It was then re-attempted in BC, in the hope of not being immediately thrown out of court.
Since on the face of it he's innocent, I suspect he's playing this up to the hilt to get more attention for his book.
Don't bet on it: the BC commission is more than a little nutty. Just off the tops of my head, I remember a case where McDonalds fired an employee because she wouldn't wash her hands. The BC HRC awarded her $50,000. It seems you have a human right not to wash your hands, even if you work in the food service industry.
Thanks for the laughs. Usually I only get to laugh at Christian fundamentalists. It's nice to get a giggle at Islamist extremists for a change. Not that there's any real difference between you.....it's just nice to get some variety.
I'd consider myself a libertarian socialist, socialism is good as long as liberty is maximized.
Socialism is inherently illiberal. By forcing me to fund your idea of "social welfare", you are taking away my right to use my money (aka, my work, my accomplishments, my abilities) as I see fit. You are, in effect, robbing me. That you happen to be robbing me using government force instead of a gun, and that you are doing it in the name of good intentions, doesn't change the fact that you ARE robbing me.
There was a good quote I heard recently, which seems rather relevant now:
The new definition of "greed" is wanting to keep the money you've earned. The new definition of "need" is wanting someone else's money. And the new definition of "compassion" is a politician arranging the transfer.
BTW, keep in mind the fact that I regularly give to various charities, sponsor a kid overseas through World Vision, and give something like $1,500 annually to the United Way, all on a soldiers salary. I have no problem with giving to charity - what I have a problem with is people taking my money by force, and calling it charity.
Islam clearly prohibits such crimes and attaching religious affiliation to that crime is nonsense and pure anti-Islamic propaganda.
Tell that to the Muslim Imaam who justified their actions by comparing Australian women to "uncovered meat".
The reason their religions is mentioned is because it is the ideology which binds them. If 5 skinheads from the Aerican southwest were to rape a black woman, you can bet your ass that the media would report their ideological leanings. Likewise, when a bunch of Muslim immigrants rape a white woman, and then a Muslim religious leader defends their actions, these are things worth mentioning. If you don't like it because it casts your religion in a negative light, well then that's just too damn bad. Take your anger out on the individuals who are perpetrating these crimes - not on those reporting it.
Um, you're obviously pretty ignorant about the whole thing. I suggest you read up on it. These commissions aren't courts, they don't rely on evidence, and they have a 100% conviction rate. In other words, if you are accused, you don't get access to a lawyer, you are tried outside of the normal legal system, your "prosecution" doesn't actually have to prove you did anything wrong, and you are ALWAYS found guilty. There has not been a single case where the defendant was found to be innocent.
Seriously, go do some research before beaking off. You're confusing HRC's with real courts, which they're not.
Oh, and by the way? Acting like an arrogant jackass when it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about makes you look pretty stupid. Try to keep the attitude to a minimum, ok?
Hate Crimes in Canada are not in place to prevent people from saying hateful things. They are in place to prevent people from hiding behind freedom of speech when they are actually attempting to incite violence against a particular group of people (particularly minorities).
Nonsense. Incitement of violence was already a criminal offence - and rightly so. That has nothing to do with these "hate-speech" commissions.
Your argument is absolutely laughable. Case and point: Police, or more generally, the justice system. You've also ignored the ONGOING investigations by POLICE *against* this group. Get a fucking clue.
there are good Canadian blogs? Feel free to link me some interesting ones
Sure! I suppose your definition of "good" will depend on your politics, so I'll just point you to Blogging Torries if you're right-of-center, and the LibLogs if you're on the left. Those sites serve as sort of a centeral meeting place for the two rival groups of blogs.
As for my personal preference, I find Kate McMillan over at Small Dead Animals to generally be a good news source, even if she does seem to have an obsession with global warming. Also, the comments section can be a bit of a shit-pit, especially once the ultra-religious whacko's start swinging.
And if you're looking for stuff dealing directly with these HRC cases, you'll want to check out the blog of Ezra Levant, who is also facing the wrath of the "Human Rights Commission".
Oh yeah, there's nothing like making sure people are free to do as they please without unwarranted interference to make me think "Freedom is Slavery";-|
You might want to talk to Mark Steyn about being free to do as he pleases....
Incidentally, are you aware that pre-Nazi Germany had some of the most progressive hate-speech legislation of it's time? Hate speech legislation which was enforced on a regular basis?
You might want to look into exactly which part of existing legislation Hitler used in order to suppress the opposition parties. You might learn something about the nature of well-intentioned laws.
I'll prefix this with I'm a Canadian who disagrees with such "hate crime" laws. But, they are well intended.
So was the Inquisition, and the medival witch trials. The problem is that as soon as you start paying a group of people to go out and prosecute others - whether they're prosecuting them on charges of heresy, witchcraft, or "hate" - you're pretty much guaranteeing that innocent people are going to be harmed.
To use the example of the witch trials:
1. People were paid to report witches.
2. Evidence was considered irrelevant when judging witches.
3. All of the "witch's" property was confiscated and used as "payment" for the judges, torturers, executioners, etc.
In light of all that, is it really any surprise that they kept finding witches?
Likewise, these "human rights commissions" exist solely to punish people accused of spreading hate. And they use a framework similar to the witch-hunts:
1. With a 100% conviction rate, they guarantee that the accuser will be paid for accusing someone - anyone.
2. "Questioning" is conducted in private, without a lawyer, and evidence is largely irrelevant.
3. The "defendant", who is always found guilty, is ordered to pay up to the accuser, while taxpayers foot the bill for the process.
So in light of that, is it any wonder that they keep prosecuting and convicting innocent people? While the very basis for these commissions is in itself flawed, the far larger problem is the way in which the commissions are set up. They are extra-judicial bodies which have no accountability, and no supervision.
Do we really need a separate judicial system which doesn't answer to anyone, just so we can stop offencive speech?
while in the EU you go to jail for holocaust denial... and the U.S government tramples on every human right there is... some ppl on/. point finger up north. maybe its time to invade canada ?
How in the world is that hypocritical? Do you imagine that every European supports their hate-laws? Or that every American supports the suspension of Habeas Corpus? Talk about stereotyping....
As far as I'm concerned, the more foreign attention that there is on this subject, the better. If it causes enough of a international embarrassment for our current government, maybe they'll actually do something to change (or preferably scrap) the current hate-speech legislation.
Oh, and stop with the American-baiting idiocy. I'm assuming you're Canadian, and I'm tired of ignorant idiots like you making us look like fools by constantly bashing the Yanks. If there's a legitimate reason to say something negative about them, then fine, but people like you will find a way to complain about "ignorant rednecks" or "xenophobic cowboys" while discussing the recipe for your favourite Quiche. Enough already!
I'm not really surprised that a Maclean's authour is on trial for this sort of behaviour. I don't really consider myself to be a left wing guy, but Maclean's is xenophobic, right-wing sucking pile of trash. I say this with no exaggeration.
Whenever I've read a Maclean's article in the past, it only made me angry. This sort of thing should have happened long ago.
You read a Macleans article??? How did that happen? You thought it was PRAVDA?
For those unfamiliar with Macleans, I should point out that BPPG over there is RTFO. People who consider Macleans a "xenophobix, right-wing sucking pile of trash" generally tend to be so far left that they make Stalin look like a Reaganite. He probably thinks CNN is even more right-wing than Macleans, FOX is the spawn of the devil, and Fidel Castro is "progressive".
Am I the only Canadian here who didn't hear about this until today? I've read the news every day this week, and I never noticed this in a headline.
Most newspapers have been downplaying it, but there have been numerous articles on it over the last few months, and the Canadian "bloggosphere" has been going apeshit over it. Also, Macleans magazine - one of the oldest and most well known in Canada - is being "investigated" by the same commissions because they dared to publish an article by Mark Steyn, so they've certainly made plenty of statements on the issue.
Also, on the off-chance that you don't read magazines and newspapers, or don't follow news which disagrees with your politics, even Rick Mercer - a liberal comedian on a liberal TV network, covered a related case in one of his famous "rants" recently.
If you've missed all coverage of this until now, then you either don't follow politics and current events, or you get all your news exclusively from far-left sources. I've been following it for months, and most of my friends and coworkers are at least aware of it, if not exactly well informed about the facts of the case.
We have a more efficient system in the USA: any violation of political correctness will get you fired, pilloried, and defamed mercilessly. In certain careers, your career is often destroyed. And of course whether what was said is true or not is irrelevant.
You're exaggerating, but you do bring up a valid complaint. However, we Canadians are WAY ahead of you, since we face the same perils in the workplace, AND we have "Human Rights Commissions" (Orwellian speak for "thought-crimes inquisitions"). We're way more progressive!
Someday I'll have to read some accounts and see if my uncle's stories are true. Apparently, he is the first American to survive traveling over the speed of sound. The story goes that in a test flight, there was a fatal malfunction. The aircraft was out of control and diving, passing the speed of sound.
Sorry to break it to you, but unless your uncle's name is George Welch, he's probably full of shit.
I like how there is a cut up pice of printer paper with larger labels around the buttons.
That tells me that somebody looked at the Space Shuttle self destruct buttons and said, "You know this 'test' button looks alot like the 'destruct' button. We should probably do something about that."
More likely they put that piece of paper there so that people looking at the photograph would know what they're seeing. If you look closely, each of the individual buttons is clearly labelled with glowing text - it's just too small to make out in a picture.
I had heard once that there were two buttons the RSO had to use to blow up the shuttle, and that the first button activated an indicator in the cockpit that let the astronauts know what was about to happen.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Only it's not an indication-light. It actually activates a system which releases streamers and balloons, while loud celebratory music blares out of hidden speakers, and an amplified voice yells "CONGRATULATIONS!!! YOU'VE WON A FABULOUS TRIP TO PARADISE!!!!".
I also thought that you could have sex at 14 if there was less than 2 years difference between the partners. But that the official age of consent is 16... I might be wrong though.
Yep, you're wrong. Or, rather, you're partially right: there IS a "2 year difference" rule, but that rule actually LOWERS the age of consent. From the Criminal Code of Canada:
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152 , subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is twelve years of age or more but under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge unless the accused
(a) is twelve years of age or more but under the age of sixteen years;
(b) is less than two years older than the complainant; and
(c) is neither in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant nor is a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency.
So, basically, the age of consent is 12 as long as the other person is no more than 2 years older, or 14 otherwise.
Try your northern neighbour. Here the age of majority is 18, but you can't buy booze and cigarettes until you're 19....and you can have sex at 14. Makes sense, no?
Because the voters seem to be damn inclined for the government to take care of their...
retirement
health care
schooling of their children
mortgages
How are those three a function of government? I really don't understand how people who send their kids to public school can complain about government censorship related to children. Really, what do you think goes on in your schools?
Apparently, NOT learning how to count:)
You're absolutely right, though. The more "liberal" (really socialist) a country gets, the more it becomes dependant on the government. You can't offer people cradle-to-grave welfare, free education, pretty much guaranteed medical help, etc, etc, without at least a small segment of your society regressing to the point of becoming children in adult bodies. If you then expect those individuals to raise children of their own, you're just asking for problems.
I just demonstrated, with examples, why it is so. The ludicrous position is wholly yours.
No, what you just did was try to rationalize away any opposition to your idiotic theories. Now, I could waste a half hour explaining to you exactly why everything you've written is totally ass-backwards, only to have you reject it on the basis of a deeply-flawed personal ideology....or I can spend 2 minutes writing up this comment, and then move on to more productive things. Guess which option I'll chose?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't bet on it: the BC commission is more than a little nutty. Just off the tops of my head, I remember a case where McDonalds fired an employee because she wouldn't wash her hands. The BC HRC awarded her $50,000. It seems you have a human right not to wash your hands, even if you work in the food service industry.
Super-green! :)
lol
Thanks for the laughs. Usually I only get to laugh at Christian fundamentalists. It's nice to get a giggle at Islamist extremists for a change. Not that there's any real difference between you.....it's just nice to get some variety.
There was a good quote I heard recently, which seems rather relevant now:
The new definition of "greed" is wanting to keep the money you've earned. The new definition of "need" is wanting someone else's money. And the new definition of "compassion" is a politician arranging the transfer.
BTW, keep in mind the fact that I regularly give to various charities, sponsor a kid overseas through World Vision, and give something like $1,500 annually to the United Way, all on a soldiers salary. I have no problem with giving to charity - what I have a problem with is people taking my money by force, and calling it charity.
The reason their religions is mentioned is because it is the ideology which binds them. If 5 skinheads from the Aerican southwest were to rape a black woman, you can bet your ass that the media would report their ideological leanings. Likewise, when a bunch of Muslim immigrants rape a white woman, and then a Muslim religious leader defends their actions, these are things worth mentioning. If you don't like it because it casts your religion in a negative light, well then that's just too damn bad. Take your anger out on the individuals who are perpetrating these crimes - not on those reporting it.
Um, you're obviously pretty ignorant about the whole thing. I suggest you read up on it. These commissions aren't courts, they don't rely on evidence, and they have a 100% conviction rate. In other words, if you are accused, you don't get access to a lawyer, you are tried outside of the normal legal system, your "prosecution" doesn't actually have to prove you did anything wrong, and you are ALWAYS found guilty. There has not been a single case where the defendant was found to be innocent.
Seriously, go do some research before beaking off. You're confusing HRC's with real courts, which they're not.
Oh, and by the way? Acting like an arrogant jackass when it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about makes you look pretty stupid. Try to keep the attitude to a minimum, ok?
So if a Muslim man rapes someone, and I call him a "Muslim rapist", I'm committing libel and hate speech?
And people wonder why I'm opposed to these commissions!
Just out of curiosity, could you take a look out of your window and tell me what colour the sky is in your world?
Sure! I suppose your definition of "good" will depend on your politics, so I'll just point you to Blogging Torries if you're right-of-center, and the LibLogs if you're on the left. Those sites serve as sort of a centeral meeting place for the two rival groups of blogs.
As for my personal preference, I find Kate McMillan over at Small Dead Animals to generally be a good news source, even if she does seem to have an obsession with global warming. Also, the comments section can be a bit of a shit-pit, especially once the ultra-religious whacko's start swinging.
And if you're looking for stuff dealing directly with these HRC cases, you'll want to check out the blog of Ezra Levant, who is also facing the wrath of the "Human Rights Commission".
Incidentally, are you aware that pre-Nazi Germany had some of the most progressive hate-speech legislation of it's time? Hate speech legislation which was enforced on a regular basis?
You might want to look into exactly which part of existing legislation Hitler used in order to suppress the opposition parties. You might learn something about the nature of well-intentioned laws.
To use the example of the witch trials:
1. People were paid to report witches.
2. Evidence was considered irrelevant when judging witches.
3. All of the "witch's" property was confiscated and used as "payment" for the judges, torturers, executioners, etc.
In light of all that, is it really any surprise that they kept finding witches?
Likewise, these "human rights commissions" exist solely to punish people accused of spreading hate. And they use a framework similar to the witch-hunts:
1. With a 100% conviction rate, they guarantee that the accuser will be paid for accusing someone - anyone.
2. "Questioning" is conducted in private, without a lawyer, and evidence is largely irrelevant.
3. The "defendant", who is always found guilty, is ordered to pay up to the accuser, while taxpayers foot the bill for the process.
So in light of that, is it any wonder that they keep prosecuting and convicting innocent people? While the very basis for these commissions is in itself flawed, the far larger problem is the way in which the commissions are set up. They are extra-judicial bodies which have no accountability, and no supervision.
Do we really need a separate judicial system which doesn't answer to anyone, just so we can stop offencive speech?
As far as I'm concerned, the more foreign attention that there is on this subject, the better. If it causes enough of a international embarrassment for our current government, maybe they'll actually do something to change (or preferably scrap) the current hate-speech legislation.
Oh, and stop with the American-baiting idiocy. I'm assuming you're Canadian, and I'm tired of ignorant idiots like you making us look like fools by constantly bashing the Yanks. If there's a legitimate reason to say something negative about them, then fine, but people like you will find a way to complain about "ignorant rednecks" or "xenophobic cowboys" while discussing the recipe for your favourite Quiche. Enough already!
For those unfamiliar with Macleans, I should point out that BPPG over there is RTFO. People who consider Macleans a "xenophobix, right-wing sucking pile of trash" generally tend to be so far left that they make Stalin look like a Reaganite. He probably thinks CNN is even more right-wing than Macleans, FOX is the spawn of the devil, and Fidel Castro is "progressive".
Also, on the off-chance that you don't read magazines and newspapers, or don't follow news which disagrees with your politics, even Rick Mercer - a liberal comedian on a liberal TV network, covered a related case in one of his famous "rants" recently.
If you've missed all coverage of this until now, then you either don't follow politics and current events, or you get all your news exclusively from far-left sources. I've been following it for months, and most of my friends and coworkers are at least aware of it, if not exactly well informed about the facts of the case.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152 , subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is twelve years of age or more but under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge unless the accused
(a) is twelve years of age or more but under the age of sixteen years;
(b) is less than two years older than the complainant; and
(c) is neither in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant nor is a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency.
So, basically, the age of consent is 12 as long as the other person is no more than 2 years older, or 14 otherwise.
Try your northern neighbour. Here the age of majority is 18, but you can't buy booze and cigarettes until you're 19....and you can have sex at 14. Makes sense, no?
You're absolutely right, though. The more "liberal" (really socialist) a country gets, the more it becomes dependant on the government. You can't offer people cradle-to-grave welfare, free education, pretty much guaranteed medical help, etc, etc, without at least a small segment of your society regressing to the point of becoming children in adult bodies. If you then expect those individuals to raise children of their own, you're just asking for problems.