Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Seriously, what the heck is going on in Canada?
Can the “human rights” crowd really get any worse? They are a laughing stock world-wide now. The patients are really in charge of the asylum now.
Man misses out on reincarnated dog, rights complaint
By: Bethany Lindsay, ctvbc.ca
Date: Monday Mar. 21, 2011 9:00 AM PT
A man denied the chance to adopt the dog he believed was the reincarnation of a dead pet will not have his case heard before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
Shao Lee filed a complaint against Better Life Dog Rescue claiming the Vancouver-area rescue society discriminated against him because of his "political and spiritual beliefs" when it rejected his 2009 application to adopt a specific dog. He said he was told that he was declined because of inappropriate views in his application, including the reincarnation claims.
Lee -- a self-described "anti-war and anti-racism activist" -- had never actually met the animal that he believed was the re-embodiment of his deceased dog.
But Better Life's Janet Olson told the tribunal that an inspection of Lee's home revealed he was "nocturnal and reclusive" and would not be able to give the dog the exercise it needed. In his application, he said that he rarely left his apartment and could not walk or run for long periods.
She said the society offered him the chance to adopt a less active dog, but he declined.
"Mr. Lee was not rejected. His application to adopt was in fact met with interest," Bernd Walter, the acting chairman of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, wrote in the decision to dismiss Lee's complaint.
"His home was considered suitable for a different dog, whose temperament and energy was, rightly or wrongly, considered a better match for Mr. Lee's own description of his lifestyle and activity levels."
This nutter claims to be a “anti-war and anti-racism activist”. Just more proof that “anti-racism” is really mental AIDS.
Read the entire BC “Human Rights” Tribunal decision here: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2011/pdf/march/71_Lee_v_A_Better_Life_Dog_Rescue_Society_and_others_2011_BCHRT_71.pdf Just imagine how much tax-payers money was wasted on this joke of a complaint. Not to mention all the stress caused to non-profit animal rescue society.
… and accompanying this story. What’s the most read news item on the CTV website at this hour?
Man who plead guilty to having sex with horse released from prison
MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — A man who twice pleaded guilty to having sex with a horse has been released from prison after 16 months and ordered to stay away from the stable where the animal lives.
Probation officials said Monday that Rodell Vereen, 51, was let out of prison March 1.
Vereen must complete two years of probation or he will have to finish the five-year sentence he received in November 2009 after pleading guilty to buggery and trespassing. The Sun-News of Myrtle Beach first reported Vereen's release.
Vereen was arrested after the owner of the horse staked out her stable and caught Vereen sneaking inside. She held him at gunpoint until police arrived.
The owner said she spent several nights in the barn after catching Vereen having sex with the animal on surveillance tapes. She feared he had returned because her horse was acting strange and getting infections again. She also noticed dirt and hay piled up near the horse's stall in Longs, about 20 miles (30 kilometres) northeast of Myrtle Beach.
Vereen was caught having sex with the same horse in late 2007 and was on probation from that incident when he was arrested a second time, authorities said.
WTF is going on in Canada? It’s no wonder we call this place Absurdastan.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Section 13 a "vague prohibition is all the more chilling as it is enforced by professional human rights experts" - Shanoff
Interesting article mentioning the censorship provision - Section 13 of the Canadian ”Human Rights” Act.
Section 13: “This vague prohibition is all the more chilling as it is enforced by professional human rights experts rather than judges, procedural safeguards are few and there is no defence of either truth or reasonably held opinion.”
Let real judges decide hate cases: Shanoff
Our top court has shown us once again why we should remove group hate speech laws from the so-called human rights experts.
More importantly, the fact someone “feels humiliated, sad or frustrated is not a sufficient basis for an action in defamation.”
Having recognized freedom of expression trumps groups from seeking financial compensation for feelings of humiliation, isn’t it time to address the human rights code counterpart to group defamation lawsuits?
I’m referring to the often criticized section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and its provincial counterparts which prohibit various forms of communications that are “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
This vague prohibition is all the more chilling as it is enforced by professional human rights experts rather than judges, procedural safeguards are few and there is no defence of either truth or reasonably held opinion.
Several cases appealing human rights tribunal decisions in hate speech cases are winding their way through the courts, but for now the proper application of the law is in a state of uncertainty leading to practical restraints on freedom of expression.
Our elected officials have the power to reform these overly broad hate speech laws but there doesn’t seem to be any political will to do so, leaving the heavy lifting ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada.
And let’s not forget that, even as a Pakistani governor was murdered in January after speaking out against his country’s blasphemy laws, our very own criminal laws make it an offence, punishable by up to two years in prison, to publish a blasphemous libel. Never mind that the last blasphemy prosecution took place about 75 years ago, the fact this outdated law remains on our books is an insult and there’s no guarantee a future charge is impossible.
Inciting hatred and advocating or promoting violence against identifiable groups should be and are criminal offences. Those charged are tried by judges and have the full protection of the criminal law with its heavy burden of proof, but in all other “group” cases freedom of expression should prevail.
[SEE FULL ARTICLE AT: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/alan_shanoff/2011/02/25/17412331.html]