Sunday21
-
Posts
5436 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by Sunday21
-
-
Yep this case is really interesting! It is a good example of Tort law extending statute law to an extreme.
Under French employment law the company is responsible for the employee’s safety during the entire business trip even when the employee is not working. So if you sent an employee to a war zone, then the employee would be covered once they had finished work and were returning home. If the employee was shot or kidnapped in this situation then they would be covered.
The court decided that sex is a normal part of everyday life and thus the fact that he was engaged in this activity should not negate the general principle. Normally you would expect an unusual departure from previous uses of the law to be overturned upon appeal but this decision came from an appeals court! But companies obviously will not like this result and companies have deep pockets and patience so let’s see what happens.
-
8 hours ago, Traveler said:
Like @prisonchaplain I am concerned - I know a young man that following law school, became a prosecuting attorney specializing in domestic abuse (including child pron). He has become cynical, critical, angry and generally not pleasant to be around.
The Traveler
My niece closely resembles an angel. Mind you no one in the family can watch scary programs like CSI, the men included. My niece insisted that we watch this show of which she was a huge fan. We were all quite frightened.
Maybe these crime shows have made her blasé?
-
On 9/10/2019 at 1:28 PM, Vort said:
I'll echo the MYOB statements, and also add that when her records get transferred into the ward, the bishop will know immediately how old she is (and probably her family composition, too). Don't worry about it.
Are you sure about this? I had a bishop who told me it was time to look for a husband. He told me that as I was x age it was time. Well that age had passed me by many years previously! I had recently joined the ward.
I suspect that they had a group of single people in that age and he was encouraging everyone in that cohort. So I am not sure that bishops necessarily see those records. Perhaps record clerks see that info.
-
1 hour ago, Fether said:
But it’s a similar concept right? Blacks were enslaved so they are a protected minority?
We have a list of grounds which includes race. So blacks are a race that were historically disadvantaged in Canada therefore they are a protected group. I am not sure what is going on in the US.
Specifically I am not sure that the rights outlined in US federal legislation provides additional rights to us employees working in us private companies
-
3 minutes ago, Fether said:
This is the equivalent of the USA’s White Privilege topic right?
The historically disadvantaged concept is actually part of the legislation.
-
20 hours ago, Vort said:
I'm just happy to see there's no stereotyping going on here. In Canada, that would be illegal. You might get fined.
Nope. Only for prolonged public hate speech. Also the victim would likely need to have been historically disadvantaged in Canada.
-
18 hours ago, SilentOne said:
When did that end?
2015 they promised to stop. They used to send stalkers to clubs to find attractive people. Also told someone with a disability to hide in the backroom
-
Okay here we go! The federal laws work very differently than in Canada. In Canada, the federal laws govern employees and bleed down to the provinces. The provincial laws can give employees more rights but not less
But in the States...
Employment discrimination or harassment in the private sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly give their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal government's authority to regulate a private business, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only address discriminatory treatment by the government, including a public employer
I am beginning to see why American executives who come up to run their Canadian divisions are so confused. The typical scenario is that the us executive runs around yelling loudly for a couple of months and then flies home. The next highest ranking person left in Canada then walks around apologizing profusely to the Canadian staff while everything gets back to normal.
Anyway, thanks everyone. I learnt a lot.
-
5 hours ago, Vort said:
So this is not about your efforts to understand US law and the way Americans think. This is about you wanting your unruly southern neighbors to be less offensive by being more like you
Well I think we all hope that others will come around to see the world as we see it. We do worry about you guys.
-
Actually looking at this list of federal protected classes for the USA, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States
1) This is a very extensive list!
2) This list protects people that we do not protect
eg bankruptcy and bad debts. In my province employers can request a credit report.
- genetic information. Very useful,
3j I wonder if these laws bleed down to the states with a principle of greater benefit? eg you can give more employee rights at a lower level (state) but not less than the federal.
-
On 9/13/2019 at 12:54 PM, Vort said:
Then Canadian citizens are not free.
If Americans were a protected class, you would be fined for saying what you said above. But it's okay, because you won't go to jail. (Until your courts decide that you will go to jail, at which time you will go to jail.)
God bless the USA.
We were discussing in class in the case of Abercrombie & Finch who formerly had a policy of hiring attractive people to staff their stores. I asked my students if this is legal in Canada. The answer is yes because ‘Ugly’ is not a prohibited ground. If you are of Irish descent, you can be discriminated against on the basis of ‘Irish ness’ because the Irish were not discriminated against in Canada. However, sometimes men have been able to obtain the protection under the law normally reserved for women which in the power of tort law extends protection to men generally. For example a man saw an ad that advertised for a female server. He was able to successfully sue although was not nor had never a server and had no interest in being a server. I understand the judges’s point. If I was forbidden to journey to a particular location in Canada. Why restrict freedom without a good reason?
-
I was amazed that the little girl who used to sit in my lap and hit me with the table napkins could be so tough!
-
1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:
To grossly over-simplify, Canada has agreed to religious pluralism and that government and society are secular. The Trinity Western University case is a great example. Government determined that law schools will not be credentialed if they require students to sign morality covenants deemed anti-LGBT. In the U.S. we would have had incredible heartburn over that, and probably would continue to fight and struggle, much as we continue to do so with abortion 47 years after Roe v. Wade. TWU told me it had moved on, and basically said they lost one program, but still run 59 others quite well.
So...should government actively try to mold people's thinking to hate racism to the point of criminalizing speech and other communication? Our First Amendment to our Constitution says no. Further, many fear that government (often controlled by one party or the other) might use such powers to steer citizens (including school children) towards a particular ideology.
It is not really that anyone here wants to support or promote racism--just that we do not want to empower government to restrict ideological communications, except that which directly and overtly leads to violence.
Thanks @prisonchaplain Thanks! I am surprised that you think that your government might form a mob against you. I think that this must be an effect of living in a larger vs a smaller country. Anyway thanks everyone. I learned a deeper understanding of our differences. This is very useful to me as I often teach Americans.
-
Okay meet here in 20 years! We can review employment law! I will bring the Cheeto’s!
-
@Vort Canadian citizens can think whatever they like but they cannot for prolonged period of time, publicly denounce a particular group.
We will not jail you but you may have to pay a fine. But at least I know this. Now I know why my American students look a little uncomfortable. Actually some of them behave a little strangely too at times. Immediately after this lecture, they sometimes act out by stealing something from another student or being extremely rude to another student. Perhaps they are vexed and are working off their animosity.
-
20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
A start to what???
See... you think your way is the best way. You don't entertain at all the possibility that the USA (or any other way) is the better way. Now imagine you being in charge of government.
Be fair. You also feel that your way is the best way.
There is sometimes but not always a tendency to give employees more rights in affluent countries. When it became common for European countries to have anti-bullying/anti harassment laws, Canada also began in enacting laws like this province by province. At conferences, international groups would discuss these laws and I attended these meetings. The Americans said that such laws would never have such laws. The Americans were not happy about this because they studied stress, absenteeism and turnover. The Americans would sadly read the comments and decisions of judges, important because these comments and judgements mold the law. The judges would be absolutely scathing. I remember one judge saying something like ‘ workplaces should not become a showplace for civility’
And ‘why ever not?’ I wanted to ask. Anyhoo, less than a decade later those American researchers are getting happier and happier because states either have anti bullying regulations, are moving towards them or as the us researchers say ‘ there are hopeful indications in recent lawsuits’.
-
Here we go. If this is accurate many countries have hate speech laws but not US. Learn something new everyday! But...in us you cannot preach immediate violence against a particular group! It’s a start!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
-
Yep. Protected status US employment law. Looks similar to Canada but we have a longer list
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States
-
16 minutes ago, Fether said:
I don’t speak for everyone, but I’m not scared of the government. I’m scared of the mob. You allow mob mentality to rule anywhere and then the minority has no hope at all. This is prevented by things like freedom of speech and the electoral college. The people run the government, the government makes the laws, the police enforce the law. The moment the government can start policing certain language is the moment the mob decides what is ok to say which only leads to more mob strength.
So no, I’m not scared of the government. I’m scared of any mob voice.
I teach prohibited grounds every term and most of the time, students just nod and say ‘Of course’. Sometimes I explain that this is an attempt to change society. I do not know this is the reason it is just a guess.
American employment law as per the Wikipedia info pasted above does have ‘protected status’. I don’t know about other states but california’s list of prohibited grounds, or whatever term is used there, is pretty close to ours.
Okay certain persons in this thread may disagree but sure looks to me like the concept of protected demographic groups exists in your country.
Would it really be legal in the US to have, for example, a radio show that regularly denigrated black people? I do not mean something indirect like a show that denigrates rappers most of whom are black.
-
6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
It an understanding of History thing... You were taught about Hitler Right? He did not cause all the evil and pain and sorrow he did because of the power he had as an individual... He caused it because he got the power of the government. And as he was coming to power I am sure many of the people he later hurt didn't think the government would be coming after them either.... until it did. Thus the American Freedom view is about curbing government power as much as possible. That way if and when the next Hitler tries to come to power... there is no real power for him to have. His power is limited, his power is checked.
Now you might just say... well don't elect the next Hitler... How is that working for you? You are asking which one you should vote for... figure out which one is most likely to abuse governmental power yet?
Confess cannot follow this. But the rule is that once we use the H word, things have fallen into such a shambles, that one should withdraw. Right?
-
5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
This is not a Regional Thing. This is the natural attitude of Free people. Canadians (Quebecans are a different breed) have a history of Anti-Americanism (I have a video outlining this history if you are interested) such that it has become a cultural norm in Canada to decry Freedom because it's too "American".
Okay, let me just outline why we cringe at what you say (I'm not American - I'm Filipino. I still cringe at this.)... You just called Tories racists. Now, racism in Canada, is hate speech. You basically just called for all Tories to be criminals. And it won't take but one charismatic person to decide to put all Tories to the gallows and you wouldn't complain because... they're racists!
The media and many other personalities have repeatedly called Trump supporters, not only Hitler, but WORSE than Hitler. World War II happened to KILL Hitler. Imagine if all these people were in charge of government.
Racism is not hate speech. To be hate speech needs to be extreme prolonged and public and continue past the point of many warnings. If you want to be nonpublic in your racism, fine.
-
7 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Just because you find it abhorrent doesn't mean you should run to your government to put people you abhor in jail. Because, you know what? There are a lot of people who think differently and find YOU abhorrent who can also then go to the government to put you in jail.
And that is why - you should not go to your government who has the guns to solve all your problems because when you give government power, they can use it against you. Hitler did not come to power because he grabbed power out of good people. He came into power because good people trusted their government.
This is an attitude that I find curious.’ because when you give government power, they can use it against you’
It would never occur to me that my government would have a conspiracy against me. The thought would never even begin to cross my mind. Not that I think that my government is honest. HELL NO! I just can’t see them showing up at my front door and asking for something. I guess some Americans have a distrust and animosity towards their government that I do not. Not that that attitude is unknown in my country. I speculate that Quebecers probably distrust the federa government as well.
Is this a regional thing? Do you have resources that you feel that the government would want to take away? Alberta gas for me. Or do you feel that your ethnic group might be a target?
-
So this is why I am wondering if this is a windup.
From wiki us employment law
ince the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all employing entities and labor unions have a duty to treat employees equally, without discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."[9] There are separate rules for sex discrimination in pay under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Additional groups with "protected status" were added by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. There is no federal law banning all sexual orientation or identity discrimination, but 22 states had passed laws by 2016. These equality laws generally prevent discrimination in hiring, terms of employment, and make discharge because of a protected characteristic unlawful
See that protected status above? Also California appears to have protected status for roughly the same groups of people that we consider being affected by prohibited grounds.
-
25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
Just because you find it abhorrent doesn't mean you should run to your government to put people you abhor in jail. Because, you know what? There are a lot of people who think differently and find YOU abhorrent who can also then go to the government to put you in jail.
And that is why - you should not go to your government who has the guns to solve all your problems because when you give government power, they can use it against you. Hitler did not come to power because he grabbed power out of good people. He came into power because good people trusted their government.
No one went to jail.
Canadian election
in General Discussion
Posted
Hysterically funny Human Rights humour!
I was buying a new battery and I asked the clerk how to attach it. He and a group of employees were explaining but the key thing to remember is that black is negative and red is positive.
To verify, I asked ‘ Black is negative?’ They solemnly assured me that this was the case.
I responded ‘That’s a lawsuit right there’
Cue raucous laughter.