Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« David Suzuki: Get rid of the Green Party [Green Party responds] | Main | Britain's outgoing chief proescutor warns about the 'security state' »

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Should UWO be taken before the Human Rights Tribunals?

I don't see much difference between what Maclean's did and this.

Posted by EclectEcon on October 22, 2008 in Freedom of expression | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535ae7dc9970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Should UWO be taken before the Human Rights Tribunals?:

Comments

I remember a college instructor who in a moment of incautious candour explained to me how nearly common it was for the parents of Asian students to offer staff monetary incentives that would ensure their children received improved grades.

My surprised facial reaction was misinterpreted and he quickly back tracked assuming that I suspected him of racist leanings.

What a world.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur | 2008-10-22 11:06:02 AM


The cases against MacLean's Magazine was dismissed by the Ontario, BC, and Canadian human rights bodies, so if the UWO publication is not much different from that, then clearly they should not be taken before any human rights tribunal, since they have already decided that this is ok. Your question is pointless.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-10-22 12:07:55 PM


FAct,

The question was sarcasm. A shot at the hippocracy of the original charge.

The point of the piece is true. Pay-offs are the way of life in other places. That trend is here now. It has always has been here among the political and big business class, but now it's been taken to the streets.

The trust and the integrity of the rules were what made our society so rich and powerful. We are on our way down to the level of the scum that has been pouring across our borders since Trudeau lowered the draw bridge.

Harper may have the courage to lift it up some, but the outcry will be as loud as a rock concert.

In this century we risk the creation of a world wide peasantry that will be ruled by elites with a well fed military and police.

We know not what they do.

Our last gasp is the fact the tens of millions of Americans privately own guns. last time I checked, half of Canadians own them too. Not a nice scenario, but we will eventually all have to fight to regain our freedom.

Posted by: John V | 2008-10-22 1:14:09 PM


FC
"The cases against MacLean's Magazine was dismissed by the Ontario, BC, and Canadian human rights bodies, so if the UWO publication is not much different from that, then clearly they should not be taken before any human rights tribunal, since they have already decided that this is ok. Your question is pointless."

Um. Fairness would dictate that UWO be subjected to the process and then dismissed.

We're constantly being told how fair and unbiased this process is. Show me!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-22 3:26:43 PM


h2o273kk9,

"Fairness would dictate that UWO be subjected to the process and then dismissed."

In a long history of writing stupid things, this might be the stupidest thing you have written yet. Once it has been established that a certain sort of writing does not qualify as a violation of a human rights act, it would be beyond moronic to run other people doing the same thing through the same process when you already know what they did was not a violation. If, as there was not before the MacLean's case, there is no similar precident to use as a basis for a judgement then you might decide to proceed with a case. But afterward, only a dumbass would want others to be prosecuted and defend it in the name of "fairness".

If you ever had any brain cells (and there is little evidence of that) you finally lost the last one.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-10-22 4:13:42 PM


Sometimes called the old-boys'-network or manipulation or cheating or making up secret rules between friends. Mostly it's cheating.

Posted by: dewp | 2008-10-22 4:57:16 PM


FC

"Once it has been established that a certain sort of writing does not qualify as a violation of a human rights act, it would be beyond moronic to run other people doing the same thing through the same process when you already know what they did was not a violation. "

Great. Now I have you on record. Because most of us here know full well that the system is biased and is and will only be used as a judicial weapon to silence opponents.

I fully expect Truewest to show up at some point in the future explaining how once a complaint is filed, it must be investigated.

So, if someone files a complaint against UWO for this, will you dismiss it on the basis that this type has already been dismissed or will you support Truewest's position that this must be investigated and subjected to the process as it exists?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-22 5:04:11 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.