Human Corrections must pay cop killer ＄9500

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

But cops aren't human. They're pigs!

I'm all for jokes but don't piss on a man's grave.

Originally Posted by puckluck

And how did you get that out of my post?

Maybe you replied to the wrong post because that had nothing to do with what was said in my post.

Yeah, in hindsight it was more of a general comment, not really directed to your post in particular. Just find it ridiculous.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Yeah, in hindsight it was more of a general comment, not really directed to your post in particular. Just find it ridiculous.

That people locked up should be treated with respect and dignity?

I really don't think that murder of the cop has any place in this discussion. That's not what the story should be about.

I'm a huge cop defender and respect cops to the extreme, but this story has nothing to do with the cop being murdered and the only reason it was brought up was because the author could make the story more interesting.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by HOZ

They DO NOT go by the rule "Innocent until found guilt". There is no burden of proof with this kangaroo court. The accused is GUILTY...they just find out how much. 100% conviction rate!!

Too funny.

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/...an-rights.html

http://www.macleans.ca/multimedia/pdf/CHRC.pdf

Those are two I found right away. Anything else?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by puckluck

That people locked up should be treated with respect and dignity?

I really don't think that murder of the cop has any place in this discussion. That's not what the story should be about.

I'm a huge cop defender and respect cops to the extreme, but this story has nothing to do with the cop being murdered and the only reason it was brought up was because the author could make the story more interesting.

Respect and dignity? Pffft. Let's not kid ourselves here, these people aren't outstanding citizens who deserve any sort of respect and dignity. They deserve some sort of level of comfort (I guess) while serving time for a crime they committed but they don't deserve any sort of special treatment and definitely shouldn't be receiving any sort of compensation.

Furthermore, the article states:

Collins, 48, who suffers from chronic and severe back pain, filed a human rights complaint alleging a directive requiring inmates to stand up for a once-a-day count by correctional officers amounted to "adverse differentiation" on the basis of disability.

Surely he stands up more than once a day? He doesn't move from his cell? Eat food? Heaven forbid he can't stand up for 2 seconds for a count. This whole thing is ridiculous.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Too funny.

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/...an-rights.html

http://www.macleans.ca/multimedia/pdf/CHRC.pdf

Those are two I found right away. Anything else?

I admit my mistake. CHRC does NOT have the 100% conviction rate because that 100% conviction rate is at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. My BAD! CHRC are the pretend police and prosecutors; the CHRT are the pretend judges. Every single section 13 case the CHRC has brought to the CHRT has resulted in a conviction, and there's no reason to think that that Maclean's case would have bucked that trend.

So...Rubecube...
Did you even read past the titles? Did you see what they had to say about the CHRC actions?


Christian Heritage Party
In its news release, the CHP complained that, in human rights cases, "the process is the punishment -- whether the respondent is innocent or guilty." It noted that "the complainant bore no costs at all for filing a frivolous and groundless complaint" since the investigation and preparation of any case is done by CHRC staff.
CHP's legal costs in the case amounted to $50,000.

Here is McLean's letter of the dismissal. A very polite response to being railroaded.
Though gratified by the decision, Maclean's continues to assert that no
human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the
mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial
decisions of the nation's media. And we continue to have grave concerns about
a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be
pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same
complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to
say nothing of the inconvenience.