Wow that guys a fucking asshole.....

"Ridding the work place and rental market of bias was the noble cause, now [sic] telling property owners who they have to let consume what."

So, you agree with the well-intentioned and "noble" aim of countering discrimination on the now-familiar basis of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc.

But, don't the majority of instances of such discrimination occur at privately owned rental properties and business proprietorships? Why should their owners be subject to any for of government control, according to your argument?

If you read the Canadian Human Rights Act you will find that it prohibits denial of access to any individual of any "good, service, facility or accommodation" on the ground of discrimination.

It also forbids employers from paying different wages based on discriminatory factors. Such rights trump property rights according to the Act because they pertain to the principle that: "all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted."

One view, which is reflected in the Act, contends that the principles of equal opportunity and accommodation of need without discrimination extend to such issues as hate speech, sexual harassment, etc.

Are you calling for the complete retirement of the Human Rights Commission because you think that fundamental instances of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, etc., no longer take place, and that we are 'past' the bad old days when discrimination actually would occur in workplaces, rental accommodations, and in dealings with public agencies such as the police?

If that's what you think, then I suggest you look at the most prevalent types of cases that come before the national and provincial Commissions--by and large, they're not about slapping the pee pees of bigoted, blowhard columnists like Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn (though if any two bozos ever deserved a pee pee slap...). For the most part, the Commissions are dealing with exactly the sorts of discriminatory practices that they were originally intended to address, and you endorse that original purpose at the beginning of your LTE.

Now, the conduct of the Commissions and powers accorded to them relative to their mandate under the Act, that's a different story. The Commissions can be reformed if need be without tossing out the basic protections afforded by the Act, but not by asserting the "human rights of property owners" over those of non-owners.

I don't think discrimation laws work any better than prohibition laws and have no respect for either.


If you read The Controlled Substances Act it spells out all the drugs you can't own. We tell them law lovers to fuck off around here.

Those in love with the Canadian Human Rights Act should be told to fuck off too.

Here's why.... One person in America with the nerve to stand up and speak truth to power is Ron Paul.....



http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

The Trouble With Forced Integration

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD





Ron Paul speaks the truth.

Not one bigot in America changed their mind over The Civil Rights Act. Just like not one cannabis user was swayed by the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act.

Here of all places we should know better than anyone else that laws do not pursuade just because they threaten.


So, no I don't support any of this brotherly love horseshit anymore than I support drug control. For essentially the same reason. The law is an ass and deserves no respect in either case.

Video from CTV Ottawa News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQxQZYTTXo4

"I don't think discrimation laws work any better than prohibition laws and have no respect for either."

As much as I disagree with some of the stuff you come out with, I must say I think that is a great point. If there was no prohibition, indeed it would be a time wasting argument that Russel is fighting, but the point being that prohibition exists and is causing people to discriminate against others. IMO, the smell of pot is great and the only reason that most (not all) find it offensive is because they are programmed to hate pot, really hate it because of all of the propaganda that exists, and they can't see past the cloud of smoke in front of them. (wow, I must pat myself on the back for the use of duality in that line)

"We tell them law lovers to fuck off around here." C. Buors, Esq.

Wow...what a completely not at all apt comparison. You're comparing the unabridged violation of people's rights in a very badly run prison to Chris Bour's saying that government shouldn't be allowed to legislate our lives huh?

You know...disagree with the abrasive blowhard all you want but don't be an idiot.

Cheers

"I don't think discrimation laws work any better than prohibition laws and have no respect for either."

I can just imagine you as the guy pouring shit on those who were protesting the absolute property rights of the segregationists back in the early 1960's:


http://www.american.edu/bgriff/H207web/civrights/sit-ins1963.gif




Actions at Woolworth's

On February 1, 1960, four African American students -- Ezell A. Blair Jr. (now known as Jibreel Khazan), David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain -- from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, a historically black college/university, sat at a segregated lunch counter in the Greensboro, North Carolina Woolworth's store. This lunch counter only had chairs/stools for whites, while blacks had to stand and eat. Although they were refused service, they were allowed to stay at the counter. The next day there was a total of 27 students at the Woolworth lunch counter for the sit in. On the third day, there were 300 activists, and later, around 1000.[2]

This protest sparked sit-ins and economic boycotts that became a hallmark of the American civil rights movement.

According to McCain,

"Some way through, an old white lady, who must have been 75 or 85, came over and put her hands on my shoulders and said, 'Boys I am so proud of you. You should have done this 10 years ago.'"[3]

[edit] Impact

In just two months the sit-in movement spread to 15 cities in 9 states. Other stores, such as the one in Atlanta, moved to desegregate.

The media picked up this issue and covered it nationwide. The Greensboro sit-ins played a large role in spreading the civil rights movement to a larger audience and dramatizing segregation at a time when many, especially in the North, were not fully aware of its scope. The Greensboro sit-ins inspired civil rights groups to take up this tactic and use it to publicize segregation - beginning with lunch counters and spreading to other forms of public accommodation, including transport facilities, art galleries, beaches, parks, swimming pools, libraries, and even museums around the South.[4] The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated desegregation in public accommodations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_Four

What you are showing is in fact the law lovers in action. The persecution you demonstrate was "legalized" by George W. Bush the greatest law lover of them all.

It is after all Steve Gibson who wants to beat Gator Ted with a legal stick.

Russll Barth wants to beat every business owner with a legal stick.

Spliffy_the_Bee turns out to be a prohibitionist?

They all love the law too.

Me I don't need the law to be a civilized human being.

Every law could be repealed tommorrow and just like no abstainer is going to start heroin just because the law is repealed, I don't plan on harming anybody no matter what the law says.

David, In most southern communities in 1960, segregation was mandated by government law. These laws applied to both patrons and owners. Blacks who tried to use "white-only" facilities could be arrested for violating a segregation ordinance. And the owners and managers of "white-only" facilities could be arrested if they served Blacks. Segregation in the southern United States was required.