The Lynch List, 30-Apr-2012

First: The dismissal of white supremacist nutbar Terry Tremaine’s appeal is now apparently the last word on the powers of the Human Rights Tribunals. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Tribunal’s sentencing power, which are essentially limitless and can include jail time, is valid. I won’t shed a single tear for Tremaine, but it is chilling to think that the HRTs of our country have sentencing powers that our criminal courts couldn’t dream of, yet have few of the safeguards and protections for the accused that our courts mainatin.

Second: The outcome of this case has been talked about for some time now, and doesn’t need to be re-hashed. This is the complaint about the trailer park tenant with a brain injury being refused a spot at a BC trailer park. What is surprising is the Tribunal member’s assertion as follows:

“…there is an inherent injury to dignity whenever a human right has been violated”

This is an appalling statement since it presupposes the outcome of every human rights ruling – that as long as it can be shown that the Human Rights Code has been violated, money must change hands to remedy an injury to dignity. There are probably thousands of individuals across Canada that aren’t aware that their dignity is injured!

Third: This philosophical item bears repeating. The prevailing theory of human rights amongst academia (and, by extension, the administration of the Commissions and Tribunals) is that rights are something given to citizens by government, not something that they inherently posess apart from government. Furthermore, these “rights” have no hierarchy, and the resulting conflicts can only be resolved by government intervention. The result is an unfettered and limitless intrusion of the state into the lives of its citizens, in order to “manage” their rights for them. Gone is the assumption that rights are something that government is tasked to respect and protect our basic rights – the introduction of all manner of additional rights and claims serves to delegitimize and ultimately destroy our inalienable rights.

Fourth: I confess that I see nothing wrong with Muslims paying full price to have their statement of faith plastered in subway stations. I may be obtuse, but I don’t understand the offense that people are expressing. Preaching one’s religion, publicly or privately, is foundational to our rights in Canada.

Fifth: I usually agree with the sentiment, but not the methods, behind human rights initiatives. This one is no different. Employers should not be asking for access to private social networking sites of prospective employees. That’s about as intrusive as asking for last year’s tax return or a list of the websites visited in the past week. Using the human rights apparatus to enforce this is, though, not what I would recommend.

Advertisements

10 Responses to The Lynch List, 30-Apr-2012

  1. Bubby says:

    Weird… what is it about Terry Tremaine’s white supremacism that offends you compared to the many white supremacists you openly admire, such as Blazing Cat Fur, etc….

    Speaking of which…. I was trolling over at the whtie supremacist Taki’s Magazine and this article reminded me of you (although you have probably read it, considering it appeared in said white supremacist magazine:

    http://takimag.com/article/anders_breivik_too_sane_for_comfort_nicholas_farrell#axzz1tZ5CBlzh

    He makes the same arguments that you make about not being insane (ie. disliking the term homophobic) just because of your rabid hatred of gays. I’m sure you also get all uppity about people calling Brevik insane, since his assessment of the world’s current geopolotical state is basically identical to yours (though admittedly not your respective presciptions). Anway, enjoy!

  2. Bubby says:

    PS. And not that anyone should be surprised, but your point #1 is just plain factually incorrect (which is the case with almost everything you post here, since the real point is to disseminate propaganda in favour of legalizing discrimination based on race, not to actually provide accurate information). The appeals court had ruled that ignoring the order of any quasi-judicial tribunal can constitute contempt of court. That was the extent of the ruling and no one who has any knowledge at all about legal issues would be the slightest bit surprises at that. As is obvious, tribunal sentencing powers are no where close to “limitless”. But again, accuracy and truth are not what you are trying to get at here..

    Of course, point number 2 is just stupid, as the vast majority of people would rightly feel their dignity were injured were they to be fired because strictly because of, for example, the color of their skin. You wouldn’t understand this since you think firing people based on their race or based on being gay is the most moral action one can pursue – and is so central to human morality that our entire sociaety should be organized around taht very principle.

    Third – yes, academics believe this, as do teh vast majority of people in the world. That is because most people like having rights, and don’t want to stripped of all their rights except for property, as you advocate (as this would lead to the vast majority of the world having no rights whatsoever, and their very lives being at teh mercy of those with property).

    Five – you have nothing to recommend here, because this result – teh ability of employers to claim complete control over all aspects of the livse of their employees – is the exact result you advocate for.

  3. Point #1 is borne out by the OHRT’s conduct in Carasco v University of Windsor, in which the Tribunal bristled at the University’s complaint that overriding their faculty dean selection amounts to interference in academic freedom.

    The Tribunal replied that the Code enables it to levy whatever remedy it deems fit, with no restrictions whatsoever. Full stop. Damn the Charter.

    And the federal court has ruled that such remedies will be backed by a contempt of court charge if not followed through. I hoped that they would recognize the opportunity for abuse afforded by the lack of safeguards in the legislation.

    I’ll respond to any other reasonable objections if you have any.

  4. Bubby says:

    I read each of the six interim decisions in that case, and, completely unsurprisingly, none of them say anything even close to what you claim. An interim remedy was ordered obligating the university to stop a job search for a dean while proceedings were ongoing. Which was, of course, related to the ultimate remedy being sought – which was with rsepect to the dean position. Thus, the remedy was related to the complaint – discrimination with respect to that particular job. The tribunal could only order a remedy directly related to complaint of discrimination, as is always the case. There is not a lawyer in the world who would interpret that case the way you did.

    So, as is always the case, you are a liar, or else you are too stupid to accurately read a tribunal decision.

    As I already mentioned before, I personally think you are just lying. After all, this website obviously does not strive for truth or accuracy, but is just a crass propaganda site trying to advance your goal of reimposing an anti-gay apartheid.

  5. Bubby says:

    Also… I think its entirely reasonable to ask you to explain why you favour some white supremacists over others. Its confusing. Is it because the white supremacists you support focus their hatred mostly on Muslims? That would make the most sense.

  6. The Ontario Human Rights Code section 45.2(1)3: “An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.” (emphasis mine)

    in Carasco v. University of Windsor, 2010 HRTO 1968:

    “The University submits that granting the Request [to cease and desist from appointing a new dean] would be an onerous intervention into the University’s governance”

    …yet the Tribunal retains the power (which it did not exercise) to do just that.

    This one is even more compelling, since the University at this point has not been found to have done anything wrong – and yet the Tribunal arrogates the power to suspend appointment of a new dean.

    I won’t respond to any of your fairy tales because they are bald-faced lies intended solely to smear me and waste my time. You have a delicious sense of irony in calling me a liar.

  7. Bubby says:

    Bolding a word in the middle of a sentence while ignoring the remainder of the sentence which qualifies that word is pretty stupid, even for you. The remainder of the sentence – the qualifying part that vastly restricts the scope of available remedies – reads “that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act.” So teh remedies available are those that promote compliance with the respondent’s legal obligations. Again, if you tried to summarize that case the way taht you did in front of a judge, they would probably hold you in contempt for gross misrepresentation. And so taht you are aware, interim judgments meant to preserve the feasibility of a final judgment while an action is ongoing are common in many tribunals and in the courts themselves. It is standard fare.

    I don’t need to lie to smear you. You are a dispicable person who has devoted their life to legalizing discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, and you are willign to grossly misrepresent and lie about anything in your zeal towards that goal.

  8. Bubby says:

    At any rate, you must be celebrating today, as your side has won a graet victory. The Christian brownshirts of the Republican Party have forced out Romney’s national security advisor for the sole reason that he is gay – the exact result your advocacy hopes for. Yet more evidence that right-wing Christians won’t rest until gays and lesbians are re-excluded from soceity and forced back into teh closet. So again, you must be very pleased.

  9. Bubby says:

    Thought you might be interested in this one:

    http://sumofus.org/campaigns/hyatt/?sub=fb

    It seems like a good opportunity for you to mock and ridicule vulnerable employees who were humiliated and then fired by their employer.

  10. […] THE LYNCH MOB– The Lynch List, 30-Apr-2012; and The Lynch List, 23-Apr-2012 … […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: