Canadian Human Rights Commission

[Wild Bill]

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

Tell it to the citizens of Caledonia!

There's always the official line and then there's the real world...

[Thorn]

It is not illegal to use a racial slur.

You're going by hate crime legislation. No, nobody will be charged with using racial slurs, not by the police. But an individual can complain to the HRC over their hurt feelings over almost anything, and then it's up to the 'unbiased' people at HRC's to decide whether or not they will bring the case forward. And they don't base that decision on hate crime legislation.

[Thorn]

..anyone who has any ethical/moral value in our society will never come into conflict with the commission...

So you're saying Macleans magazine has no ethical or moral values?

I love how indicative this is of the mentality of HRCs. Anyone who is ordered before the tribunal, in Wyly's assessment, has no ethical or moral values. Even those where the case is dismissed, where the tribunal itself finds that the complaint was invalid, have no ethical or moral values! The mere accusation is sufficient to deprive you of any ethical or moral values!

Guilty! No hearing required.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Thorn

[wyly]

I can see I'm unlikely to get any rationality from you. Show me anything I've said that's bigoted against any group. Everything I've written has been about free speech and whether this commission conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's not a personal attack on anyone or any group. People have free speech rights, whether they're bigoted or not. Rights don't get taken away based on who we approve of and who we don't. For example, a person accused of a crime has the right to refuse to incriminate himself and has the right to an attorney. Should we take that right away because the person used language we don't approve of?

please point out where I said you were bigoted???

That's naive. When you squelch the free speech of unpopular people, it's very easy to squelch the free speech of everyone.

if it's an issue then you shouldn't consider moving here...

That seems to be the crux of the matter. How do they measure that? Is it based on harms? If the person can demonstrate the loss of a job, the loss of customers, they were assaulted? Those would be reasonable things to prosecute. I'm just not seeing how the use of bigoted language inherently causes that. In fact, a person could slander someone without using any ethnic slurs at all.

Is it when it creates danger then? For example, someone sets up a web site that creates a plan to find and assault Muslim people? That would be a conspiracy to commit a crime that the police would be reasonable to try to stop. Then it seems the crime is conspiracy to violence, not the use of offensive language. Why would that be handled by a commission and not by regular courts?

the problem here is you don't understand it and are being influenced by the forums red necks who also don't understand it...

[Michael Hardner]

You're going by hate crime legislation. No, nobody will be charged with using racial slurs, not by the police. But an individual can complain to the HRC over their hurt feelings over almost anything, and then it's up to the 'unbiased' people at HRC's to decide whether or not they will bring the case forward. And they don't base that decision on hate crime legislation.

I'm not in agreement with what the HRCs are doing but I don't know of any case where somebody called somebody a name in public and was hauled before an HRC for that.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not in agreement with what the HRCs are doing but I don't know of any case where somebody called somebody a name in public and was hauled before an HRC for that.

The lesbian/comedy club case.

[Michael Hardner]

The lesbian/comedy club case.

I suppose so, although the circumstances were unusual. I was thinking about an entirely personal encounter between two people. FWIW I didn't agree with that case being heard.

[wyly]

I'm not in agreement with what the HRCs are doing but I don't know of any case where somebody called somebody a name in public and was hauled before an HRC for that.

neither do I...I can't even recall a person running afoul of slander/liable laws for doing so...

[CPCFTW]

please point out where I said you were bigoted???

if it's an issue then you shouldn't consider moving here...

the problem here is you don't understand it and are being influenced by the forums red necks who also don't understand it...

Wow so much hypocrisy in this post.

[DogOnPorch]

Wow so much hypocrisy in this post.

Only 'leftards' truly understand the nature of humanity.

Edited August 17, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[PIK]

Funny how they bragged about having a 100% win record, then ezra evant showed up ,with the resourses to take them on and won. You look at some of thier cases and it just makes you shake your head.You look at the guy that orderd a sprite on air canada and got a 7 up, made a language complaint out of it and was awarded 12000 bucks , now this same fellow is taking on a the busline in ottawa because the driver said hello in english to him.

[wyly]

I suppose so, although the circumstances were unusual. I was thinking about an entirely personal encounter between two people. FWIW I didn't agree with that case being heard.

finding what exactly happened and what was said by the comedian problematic, the comedian has refused to repeat his comments and has addmitted this “Mr. Earle does, however, admit that he used comments which he now regrets,” says the tribunal. “Those admitted comments may go to establish discrimination.”

comedians insult and provoke audiences all the time, Russel Peters makes a fortune from insulting ethnic groups, Don Rickles did the same with individual members of his audience...what did Guy Earle say that put it over the edge? does anyone here know, not likely they just spout off making assumptions...

[Shwa]

A simple examination of the facts in this case make it clear there was no case. Yet this business woman was dragged through the various tribunals at her expense. It is sick that these kangaroo courts are allowed to exist.

So you are saying that it is "sick that these kangaroo courts are allowed to exist" over one case where the HRTO ruling was over-turned?

You have got to be kidding me.

Besides, that the case was over-turned by a higher court means justice works as it ought.

[Shwa]

Only 'leftards' truly understand the nature of humanity.

Someone has to since it is obvious the 'rightards' certainly don't.

[Wild Bill]

finding what exactly happened and what was said by the comedian problematic, the comedian has refused to repeat his comments and has addmitted this “Mr. Earle does, however, admit that he used comments which he now regrets,” says the tribunal. “Those admitted comments may go to establish discrimination.”

comedians insult and provoke audiences all the time, Russel Peters makes a fortune from insulting ethnic groups, Don Rickles did the same with individual members of his audience...what did Guy Earle say that put it over the edge? does anyone here know, not likely they just spout off making assumptions...

You are making an assumption. In who's view were his comments over the edge? Perhaps they were not, in the view of any reasonable person. However, the lesbians in question may not be reasonable. They could have had chips on their shoulders. Or perhaps, they had heard through the grapevine of how HRCs work and saw a chance for some free money! After all, they didn't have to contribute anything to have their case prosecuted. To them, it was a freebie!

"does anyone here know, not likely they just spout off making assumptions..."

[Shwa]

You are making an assumption. In who's view were his comments over the edge? Perhaps they were not, in the view of any reasonable person. However, the lesbians in question may not be reasonable. They could have had chips on their shoulders. Or perhaps, they had heard through the grapevine of how HRCs work and saw a chance for some free money! After all, they didn't have to contribute anything to have their case prosecuted. To them, it was a freebie!

"does anyone here know, not likely they just spout off making assumptions..."

So Bill, in fact you don't know, so you are just spouting off making assumptions?

[William Ashley]

Tell it to the citizens of Caledonia!

There's always the official line and then there's the real world...

I have no idea on how this relates. The tract was given to the natives by the crown. It was illegally sold to settlement - and the natives have more or less said ok we arn't going to claim places like Kitchener and other areas of large populations laying within the x* km or so boundary around the grand river, but we arn't letting the land next door to us have houses built on it. Brant got that land for a reason respect that, in the Context of the crown and first nations the derivative context . The province paid off the people who had houses there, why don't you just drop the issue already. It is native land legally.

You are utterly rude and ignorant of the facts.

For the American, Joseph Brant helped repel the American's from southern Ontario.. and was awarded a tract of land 5km around the grand river to use and enjoy for all time. the comment made by WildBill is completely off topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_River_land_dispute

There are a number of commonlaw issues, prior to the registry.. squating may have alienated portions of land, but developments under 10 years old, and settlements in which eviction was sought was native land rightfully.

Part of the issue is also title fraud and fraudulent sale, however the grant is unalienable since it is a letters patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent

Edited August 17, 2011 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

In regard to people disputing that racial slurs aimed to insult people are not a breach of civil law

Here is one example in the Human Rights Act

http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/10-03-eng.pdf

This excerpt goes some way to explain the criminal/civil divide between hate speech in the criminal code and hate speech in the context of section 13

... 319 of the Criminal Code sets an extremely onerous standard.

This is appropriate since a criminal conviction for hate speech, like any other criminal offence,

carries with it social stigma and a criminal record. Section 13 is for a different purpose

(providing remedies to target groups for harm, fostering greater respect for target groups,

and changing behaviour), and also applies to conduct that falls short of criminal behavior but

nevertheless poses harm to vulnerable groups. Canada is not alone in establishing dual

civil/penal prohibitions. ...

Edited August 17, 2011 by William Ashley

[CPCFTW]

All you dirty, smelly, ignorant, sub-human rednecks can just get the hell out my country if you don't agree with the CHRC!!!

[William Ashley]

All you dirty, smelly, ignorant, sub-human rednecks can just get the hell out my country if you don't agree with the CHRC!!!

There is a reason why some groups are deemed vulnerable and others not.

[Shwa]

All you dirty, smelly, ignorant, sub-human rednecks can just get the hell out my country if you don't agree with the CHRC!!!

Hey. I am taking you to the CHRC for that comment!

[wyly]

You are making an assumption. In who's view were his comments over the edge? Perhaps they were not, in the view of any reasonable person. However, the lesbians in question may not be reasonable. They could have had chips on their shoulders. Or perhaps, they had heard through the grapevine of how HRCs work and saw a chance for some free money! After all, they didn't have to contribute anything to have their case prosecuted. To them, it was a freebie!

"does anyone here know, not likely they just spout off making assumptions..."

:lol: the man that made them admitted they were...that trumps any assumptions you made...

[Thorn]

del

Edited August 18, 2011 by Thorn

[Thorn]

There is a reason why some groups are deemed vulnerable and others not.

And that is?

[Speedy von Vloppen]

please point out where I said you were bigoted???

You wrote:

it wasn't meant to change bigots like you will encounter in this forum into rational humans, it was meant to stop bigotry as a tool to disadvantage people.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Was it semantics? The "bigots like you" sounded like you were referring to me, but now that I read it again, you were saying, "bigots like you will encounter," so perhaps you meant other people. True? Sorry if I misunderstood.

the problem here is you don't understand it and are being influenced by the forums red necks who also don't understand it...

I'm willing to learn and will read with an open mind. I didn't raise the issue claiming to be an expert on it. I raised it out of interest in learning about it. I will say that I'm extremely leery of things that curtail free speech. In my opinion, speech that's simply offensive should not be restricted by any government. People don't have the right to be protected against getting their feelings hurt. When someone spews rude and hateful garbage, the antidote is to suck it up and either counter it with better free speech or just ignore it. For example, I do semiprofessional photography. I learned that a neo-Nazi group from Minnesota was coming to town (to Omaha, Nebraska) to hold a protest against illegal immigration. I requested that day off work intending to photograph the Nazis and the counter protesters, believing I could get some interesting shots. However, after I thought it over, I decided that taking the photos would just give more attention to a despicable group. Instead, I simply took the day off without photographing any Nazis. I chose to deal with them by ignoring them. Others chose to counter protest. Cops made sure to keep the Nazis and the counters apart to prevent violence. IMO that was the right way to deal with them. I would not favor arresting or prosecuting the Nazis for speaking their mind, however reprehensible their views are. I do favor countering their ideas to make sure they never become public policy.

However, if hate groups use speech specifically to cause violence, then I'm okay with squelching that. For example, perhaps the Nazi group puts up a web site saying their recruiting storm troopers to beat up Jews. Then that's conspiracy to commit violence and they should be arrested.

A big reason why I'm wary of squelching free speech is a concern that it may end up suppressing creativity. In the 70s there was a wonderful show named All In the Family. You may have seen it. The main character, Archie Bunker, was a lovable bigot. He was bigoted, but the writing was outstanding. The purpose of his bigotry was to make fun of bigotry. Laws that curtail the use of bigoted language could wind up suppressing the free expression of a show like All In the Family. I would much rather see bigotry be dealt with openly with a show like that or with honest discussion than to see it squashed.

Looks like I've definitely found a hot button issue for Canada. I very much appreciate people taking the time to express their views.