Canadian Human Rights Commission

[Zachary Young]

The problem is there is no respect for property rights any more in this society. People think they have the right to dictate to others what they should do with their businesses, their land, their homes. Too many damn busybodies. Starting a business is VERY HARD WORK. We should be greatful to businessmen for all the good they do for the economy and for ourselves and not punish them for what they are doing and not try to control how they run their businesses.

[Zachary Young]

that sucks guyser. On the other hand you have big casinos that actually profit off of exploiting the weaknesses and mental illnesses of others. The police shut down their competition, innocent bingo games like yours or small stakes poker games run for a profit. Sickening.

[Argus]

Nobody living in a society has absolute freedom. There have been long-standing limits on your freedom of expression for a century or more before HRCs even existed: uttering death threats, for example, has been illegal for a long time.

Yes, but it used to be those limits were based on actual, demonstrable harm, not on merely giving offense, which I think you'll agree is a rather lower standard.

[Argus]

The most discriminated against minority in our society is the businessman. He is harassed, insulted, stolen from and berated constantly.

He seems to be doing okay, for all that.

[Argus]

Well the govt does no such thing.

If you make an expression that is likely to reult in tangible harm to someone, you will be held accountable.

Tangible? What was the tangible harm in the lesbian case?

[Argus]

Hate speech and inciting violence is not "unpopular" speech. They're dangerous speech that threatens the safety and security of an entire social group, which in turn threatens society as a whole due to the interrelated nature of those groups.

Without arguing one way or the other about that, we have criminal laws against hate speech, and if someone is deemed to have committed it then they ought to be tried accordingly, not put before some kangaroo court.

[g_bambino]

No longer?Or no longer just one of the benchmarks considering your other references.

Perhaps I should've said: it's no longer the benchmark. Though, if someone is actually harmed (as in physically attacked or subjected to deliberate mental anguish, which is what I took from the word when you first used it), then the matter should be decided in a proper court of law, not before a human rights tribual.

[c/e]

Edited September 17, 2011 by g_bambino

[Zachary Young]

I suffer mental anguish reading a lot of the posts on this forum... better lock all you guys up just to be safe.

[jacee]

And is that acceptable?

No.

But perhaps predictable if he called them "animals" as he has on here.

Edited September 17, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Any private business should be permitted to deny service to anyone for whatever reasons they choose.

You and others have said this and you're wrong legally and ethically. Canada never had Jim Crowe Laws that forced segregation on businesses, but we did allow it and tolerate it when it wasn't illegal for businesses to do so. In fact, once it was illegal, businesses simply ignored the law. For instance, in Dresden, Ontario, black Canadians couldn't get served anywhere in the city, as late as the 1950s, for no other reason than the colour of their skin. The Toronto Telegram sent black undercover black reporters there in 1954 to see for themselves and they too were refused service. It is completely absurd for anyone today to even condone such a ridiculous practice on the notion that the freedom to discrimnate based on skin colour needs to be protected. Like I said earlier, you don't have the freedom to oppress others nor should you.

[cybercoma]

The problem is there is no respect for property rights any more in this society

What does property rights have to do with discriminating against people based on their skin colour? How does that help defend property rights?

[cybercoma]

Without arguing one way or the other about that, we have criminal laws against hate speech, and if someone is deemed to have committed it then they ought to be tried accordingly, not put before some kangaroo court.

Fair enough. I'm not sure about this lesbian in the comedy club dealy; however, I was always under the impression that the HRCs across the country were designed to ensure accessibility. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Bonam]

You and others have said this and you're wrong legally and ethically. Canada never had Jim Crowe Laws that forced segregation on businesses, but we did allow it and tolerate it when it wasn't illegal for businesses to do so. In fact, once it was illegal, businesses simply ignored the law. For instance, in Dresden, Ontario, black Canadians couldn't get served anywhere in the city, as late as the 1950s, for no other reason than the colour of their skin. The Toronto Telegram sent black undercover black reporters there in 1954 to see for themselves and they too were refused service. It is completely absurd for anyone today to even condone such a ridiculous practice on the notion that the freedom to discrimnate based on skin colour needs to be protected.

Things have changed since then. If some business owner decided he didn't want to serve blacks, he'd lose a lot of other customers too, since they'd all look down on him as a racist. Further, other businesses would get more people and he'd likely go out of business. Market can take care of stuff like that. If some places don't want to cater to certain customers, others will.

Like I said earlier, you don't have the freedom to oppress others nor should you.

Not letting someone eat at my restaurant isn't oppression.

[Squeakbox]

What's MORE of a crime against human rights is the cost of living - having families end up homeless because the government is too stupid to deal with rents and income.

So what if someone gets a few bruises? Give them somewhere safe to live for god's sake!

[jacee]

Things have changed since then. If some business owner decided he didn't want to serve blacks, he'd lose a lot of other customers too, since they'd all look down on him as a racist. Further, other businesses would get more people and he'd likely go out of business. Market can take care of stuff like that. If some places don't want to cater to certain customers, others will.

Not letting someone eat at my restaurant isn't oppression.

Not letting someone eat at your house isn't oppression. Letting them eat at your house and ranting at them might be oppressive to them.

Want to do business with the public?

You serve us all.

See what we have as collectives of pretty live-and-let-live people are ground rules and that's how you do business with the public.

Want to open a private racially segregated club?

I think that's illegal too, but it evolves by choice.

Fill yer boots.

[Squeakbox]

Why the frick are we complaining about restaurants and black people when there's people being raped and beaten out there?!?

Oppression is only a SMALL portion of what Human Rights should be about! What about the women in our country? This is stupid bickering about some silly restaurant issue!

[Bob]

You and others have said this and you're wrong legally and ethically. Canada never had Jim Crowe Laws that forced segregation on businesses, but we did allow it and tolerate it when it wasn't illegal for businesses to do so. In fact, once it was illegal, businesses simply ignored the law. For instance, in Dresden, Ontario, black Canadians couldn't get served anywhere in the city, as late as the 1950s, for no other reason than the colour of their skin. The Toronto Telegram sent black undercover black reporters there in 1954 to see for themselves and they too were refused service. It is completely absurd for anyone today to even condone such a ridiculous practice on the notion that the freedom to discrimnate based on skin colour needs to be protected. Like I said earlier, you don't have the freedom to oppress others nor should you.

I am not condoning such racist practises, but I am stating that people should have the right to conduct themselves as they wish. If I am denied legal services from some lawyer who hates me because I am Jewish, does it make any sense at all for me to complain and FORCE him or her to serve me? Give me a break. I want nothing to do with such people, and I'd rather they reveal themselves for who they are than have the government try and force them to pretend to be ordinary.

[Squeakbox]

I am not condoning such racist practises, but I am stating that people should have the right to conduct themselves as they wish. If I am denied legal services from some lawyer who hates me because I am Jewish, does it make any sense at all for me to complain and FORCE him or her to serve me? Give me a break. I want nothing to do with such people, and I'd rather they reveal themselves for who they are than have the government try and force them to pretend to be ordinary.

This goes back to what I said about the issues of our PROBLEMS not being resolved until people fix THEMSELVES, nevermind this god-complex crap that these kind of people seem to have a problem with (relating to your statement).

[Bob]

This goes back to what I said about the issues of our PROBLEMS not being resolved until people fix THEMSELVES, nevermind this god-complex crap that these kind of people seem to have a problem with (relating to your statement).

I don't understand your post, but my position is clear - people should be free to conduct their private businesses as they wish. If a Shawarma joint in Ottawa or Montreal refuses to serve me because I am Jewish, they should be permitted to do so. The government should not be permitted to force a private business to go against its own wishes.

[Argus]

Fair enough. I'm not sure about this lesbian in the comedy club dealy; however, I was always under the impression that the HRCs across the country were designed to ensure accessibility. Maybe I'm wrong.

Whatever they're designed for, they aren't fair to the accused. And given the range of possible punishments I think we need to ensure that fairness. Not to mention ensure the judge is unbiased and knowledgeable about the law.

[Argus]

Why the frick are we complaining about restaurants and black people when there's people being raped and beaten out there?!?

Oppression is only a SMALL portion of what Human Rights should be about! What about the women in our country? This is stupid bickering about some silly restaurant issue!

Raping and beating people doesn't have anything to do with HRCs. You don't go to an HRC because someone raped you.

[Squeakbox]

Raping and beating people doesn't have anything to do with HRCs. You don't go to an HRC because someone raped you.

Oh my gosh, that's not what I meant! I'm talking about the issues they aren't covering - I didn't say they go to the HRC WHEN they get raped.

I'm saying they need to touch on more realistic issues, not silly oppressions that happen in a restaurant because they won't serve you.

"Oh boo-hoo, I didn't get my chinese buffet because I'm black" - like, seriously? Choose another restaurant, and screw them if they don't want money!

Edited September 18, 2011 by Squeakbox

[cybercoma]

Perhaps I should've said: it's no longer the benchmark. Though, if someone is actually harmed (as in physically attacked or subjected to deliberate mental anguish, which is what I took from the word when you first used it), then the matter should be decided in a proper court of law, not before a human rights tribual.

[c/e]

Your definition of "actually harmed" is pretty limited. As someone in a position of privilege, you're imposing your definition of harm on the person being discriminated against. It's like telling someone who feels they've been sexually harassed to suck it up because "he didn't mean anything by it." It's not up to you to determine whether or not she felt harassed. It's only the victim's perspective that matters in such circumstances.

[cybercoma]

"Oh boo-hoo, I didn't get my chinese buffet because I'm black" - like, seriously? Choose another restaurant, and screw them if they don't want money!

When you set the precedent to allow for discrimination to happen, what are you going to do when all of the businesses in an entire town stop serving blacks? And how do you think creating an environment that inhibits social cohesions is going to affect the rest of society?

[g_bambino]

Your definition of "actually harmed" is pretty limited. As someone in a position of privilege, you're imposing your definition of harm on the person being discriminated against.

A definition needs to be set in the law; otherwise anyone can be deemed by a court or tribunal to have been "harmed", even if it was only that they got their feelings hurt.

That's not to say the line is easy to set; it can't ever be absolutely distinct. On one hand, one does have to, for the sake of cohesion, keep any form of racism from becoming a cultural trait. On the other, one need not punnish people merely for insensitivity or even possessing the emotion of hate.

I also note you've taken liberties in deciding that I am "in a position of privilege". Isn't that also subjective, anyway? And what's the relevance to the discussion? People who're deemed by you to be in a position of privilege, are their opinions of less value in discussions about human rights tribunals? About everyone's right to equality before the law, regardless of the unavoidable inequalities of society?

[+]

Edited September 18, 2011 by g_bambino