollars go into pride events as oppossed to, say, the Calgary Stampede parade and other de facto celebrations of heterosexual culture? As well, there's nothing stopping anyone from holding a straight pride event. There's also plenty of examples of occassions where some radio station shock jocks or religious types have staged just the kind of event in question.

[/sarcasm]But maybe your right. We should strike down the Charter. After all, there's really no such thing as racism, sexism, hompophobia or other kinds of discrimination. I mean, I'm a white male of Christian descent and I sure haven't encountered any discrimination. Besidies, historically the free market has done a bang-up job of addressing the few incidents of discrimination and persecution, such as the voluntary abolition of slavery and segregation in the U.S. South, and of apartheid in South Africa, the fair and ethical treatment of Aborginals in North America, and of course, the complete elimination of anti-Semetism in pre-war Germany. [/sarcasm]

[Hugo]

So your allegation that the Charter allows discrimination for certain groups is not supported by facts

It's supported by the wording of the Charter. It prescribes more discrimination as a cure for discrimination and does not guarantee a citizen's right to enjoy or retain the fruits of his own labour. It's worthless.

I have other pursuits outside of this forum

Whatever you say. The only thread you've started in the last month (apart from your shop-worn Bush-bashing) is about gay rights. You don't start threads on other minorities, you don't participate in threads on other minorities, in short, you don't care a tinker's cuss about any minority that's getting the short end of the stick and can't afford the PR campaign.

What gets your attention are the well-funded gay rights groups, and what you say is the same tired old rhetoric that can be heard on pretty much every TV and radio station and read in every magazine in the country.

How many tax dollars go into pride events as oppossed to, say, the Calgary Stampede parade and other de facto celebrations of heterosexual culture?

So, I suppose the answer to my question is that there were no heterosexual pride parades and no tax dollars available for them should they exist. You are really clutching at straws. Calgary Stampede, indeed. This thread is starting to look familiar.

Besidies, historically the free market has done a bang-up job of addressing the few incidents of discrimination and persecution

Please name one incident where emphasising differences instead of downplaying them actually did any social good.

Oh, and one last thing:

disguised as pseudointellectual

How do you disguise something as a disguise? Is this a compliment, BlackDog? After all, if my arguments are disguised as pseudo-intellectual, perhaps they are really intellectual, hm?

[August1991]

OH MY GAWD, Black Dog. What are saying?

Besidies, historically the free market has done a bang-up job of addressing the few incidents of discrimination and persecution, such as the voluntary abolition of slavery and segregation in the U.S. South, and of apartheid in South Africa, the fair and ethical treatment of Aborginals in North America, and of course, the complete elimination of anti-Semetism in pre-war Germany

It was the South African GOVERNMENT that enforced apartheid, not the South African market.

It was the American GOVERNMENT that enforced slavery, not the market.

It was the NAZI STATE that systematically applied anti-Semitism, not the German market.

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended precisely to ensure no single person obtained absolute power and to ensure citizens were protected AGAINST THE STATE.

The State is a monopoly. Our relations with the State are involuntary. Market relations are voluntary. There is a profound difference here.

[Black Dog]

The only thread you've started in the last month (apart from your shop-worn Bush-bashing) is about gay rights.

Ah, so now you just convienently ignore those threads by dissmissing them as Bush bashing. Then again I don't seee any threads started by you whatsoever, so I gues sthat means you don't give hoot about anything.

Shall I start my own entire section on every single oppressed minority just to prove my credibility to a nobody like you? I think not.

So, I suppose the answer to my question is that there were no heterosexual pride parades and no tax dollars available for them should they exist.

The answer is I don't know. Don't really care, either. The point of Pride events is for the LGBT community to celebrate their historical struggles in an overwhelmingly hertero-centric world. If straight people want to have another parade,they can go on ahead. But it amazes me that gay people get one lousy day out of the year and suddenly it's like the world is ending.

Please name one incident where emphasising differences instead of downplaying them actually did any social good.

You are distorting the issue and I ain't buying it. The idea behind the Charter and AA practices isn't to emphasize differences, but to correct social and institutional discrimination. And while that may unfortunately result in some discrimination against white male, the simple fact is that white, heterosexual, men have always been favored in families and schools and preferred for jobs, training, educational programs, athletic programs, military careers and job advancement and promotion. White, heterosexual, men still make more than women and members of minority groups for comparable work, are given better educational opportunities, have more leisure time and are accorded higher status in society. The solution to the relatively small amount of discrimination facing white, hetero males isn't to eliminate protections and programs for minorities, but to create more opportunities for all, educate people and provide redress for discriminatory practices.

It was the South African GOVERNMENT that enforced apartheid, not the South African market.

It was the American GOVERNMENT that enforced slavery, not the market.

It was the NAZI STATE that systematically applied anti-Semitism, not the German market.

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended precisely to ensure no single person obtained absolute power and to ensure citizens were protected AGAINST THE STATE.

Well, you obviously missed the sarcasm in my remark, but it should be noted taht while some of the above practices were state-sanctioned, the market plays a significant role in maintaining discriminatory practices. After all, slavery was sanctioned by the state becuase the market (ie. the white-upper class) demanded it.

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended precisely to ensure no single person obtained absolute power and to ensure citizens were protected AGAINST THE STATE.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights also protects individuals from other individuals. Quite simply they (along with their Canadian equivlents) protect idividual rights and make no distinction as to who they are being protected from.

[August1991]

Well, you obviously missed the sarcasm in my remark, but it should be noted taht while some of the above practices were state-sanctioned, the market plays a significant role in maintaining discriminatory practices. After all, slavery was sanctioned by the state becuase the market (ie. the white-upper class) demanded it.

What kind of mealymouth answer is that?

"some of the above practices were state-sanctioned"? If they weren't state-sanctioned, who sanctioned them?

"market plays a significant role in maintaining discriminatory practices" How? Discriminatory practices require a monopoly.

"slavery was sanctioned by the state becuase the market (ie. the white-upper class) demanded it" So the State can be taken over by a minority and used to pursue the minority's ends.

Black Dog, you really say the weirdest things. [/wry grin]

[Hugo]

The answer is I don't know. Don't really care, either.

You can say that again.

The idea behind the Charter and AA practices [is] to correct social and institutional discrimination.

Alright, if you aren't going to answer my first question, answer this question:

How does more social and institutional discrimination fix the problems of social and institutional discrimination?

White, heterosexual, men still make more than women and members of minority groups for comparable work

Where? Show me one, single example.

[white men] are given better educational opportunities

Again, where? Which educational institutions give preferential treatment to white males? Again I want one, concrete example, not more ranting and sweeping statements, please.

[white men] have more leisure time

The working week is shorter for white men? Show me the piece of legislation that makes this the case. Alternatively, show me one employer that requires minorities to work more overtime than white men.

Until then, stop pontificating.

[Black Dog]

*throws up hands* Fine, whatever. You're right Hugo. There's no discrimination whatsoever in the world except for that put upon opressed, white, heterosexual, Christian males. I can hardly stand to walk down the street, it's so much like Disney's "It's a Small World" out ther ethat its nauseating.

You know, wage discrepencies between men, women and minorities and the quality of work available is well-documented. But it seem sto me you're only interested in nit-picking and demanding "proof", when you yourself speak in nothing but blanket statements and conjecture.

The Charter protects the right of an employer to refuse to hire me because I am a white male. The Charter protects the right of a university to refuse me admission because I am Christian.

I asked you to back this up by providing examples. You hedged, saying "it's in the wording of the Charter", even though that is not the case. So, "show me one single example."

Upon re-reading this thread, I can see your argument go from: "It's the barkeep's right to discriminate." which when shown to be wrong turned into "the Charter is stupid because it supports discrimination that I can't actually illustrate," which became "You have no credibility because you only post on gay rights' , which is incorrect and irrelevant. Now we're down to pointless meta arguments concerning documented social phemomenon. So I'm left to wonder: what's your point? What is Hugo's magic bullet for ending discrimination. I'm all ears.

Oh yeah:

Wages

(Actually I just spen t the last 15 minutes looking for more and I've found plenty, including studies by the UN and other NGOs. ButI'm not gonna waste my time oposting them because I know they'll be shrugged off and I'm not falling for that trick again. Now I'll just sit back and await the triumphalist crowing.)

[willy]

BD, you state some facts to support your arguments. I have seen the studies that state women on average make less than men and men do have more leisure time.

This has more to do with gender roles changing and culture not moving fast enough. It is not discrimination.

The leisure inequity comes when the majority of family women now work out of the home, but they also take care of a disproportionate amount of household work. Home responsibilities are factored into leisure studies.

The average wage inequity is driven by type of employment less than unequal pay for the same job. More men hold low skilled high paying labour jobs. Women with little education seem to make up much of the service sector. Unfair maybe but access to women is not restricted.

As for education you are wrong. In the mid 90's it happened where more women than men are now in post secondary education. Men still dominate sciences, engineering, and mathematics. This is again not by gender restriction but by choice. Women tend to prefer the nurturing professions and not the building ones. This is not a competency issue but rather a social and cultural choice issue.

[August1991]

You know, wage discrepencies between men, women and minorities and the quality of work available is well-documented.

Women earn on average about 75% of what men earn. This percentage has been rising. The discrepancy is largely explained by such factors as experience, education and attitude to risk. But frankly, who cares what the explanation is. (I have no doubt that blue-eyed people earn more than brown-eyed. Blondes more than brunettes. Professional hockey players earn a heck of lot more than teachers.)

If a woman doesn't like the salary she is being paid, she can go across the street to another employer who pays more. If she doesn't like that, she can set up her own business.

In my short experience of life, I have found that the best protection against stupidity is to be able to go elsewhere. (It appears the two lesbians in Red Deer came to the same conclusion too.)

BD, you seem to see some kind of secret male cartel to keep women out of the loop. Why doesn't someone hire all these underpaid women, get top-notch work skills and beat the competition?

Hey, that's happening now!

I would argue that the decline in the salary differential between men and women mirrors the decline in union membership.