And what makes that so David? The Commerical Properties Act perhaps?

Just want to establish your strong statist record to point out how you reject the freedom of association and support criminalizing people who do not live up to your moral turpitude.

Funny you should be fighting against people who also support criminalizing people who do not live up to their moral turpitude; the prohibitionists.

So you are a prohibition supporter, up to the point where the prohibitionists turn their guns on you.... then somehow the moral turpitude argument doesn't apply.

The Civil Rights laws destroyed our freedom of association.

Them business owners David, they can't put anybody in jail or criminalize them or do anything at all once the person has cleared their property.

You supporting the criminalization of businessmen who would sooner exercize their freedom of association is revealing of who you prefer has "unlimited power."

What power does any businessman have over any individual?

None that extend past the property they own and that is what is just.

You either support freedom of association or you support the slavery of having government bureaucrats telling you who you must associate with because the powerholder passed a law.

Destroying the freedom of assocation has no jsutification so far as I'm concerened. Forcing the integration of people who do not want to voluntarily associate will breed hatred.

See, I already hate people who want to destroy our liberties and our right to own and dispose of our properties as we see fit.

What law are you going to pass to get me to love or even like socialists?

Good thing that you can still hate people for their political beliefs or I suppose you would want to criminalize me too. I just am not living up to your moral turpitude of loving the people who want to enslave me so criminalization is the answer isn't it?

Just pass the brotherly love act and specifically protect political ideology along with balcks, jews, homosexuals and other historical scapegoats.

Passing morality based laws has always been a great shortcut to the 1000 year sin free Utopia that is said will bring about the Second Comming right?

"...your answer was YES, A business owner can tell a nursing mom to put her tit back in her shirt, if that tit is in a business owners smoking zone?"

No, that would not be the business owner's business.

A mother putting her child at risk of second hand tobacco smoke would be - in my view - the responsibility of "child protection services" or a judge:

The benefits of eliminating second-hand smoke around infants and children include decreased risk of SIDS, decreased risk of children developing bronchitis and pneumonia, decrease in the risk of developing asthma, allergies and fewer middle ear infections and related hospitalizations.

http://www.toronto.ca/children/report/repcard5/safety.htm

[15] While the children are under the primary care of the petitioner, she shall not permit the children to be exposed to secondhand smoke. Specifically, there shall be no smoking within the family home at Fort St. James nor the family vehicle.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Court_Orders_No_Smoking_Home_Car_Webster_v_Webster_18AUG06.aspx




The Order provided that Mrs. S. was to have access to the children, every second weekend, from 6:30 p.m. on Friday to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. Mr. S. was to have access to S.S. every second weekend from 6:30 p.m. on Friday to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. Further, the Order provided that Mrs. S. was to make her home as smoke-free as possible. ...

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Smoking_Alberta_Court_DLS_v_DES.aspx




There are no marijuana second hand smoke victims. There are plenty of tobacco second-hand smoke victims. The use of force by the state is only warranted in the case when it's a matter of "serious harm to others", as JS Mill pointed out. There's no doubt in my mind that second hand tobacco smoke causes harm to others, especially babies.

"The Commerical Properties Act perhaps?"

How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or Sec. 15 of the Charter?


"...you reject the freedom of association"

If forced to choose between association and autonomy + equality + dignity + freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, I choose all those other rights. Choosing association in Gibson's case allows "separate but equal" Jim Crow BS.




"Forcing the integration of people who do not want to voluntarily associate will breed hatred."

Continuing to endorse injustice using such flimsy arguments will breed hatred too - except it will be the scapegoats hating both their oppressor and those who use such shoddy excuses to look the other way.

I guess the reason men hate women is justified ... it's because women want the same economic advantages that men have!:

The leading case on the right of an association to establish and apply its own membership rules is the 1984 case of Roberts v. United States Jaycees. In Roberts, the Court recognized that the power to determine its own membership is central to the free speech rights of expressive organizations. (Imagine how the speech of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League might be affected if it could be forced to admit as members anti-Semites.) Nonetheless, the Court in Roberts upheld a Minnesota public accomodations law requiring the Jaycees to admit women as members in contravention of that organization's rules. Justice Brennan, for the Court, found that Minnesota had a compelling interest in providing the women of Minnesota the economic benefits that came with membership in the Jaycees. Justice O'Connor, in a concurring opinion, found that the Jaycees were a commercial organization and therefore subject to state regualtion of its membership.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/association.htm

How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or Sec. 15 of the Charter?

You talk out your hat as my grandpa would have said.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/



It says right there in black and white we have the freedom of association, but we don't.

Kind of like



Words on paper that are meaningless.



It would seem that Steve Gibson and all other exemption holders are more equal than I.



I doubt I will ever see you quote article 17 and I don't see any limits placed on the property owners. I'm sure Gator Ted would like the protection of article 17.

Article 20



I'm pretty sure Gator Ted would love to exercize his freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Steve Gibson is thrusting himself on Gator Ted and using the violence of the law to do so.



According to you Gator Ted does not have a free choice of employment..... if he wants to be an entrepeneur....he has to give up a lot of the above state rights although no one is supposed to be deprived of any of those rights.



It would seem to me that David Malmo-Levine is all about the destruction of our freedom to own property and our freedom of association too.

I don't see anything there that entitles or justifies Steve Gibson's aggression against Gator Ted.

Quit putting words in my mouth Mr. straw-man arguing, chronic name-calling, expletive using, always-telling-me-never-showing-me armchair activist.

In your case David we will never be you and we don't want to be.

The opinions of sock puppets are meaningless to me.

http://www.mapinc.org/writer/Buors+Chris

231 published letters on drug issues not to mention hundreds more on libertain positions on every other issue too that are not archived at mapinc.

Looks like I'm the 7th most successful published letter to the Editor writer on planet Earth.

If that isn't showing you then what would be?

I doubt that I will be shown anything "well~done" has ever accomplished for this movement.

I ran in every federal election in the last 10 years except the last one because Marc Emery asked his supporters to vote NDP.

I held my nose, handed out leaflets for the NDP and voted for them too just because Marc asked me to.

What gives you any right to critize at all?



I understand David's mind won't be changed, but there are impressionable youths who do read all this too and they most certainly will be.

Who is this "we?" You got a mouse in your pocket your doing the speaking for?

Maybe you and David can just stroke each others egos as I don't need the attention you guys obviously need.

What's in my pocket is none of your concern.

Buors, you know very well that NONE of the lunch-counter people who were forced to serve blacks went out of business. They remained employed, they still were allowed their cross-burning sessions with their KKK buddies ... the only one denied their "dignity" and "spirit of brotherhood" in this case is the guy being ordered away from the tobacco smoking zone to medicate for pain - not the guy doing the ordering.

It's the same deal with medical necessity pot users. Once Gibson wins, Ted will go back to serving beers at his bar ... he just won't be able to boss Gibson around anymore. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WILL CHANGE AND YOU KNOW IT.

"Maybe you and David can just stroke each others egos as I don't need the attention you guys obviously need."

I've learned much about the civil rights movement, and breastfeeding rights today, and about secondhand tobacco smoke and several other issues too.

I guess some people can't handle debate in a forum, but I thought that's one of the things a forum was for. Why not just avoid the thread and stick to one of the many nice forums about flowers if you don't like in-depth examinations of current events?

Ever since I saw the Health Canada recomendations that exemptees not smoke cannabis in public places I have been encouraged to hope that the human rights commission will simply decide there is no merit to Steve Gibson's claim.

900+ day it took for them to decide that Ezra was not a criminal.

Then Ezra printed what Rev. Stephen Boissoin printed in the Red Deer Sun twice now because....









That is the kind of horseshit comming out of the Human Rights Commission.

With that kind of track record, I was doubtful that the Human Rights Commission would do the right thing and toss Steve Gibsons complaints in the trash where they belong.

But now, the Human Rights Commssion is itself under investigation by the RCMP and the Privacy Commissioner.

None of that is to mention that they are now on the Rader of Members of Parliment who are having a hard time believing decision like the above one are happening in Canada.

Imagine being ordered to never speak your mind about anything in Canada..........

And that is the outfit that Steve Gibson seeks justice from?

Well the Human Rights Commission have a spot light on them now so I'm hopeful there will be fewer of these kinds of flaky decision coming down the pike from now on.

Ezra does a good job of getting to the nitty gritty of just what has been going on in those bastions of left-wing power mad instituions.

Fire them all! is Erza's battle cry for Human Rights Commissions and I strongly support ridding humanity of their intolerance too.