Tataquason said he was "deeply hurt" by the remarks. It caused him to "trigger" memories of residential schools he has tried to bury since childhood. Tataquason testified that he "spiraled into depression," leaving him unable to work. The remark is also responsible for his return to drug use, his marriage breakup, his homelessness and his committing petty crimes, Tataquason testified.
Quote:
His then-common law wife, Roseann Durocher, testified it also caused her to return to substance abuse. She testified she "wholly believes" Pontes evicted Tataquason because of his race.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to longsuffering For This Useful Post:
Sounds like he didn't show up for the hearing.... Hard to not be guilty if you don't offer a defense!
Why would he even bother, there was no way that he wasn't going to get fined. If they made a decision as flimsy as this, the owner showing up isn't going to matter.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Tataquason said he was "deeply hurt" by the remarks. It caused him to "trigger" memories of residential schools he has tried to bury since childhood. Tataquason testified that he "spiraled into depression," leaving him unable to work. The remark is also responsible for his return to drug use, his marriage breakup, his homelessness and his committing petty crimes, Tataquason testified.
His then-common law wife, Roseann Durocher, testified it also caused her to return to substance abuse. She testified she "wholly believes" Pontes evicted Tataquason because of his race.
I realize longsuffering already posted these quotes ... but wow ... that is 3 shades of crazy. I can't believe multiple people actually agreed that this was a good decision.
I don't understand why the onus was on him to prove he didn't discriminate.
Welcome to the politically correct world.
Guilty until proven innocent, I guess.
Shame I was born as a white, heterosexual, nominally Christian male. According to the charter, I am the devil, therefore everyone else must be protected from me.
I probably wouldnt show up before the human "rights" commission either. That group's been a farce for some time.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Shame I was born as a white, heterosexual, nominally Christian male. According to the charter, I am the devil, therefore everyone else must be protected from me.
I probably wouldnt show up before the human "rights" commission either. That group's been a farce for some time.
What you said, well, its hurtfull, and it caused my to flashback to my time on the mean streets of Lake Bonavista, I feel the overwhelming urge to drink an extra sugery slurpee which will cause me to go into diabetic shock, which will probably make me become homeless, and commit petty crimes like not picking up my dogs poop.
You owe me $7,000.00
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
1.) The reverse onus thing is kind of silly in this case but the reason for it, IMO is that those being discriminated against often have no witnesses willing to come forward for them, so the reverse onus starts from the assumption that they wouldn't bring a complaint if it weren't true. A bit of a stretch obviously, and open to significant abuse.
2. The decision is reviewable by the Courts, and clearly should be, but Pontes really didn't help himself by not showing up. The Complainant could basically say whatever he wanted with no contradiction from Pontes.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
Mr. Pontes should countersue for emotional damage when he was assumed to be racist because of this. That way, the onus would then be on Tataquason to prove that he didn't discriminate.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
I realize that there may be an element of some ridiculousness to this story, but the way that people tend to react to these kinds of things really bothers me. Can we, at least for a second, consider the possibility that perhaps there was racism involved?
The story as it was reported on CBC says that the man dropped his wife off at work and then stayed there to have a coffee.
"Tataquason said he had stopped for a coffee and had been there about an hour when owner John Pontes came along and asked him who he was and what he was doing there.
Tataquason said Pontes then told him to leave, saying the restaurant was "not the Friendship Centre."”
The story goes on to say that the owner later told the press that he kicked Tataquason out because he was “interfering with his wife's ability to do her job as a waitress”. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that even a little. That is just not supported by his actions at the time.
If you are a manager and you think that one of your waitresses is not working because she is spending too much time talking to a customer, you talk to the waitress, you don’t go up to the customer and throw him out! To me, it is the “Friendship Centre” line that is the kicker. He knew exactly what he was saying.
Perhaps I am wrong and for a coffee shop manager / owner, the appropriate course of action in dealing with a slacking employee is to throw out the customer. Let’s say that it was me (a white male) in there and I didn’t know the waitress and I was just flirting with her, taking up all her time. Would the owner approach me, ask me what I am doing and tell me to get out? Would he tell me that this wasn't "the country club" or wherever it is that proper white people hang out? I just can’t see it happening. I just can’t see this owner reacting this way if the man wasn’t Aboriginal. I just don’t buy it.
Of course... I am no doubt wrong. Tell me why.
The Following User Says Thank You to vanisleflamesfan For This Useful Post:
Just one more point; I don't think that there was an 'onus on the owner to prove he didn't discriminate'. The case was heard by the Commission and the case that they heard was this:
Tataquason: I contend that I have been discriminated against.
Commission: Okay prove it.
Tataquason: He (Pontes) did this, that and the other. Also, consider this testimony from his employee.
Commission: Okay Mr. Pontes, would you like to respond? Mr. Pontes?... Hello?
I don't understand why the onus was on him to prove he didn't discriminate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Because with the HRC your guilty until proven innocent, but your still guilty.
Actually the process is the punishment should you choose to fight it. Then you get screwed some more by some outrageous Kangaroo court "decision".
If you are some bigwig like Steyn and MacLeans then these weasels crawl away but if you are someone who dares to be white, Christian, or conservative with very little financial backing they are all over you like flies on dung.
Post: Two Tiered Thought Police This is part of a pattern that has revealed itself over the last few years. Human rights commissions claim to be agencies that fight "hate" generically. But in fact, they are interested in a very narrow sub-category of alleged hatemonger -- the right-winger accused of homophobia, anti-Muslim bias or some other thought crime. The more unvarnished and explicitly murderous forms of hatred made manifest in the publications of, say, Jew-hating Muslims and Hindu-hating Sikhs are of no interest to the thought police. In a narrow sense, the CHRC made the right call in this case: We are all in favour of Mr. al-Hayiti--or anyone else--being able to promote any particular interpretation of Islam, or any other religion. The larger problem is that Canada's thought police obey a politically correct double standard.
Please tell me your kidding Human Rights Commission
