A question of 'rights' and wrongs.

[Guest Peeves]

The main differences between B&B / barber shop and beauty parlor / male gym is the ground for discrimination and the reasons behind it.

That's rather generalizing if you'll excuse me saying so.

As I see it there are activists out there that are pushing for their causes regardless the impact on others, and regardless of no real cost or consequence to themselves.

To me it's mean and nasty, but that's what the world is coming to.

http://intentious.co...-her-a-haircut/

Excerpt; more of the broader cases of agenda activism.

When they’re not awarding tens of thousands of dollars to drunken lesbian hecklers or leveling fines at Mom and Pop bed and breakfasts for refusing to rent a room to homosexuals they’re wasting everyone’s time and money failing to come to a decision about whether a pre op transexual should be allowed to join a women’s only gym.

The issue in that case, by the way, was whether or not a man with a penis can be considered a woman, not whether it’s Ok to exclude men from a business (according to the human rights commission, it is). Fortunately, for the commission, they avoided having to come to a decision because the case was dropped, but not before it cost the business owner tens of thousands of dollars. Lifesitenews reports:

In recent years the Canadian Human Rights Commission system has come under heavy fire from critics. One of the major criticisms that has been levelled against the system is that people who launch complaints have their legal fees covered by the government, while those responding to the complaints are required to pay their own legal fees. The result is that most respondents will have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending themselves, even if they win the case – ensuring that, in the words of HRC critic Ezra Levant,

“the process is the punishment.”

The dispute began in the summer of 2006,

when a man, calling himself Lisa MacDonald, sought membership in John Fulton’s fitness club for women. The man insisted not only on joining the club, but on using the women’s change room and bathroom, despite Fulton’s efforts to offer alternative solutions. MacDonald refused, however, to consider any other possibilities and threatened legal action.

…

MacDonald filed his complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on August 4th, 2006, making a claim for damages. The case continued despite the fact that he later moved to Ottawa, never actually joining the gym. Then, this past August 29th, he sought to withdraw his complaint, a request which was accepted by the commission on October 19th.

“It’s like I’ve been terrorized by this for years,” Fulton told CanWest. “I wanted to take them to task. I didn’t want to settle and pay them. I told them that they weren’t going to get a penny from me. I didn’t care if I ended up homeless because of this.”

“Not only did I not get my day in court, I was bad-mouthed,” he told the St. Catherines Standard. “They put me through hell for three years and at the 11th hour, they dropped it. … There really was no resolution … and my costs with this are huge.”

[Sleipnir]

That's rather generalizing if you'll excuse me saying so.

Yeah I agree it was a generalized assumption - I was trying to cover all the bases (exception) as much as I can.

As I see it there are activists out there that are pushing for their causes regardless the impact on others, and regardless of no real cost or consequence to themselves.

I agree, in a way, with that statement. But the causes wouldn't be bad faith would it?

To me it's mean and nasty

I respectfully disagree, in my view that is isn't nasty and mean. What is mean or nasty about it? The gays/woman expose the beliefs harbor by the other person has regarding superiority over others. What would be nasty and mean, in my view, would be that elevator or fake-hang man prank. If that makes any sense.

[Guest Peeves]

I consider behavior such as is described below as simply mean and nasty. You may have a differing opinion, but regardless, the behavior of this creep MacDonald, is contemptible and deserving of public humiliation for what he did.

”The dispute began in the summer of 2006, when a man, calling himself Lisa MacDonald, sought membership in John Fulton’s fitness club for women.

The man insisted not only on joining the club, but on using the women’s change room and bathroom, despite Fulton’s efforts to offer alternative solutions. MacDonald refused, however, to consider any other possibilities and threatened legal action.

…

MacDonald filed his complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on August 4th, 2006, making a claim for damages. The case continued despite the fact that he later moved to Ottawa, never actually joining the gym. Then, this past August 29th, he sought to withdraw his complaint, a request which was accepted by the commission on October 19th.

“It’s like I’ve been terrorized by this for years,” Fulton told CanWest. “I wanted to take them to task. I didn’t want to settle and pay them. I told them that they weren’t going to get a penny from me. I didn’t care if I ended up homeless because of this.”

“Not only did I not get my day in court, I was bad-mouthed,” he told the St. Catherines Standard. “They put me through hell for three years and at the 11th hour, they dropped it. … There really was no resolution … and my costs with this are huge.”

[Guest]

I consider behavior such as is described below as simply mean and nasty. You may have a differing opinion, but regardless, the behavior of this creep MacDonald, is contemptible and deserving of public humiliation for what he did.

”The dispute began in the summer of 2006, when a man, calling himself Lisa MacDonald, sought membership in John Fulton’s fitness club for women.

The man insisted not only on joining the club, but on using the women’s change room and bathroom, despite Fulton’s efforts to offer alternative solutions. MacDonald refused, however, to consider any other possibilities and threatened legal action.

…

MacDonald filed his complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on August 4th, 2006, making a claim for damages. The case continued despite the fact that he later moved to Ottawa, never actually joining the gym. Then, this past August 29th, he sought to withdraw his complaint, a request which was accepted by the commission on October 19th.

“It’s like I’ve been terrorized by this for years,” Fulton told CanWest. “I wanted to take them to task. I didn’t want to settle and pay them. I told them that they weren’t going to get a penny from me. I didn’t care if I ended up homeless because of this.”

“Not only did I not get my day in court, I was bad-mouthed,” he told the St. Catherines Standard. “They put me through hell for three years and at the 11th hour, they dropped it. … There really was no resolution … and my costs with this are huge.”

That certainly is distressing, and highlights the reasons why the HRCs should be done away with.

[Sleipnir]

That certainly is distressing, and highlights the reasons why the HRCs should be done away with.

They just need to take 'bad faith' into consideration.

[Bonam]

They just need to take 'bad faith' into consideration.

No, they need to not exist. The mere existence of these extra-judicial bodies which nevertheless have the power to terrorize citizens is unconscionable, as has been demonstrated time and time and time again. The HRCs are an abomination, and thankfully this is starting to be realized by all sides of the political spectrum.

As for the case in question, Fulton should be awarded millions of dollars in damages, paid to him by the government, for the stress, costs, and damage needlessly inflicted on him and his business by the actions of a government body. As for MacDonald, it is blameless; it only used the system made available to it to file its "grievance".

[Michael Hardner]

That certainly is distressing, and highlights the reasons why the HRCs should be done away with.

Why can't we just modify them ? The key problems seem surmountable for sure.

[Guest]

Why can't we just modify them ? The key problems seem surmountable for sure.

I guess then they would be the courts.

[Michael Hardner]

I guess then they would be the courts.

No. Just because one aspect of the HRC changes, it doesn't make them the courts. Is it possible for a less binary approach to this - maybe with a little more thought ?

[Guest Peeves]

No. Just because one aspect of the HRC changes, it doesn't make them the courts. Is it possible for a less binary approach to this - maybe with a little more thought ?

IF they were used in workplace -employment and housing-rental-discrimination, as pretty initially intended they might be justifiable, they might serve a purpose.

Now they are simply a tool for any with an ax to grind with discriminating hearings or charges by those wanting to justify their existence. I point especially at Ms. B. Hall, "Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall. Barbara Hall" The left wing puppet master that keeps getting reappointed????

http://www.torontosu...345531-sun.html

[Guest Peeves]

They just need to take 'bad faith' into consideration.

Your point is reasonable, unfortunately they have no obligation to do anything. In the case I cite, the accused was put through hell AND COSTS for years by this bunch of nanny state appointees with few or any credentials and with a license for near licentiousness.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Peeves

[Bonam]

Why can't we just modify them ? The key problems seem surmountable for sure.

For them to be worth preserving and reforming, someone would have to demonstrate why they are necessary or beneficial in the first place.

And no, I do not agree that the "key problem" is surmountable. That is because the key problem is the fundamental nature of the HRC: a non-judicial entity able to use governmental power to prosecute and punish individuals who have not broken any law. There is no reason why these individuals should be subject to investigation or punishment by any body to begin with.

[Michael Hardner]

For them to be worth preserving and reforming, someone would have to demonstrate why they are necessary or beneficial in the first place.

Well, as Peeves pointed out, there are likely some good issues they could focus on. Why are they necessary ? Because we have the highest immigration levels in the west and we need to pay attention to social cohesion.

And no, I do not agree that the "key problem" is surmountable. That is because the key problem is the fundamental nature of the HRC: a non-judicial entity able to use governmental power to prosecute and punish individuals who have not broken any law. There is no reason why these individuals should be subject to investigation or punishment by any body to begin with.

Well, that's also an advantage - that they're not courts and can help to arbitrate decisions on such matters.

[Bonam]

Well, that's also an advantage - that they're not courts and can help to arbitrate decisions on such matters.

No decision needs to be arbitrated, that's the whole point. If I haven't done anything wrong, then no one should be able to force me to spend my time and energy undergoing arbitration proceedings.