Jump to content

Christian fined $12,000 for not removing his shoes.


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Peter F said:

 

The decision:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2017/2017hrto436/2017hrto436.html

Read and weep for Freedom!    The landlord behaved like an asshole and so he pays.  

I find it stunning that supposedly sane people can think it's okay for the government to fine assholes. 

If they weren't so arbitrary, we could pay off the national debt in a year or two...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are assholes and then there are assholes. This particular asshole refused to remove his boots and refused to give the tenants reasonable notice. All entirely reasonable requests and he refused to do so because he couldn't' handle Muslims making reasonable requests.  Now, normally, assholes can be ignored because you will soon be out of their presence and their assholedom is limited to verbal assholerly. But in this case, the assholery was within the tenants own home and persistent. 

Good on them and good on the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Peter F said:

There are assholes and then there are assholes. This particular asshole refused to remove his boots and refused to give the tenants reasonable notice. All entirely reasonable requests and he refused to do so because he couldn't' handle Muslims making reasonable requests.  Now, normally, assholes can be ignored because you will soon be out of their presence and their assholedom is limited to verbal assholerly. But in this case, the assholery was within the tenants own home and persistent. 

Good on them and good on the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. 

No, it's still the government fining someone for being a jerk.  And $12000!!

There are an awful lot of laws you can break and get a lesser fine than that.  Just because you like it personally doesn't make it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, it's still the government fining someone for being a jerk.  And $12000!!

There are an awful lot of laws you can break and get a lesser fine than that.  Just because you like it personally doesn't make it right.

If I like it personally, then Yes; Right it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I find it stunning that supposedly sane people can think it's okay for the government to fine assholes. 

If they weren't so arbitrary, we could pay off the national debt in a year or two...

Did you read the reasons for the judgement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, hot enough said:

The Rebel is not a source. It's a wacko right wing wing of the Tea Party. 

What do you mean by The Rebel not being a source for news? They reported on an incident that really did happen, and was factual and was all there for you to read at the Rebel. I know that you prefer to listen to fake news outlets like CNN/CBC/MSNBC but come on, this is so ridiculous that this could happen in Canada. I guess that you support this cry baby muslim, and agree with him that this man should pay a hefty price for his ignorance of this muslim religious silly ass rules. And I will bet that you like to call yourself a patriotic Canadian, a Canadian patriot who enjoys watching injustices being done to an innocent man. I have a different word to call you but I will keep it to myself for decency sake.

So, from your reply I have to gather that you are in total favor of this guy being fined for $12,000 just because he walked on some muslims carpet with his shoes on. Well boo-hoo for that muslim, and boo-hoo to you too. If I had a chance to walk on one of their religious carpets I would first go out and find a muddy pool to walk in, and then I would go back and walk all over that carpet with my dirty and muddy boots on. This is Canada, and there is no way anyone should be given a fine of $12,000 for walking on a carpet. Only fools believe this should be so, and in Canada there are plenty of them walking around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, scribblet said:

The Rebel is correct, although there is no Tea Party in Canada but because you don't like what they say, you shoot the messenger.  Lots of sources for what happened out there.  They had only been there a short time and he did give them the required 24 hour notice, they didn't need more time, they were just dicking him around.  According to the landlord they did not request him to remove his shoes until there was a disagreement which tells me that their request was not religiously motivated until they thought it would give them more ammunition.  ( it did )  Even if the tribunal ruled that he violated their religious rights, fining him $12,000 was a over the top.   The couple knew what they were doing, they don't have to pay for a lawyer in that kangaroo court  plus they make a bundle of money.  

 

 

 

I agree with you100%. Welcome to the new Canada where politically correct multicultural religious foolishness has really taken over. This is just the start of sharia law becoming a law in Canada. These muslims will be making a lot more money from some other poor sucker who will end up making the same mistake that this man did, and theree will be no doubt that the HRC will go after that poor guy/gal.

This is why I really believe that this HRC needs to be abolished all over Canada. They are making fools of us all with all of their silly ass judgements. But that all depends as to whether we will ever see a real politician who would do just that. Canada does not need a communist kind of tyranny outfit like this HRC. The HRC looks for incidents like this to try and justify their reason for being a bunch of azz holes. Let them be gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

The couple asked for an extra hours notice so they wouldn't have their prayer time interrupted, and they asked the landlord and prospective tenants to remove their shoes when viewing the unit.   

Who doesn't remove their shoes when entering someone's home, unless specifically invited not to?  And if someone would prefer not to be interrupted during a private time, whether it's prayer time, bath time or something more intimate, why should that be a problem?  If this landlord really was a Christian, why wouldn't he treat the couple and their home with respect?   Claiming that this couple was trying to impose their way of life on him, in the privacy of their own home in which he is a visitor is ludicrous, even if he was an invited visitor.

I would say the HR was absolutely correct in their assessment, though $12,000 does seem like a lot and I doubt it will dent this guy's stupidity.

Muslims can interrupt their prayer time any time they want too. Why don't they try and be more accommodating. If they did not remove their shoes it was because they obviously were not asked to do so at the time. That is what this is all about. You/I were not there so we don't really know what took place. This should have been just left alone between with the landlord and the muslim. But that was not good enough for the muslim. The muslim saw that maybe he could get a couple of bucks out of this, and that communist HRC saw fit to help him out, and they did. I wonder how you would feel if you had of been in the same situation as this landlord and you were hauled up in front ot the HRC tribunal(sounds so communist)and told that you will have to pay a $12,000 fine for hurting this poor muslims feelings? Go ahead. Explain to me how you would feel?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

HRCs fit in with the Islamic concept of forcing money out of the Infidel. As The Quran tells its followers.......

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah* with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

https://quran.com/9/29

* Jizya = Infidel Tax

In the Islamic rules and regulations there is a word called "Muruna" which means muslims are allowed to violate sharia law in order to try and convince the infidels that they want to be just like us, and fit in, and assimilate. This muslim could have been more forgiving, as Christians would, and let it be, but he did not. This is how he and they will treat anyone who is an infidel. Sue them any chance that one can get. Their religion needs to be condemned and abolished because it is not culturally compatible with how things are done in Canada. This incident has just shown us Canadians just that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

That has nothing to do with a landlord refusing to respect his tenant's reasonable requests within their own home. 

The poor guy just paid his first sharia "Jyzia" tax right here in Canada, and you applaud it. Deplorable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Did you read the reasons for the judgement?   I didn't read the Rebel account for obvious reasons, but this landlord was beyond just a jerk: he behaved this way because they were Muslims.

 

Do you suppose he would have. objected to a non-Muslim asking him to remove his shoes or to give an extra hours notice for showing the suite for some other reason not related to prayer?

And its easy to consider the HRC useless if you are unlikely to have need of it.  

 

P.S. Quote is from National Post, sorry couldn't get the link to work.

 

We already know what the reasons were for the judgement. He hurt the poor muslims feelings. Lucky the guy didn't get beheaded. Just saying. 

Hey, if the HRC wants to allow me to sue someone over nothing, than maybe that is what all Canadians of all backgrounds should do is play the poor me HRC game and make lots of money doing it, eh? If this country is going bonkers well let us all go bonkers. A guy named R. Worman did it all the time and made a lot of money from the help of the HRC.

Aw yes, The National Post? Just another liberal rag source for fake news, and liberal points of view and opinions. All others of different opinions and points of view are not welcome. Don't worry about the link, I would not read it anyway. The Rebel is a fine enough source for me thank you very much. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I'm unlikely to have any need of the courts but I don't find them useless.

Indeed courts are needed but the HRC courts are not.They are only there to go after anyone who is not politically correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter F said:

There are assholes and then there are assholes. This particular asshole refused to remove his boots and refused to give the tenants reasonable notice. All entirely reasonable requests and he refused to do so because he couldn't' handle Muslims making reasonable requests.  Now, normally, assholes can be ignored because you will soon be out of their presence and their assholedom is limited to verbal assholerly. But in this case, the assholery was within the tenants own home and persistent. 

Good on them and good on the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. 

Spoken like a true communist. One can only hope that your azz hole gets hauled up in one of their monkey kangaroo courts and you get sued for something as trivial as looking at some muslim the wrong way. And you must know by now that the HRC will take on that case where they just be able to nail your azz for fines like $12,000 dollars. Get real.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peter F said:

 

The decision:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2017/2017hrto436/2017hrto436.html

Read and weep for Freedom!    The landlord behaved like an asshole and so he pays.  

"Read and weep for freedom"? What is that suppose to mean?  The HRC and that muslim are the azz holes here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, taxme said:

"Read and weep for freedom"? What is that suppose to mean?  The HRC and that muslim are the azz holes here. 

 

In Canada, your Charter Rights are protected and compensated for if you are a jihadist and convicted war criminal like Omar Khadr, but not if you are a landlord.

HRCs have been permitted to legally run over Charter Rights and prevail regardless of the constitution:

Quote
  • Third parties not involved in the alleged offences may nonetheless file complaints.
  • Plaintiffs have sometimes been given access to the commissions' investigation files and given the power to direct investigators.
  • Truth is not a defence.
  • Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers.
  • Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply.
  • Hearsay is admitted.
  • The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his/her own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, taxme said:

Spoken like a true communist. One can only hope that your azz hole gets hauled up in one of their monkey kangaroo courts and you get sued for something as trivial as looking at some muslim the wrong way. And you must know by now that the HRC will take on that case where they just be able to nail your azz for fines like $12,000 dollars. Get real.  

Thanks! I appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

In Canada, your Charter Rights are protected and compensated for if you are a jihadist and convicted war criminal like Omar Khadr, but not if you are a landlord.

HRCs have been permitted to legally run over Charter Rights and prevail regardless of the constitution:

 

Oh man, have you ever hit the nail on the head. You have described what Canada has become in the last several decades after papa trudeau decided that he did not like the Canada of the day, and decided that it must be changed to reflect his liberal communist homosexual values and beliefs. Boy, do we see that happening today here in Canuckistan. The HRC is not there to hear the truth or anyone be allowed to use the truth for defence. Unbelievable that truth is no defence right here in freedom loving Canada or so we think that we are free. The accusers are deemed already guilty in the brain dead HRC morons minds. One is suppose to be innocent until proven guilty in a real court of law, but not allowed in a mickey mouse outfit like the HRC. They make up their own rules, and all must suffer by them like that poor landlord had to do. But I understand that The Rebel website is taking up a collection for this man and may soon end up in a real court.  

The Charter of Rights is there to give the people the impression that it is only there to protect all rights and freedoms but in reality, if that were the case, then the HRC should have been gone long ago. The only freedom of speech that Canadians have is what the PC politicians and the HRC will allow them to have, and they better not be opposite of the opinions and points of view of the leftist liberals or else you are toast. Geez BC, can you send Trump up here as soon as possible. Gawd only knows that we need a man like him up here in Canada. The leftist liberals have gone totally bonkers up here in Canada just like the leftist liberals that you have in America who have gone totally bonkers also. Help. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, taxme said:

. One can only hope that your azz hole gets hauled up in one of their monkey kangaroo courts and you get sued for something as trivial as looking at some muslim the wrong way. And you must know by now that the HRC will take on that case where they just be able to nail your azz for fines like $12,000 dollars. Get real.  

Also, should I ever behave as the asshole in this case, then the victims of my oppression have every damn right to haul me up before the tribunal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Did you read the reasons for the judgement?

Not every word, but enough to know it was ridiculous.

I find that $6,000 to each applicant is an appropriate amount to compensate them for the injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by the respondent’s actions in this case.

I wonder how much you guys owe me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not every word, but enough to know it was ridiculous.

 

Paragraph 108 of the decision:

"When considered together, I find that the comment “welcome to Ontario Canada”, the making of loud pounding noises outside the applicants’ door shortly after making that comment, and the respondent’s refusal to remove his shoes when entering the applicants’ prayer space amounted to harassment under the Code. These comments and forms of conduct, taken together, amount to a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. Due to the timing of the comments and conduct", I find that they were at least in part linked to the applicants’ requests for the accommodation of their religious practices and thus to their creed."

Where would you draw the line between being a jerk and having consequences for harassing and intimidating people based on some characteristic, be it skin color, religion, political affiliation or sexual preference?    

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Paragraph 108 of the decision:

"When considered together, I find that the comment “welcome to Ontario Canada”, the making of loud pounding noises outside the applicants’ door shortly after making that comment, and the respondent’s refusal to remove his shoes when entering the applicants’ prayer space amounted to harassment under the Code. These comments and forms of conduct, taken together, amount to a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. Due to the timing of the comments and conduct", I find that they were at least in part linked to the applicants’ requests for the accommodation of their religious practices and thus to their creed."

Where would you draw the line between being a jerk and having consequences for harassing and intimidating people based on some characteristic, be it skin color, religion, political affiliation or sexual preference?    

 

 

I would call the police, to be honest, if someone was making loud pounding noises outside my apartment.  Not removing his shoes?  Did he not shower either? 

No, none of that is cause to get the courts involved.  As I said, disturbing the peace should result in a call to the local detachment who, it is to be hoped, would get him to stop.  I've had a lot worse.

Rudeness, boorishness, and just being an all round tosser, is not a HRC issue.  At least, it shouldn't be.

I refer you to b_c2004's last post in this thread.  Should any of those points or conditions apply, in this case, or any case whatsoever?

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...