Disappointing end to haircut dispute...

[cybercoma]

If people suffer financial losses due to discrimination, absolutely they should be entitled to be made whole by the HRCs.

[TimG]

If people suffer financial losses due to discrimination, absolutely they should be entitled to be made whole by the HRCs.

Why? We have a court system for that. Why should people who suffer discrimination be given the ability to avoid the court system when people who were simply screwed by a party failing to live up to a legal contract have to go to court? I would be OK with the HRC ruling being a basis for a court action but the HRC should not be allowed to award any damages. It creates the wrong incentives. Edited February 25, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The incentive not to discriminate against people is wrong? Ok, then.

[TimG]

The incentive not to discriminate against people is wrong? Ok, then.

A system that encourages people to make complaints because they hope to cash in is a bad system. Eliminate money from the equation and that motivation goes away. If people suffered real monetary damages then they can use the court system like every other person with a civil dispute. Why should people who claim discrimination get special treatment? Edited February 25, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Why should there be special courts for "family" issues as opposed to "criminal" issues?

[TimG]

Why should there be special courts for "family" issues as opposed to "criminal" issues?

Family court is still a court and it must follow due process and must conform to formal rules of evidence. HRC is an administrative panel handing out financial awards. It amazes me that you cannot see how wrong this is. Edited February 25, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I never once said I agree with people getting "financial awards." It amazes me that you don't see the difference between that and what I said, which is that people have every right to be "made whole", if they suffer a financial loss due to discrimination. All you're saying that's different is that the regular courts should handle it instead.

[TimG]

I never once said I agree with people getting "financial awards."

It really makes no difference since you were responding to me and all I was talking about were the financial awards. I said I had no issue with the HRC if money was taken off the table.

As for non-monetary 'making whole' - apologies - recognition of wrong when real discrimination has occurred. But sometimes people are just too damn sensitive and they need be told that.

[Bonam]

All you're saying that's different is that the regular courts should handle it instead.

Which seems to be a pretty uncontroversial and sensible position. The courts have to follow due process and the rule of law, which provide for adequate defense and rights for the accused, unlike the HRCs.

[g_bambino]

Which seems to be a pretty uncontroversial and sensible position. The courts have to follow due process and the rule of law, which provide for adequate defense and rights for the accused, unlike the HRCs.

Yes, that's one of the main problems with HRCs: they have powers to met out punnishment like courts but aren't bound by the same rules as courts or the rights accorded to the accused in a court. This becomes especially problematic when these bodies are free to arbitrarily define what a human right is and fall more into a role of enforcing a perferred variant of political correctness rather than a law.

It's one thing to resolve a conflict of actual rights in order to set a precedent, it's entirely another to punnish someone for violating an arbitrary precedent that hadn't yet been set.