Quote:
Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars
I repeat:
it's really nice that you have such strong principles, but until you explain to me what good it will actually do IN PRACTISE, I'm afraid you're not making much sense.
|
First off, any tribunal that is set up to allow any person to make an allegation against another without any sort of consequence to the person who makes the allegation if it is not founded has serious fundemental problems from the beginning. As it stands now I can make an allegation against any person or business and once I have done that, I have no responsibility in paying any fees or legal costs even if the allegation is not founded or completely false. However, the person who has the allegation made against them is on the hook for ALL of their legal costs. There is never any reimbursement if the allegation is not founded. In the REAL legal system, the court can order costs against the person making the allegation.
Example:
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/411.asp
A student brings a complaint before the HRC because some other students called him a loser and a complainer. To the benifit of the HRC they did dismiss the complaint, but not after the respondant was dragged through the tribunal and was out all legal costs.
Second, the reason these HRC were founded was to protect people from employment discrimination. Getting fired because of ones race or religion. Being denied a job for the same. But what has happened? These HRC have decided that they would morph into the moral police. Deciding not just how people should act but how they should THINK.
Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said this
It's too easy to claim an article may subject a group to hate or contempt under commission rules, Borovoy said.
"Even truthful articles describing some of the awful situations in this world could run afoul of this law, it is so broad and such a potential threat to freedom of speech," he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2...-macleans.html
He also comments here.
http://www.safs.ca/issuescases/aborovoy.html
To finish it off here are some other examples of the decisions coming out of these HRC.
This case, the HRC made a decision that basically said that freedom of speech and religion are trumped by the right NOT to be offended. So, if what you say or believe in offend me, then you are in violation of Human Rights legislation.
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...en113007Pa.pdf
This one -
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...is060904Pa.pdf
A HRC decided that it is ones Human Right to recieve a housing allowance from the government even though he still lived at home with his mother. Thats right a grown man demanded that it is his right to get free money from the government even though he had housing and this HRC agreed.
Would you like more?