Sign in to follow this  
Sunday21

Canadian election

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

historically disadvantaged

This is the equivalent of the USA’s White Privilege topic right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

The historically disadvantaged concept is actually part of the legislation.

But it’s a similar concept right? Blacks were enslaved so they are a protected minority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

We have a list of grounds which includes race. So blacks are are a race that were historically disadvantaged in Canada therefore they are protected group. I am not sure what is going on in the US.

Gotchya, I was just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

:evilbanana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 12:33 PM, Sunday21 said:

The historically disadvantaged concept is actually part of the legislation.

The traditional American picture of Lady Liberty looks like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s.jpg

Note the blindfold. When it comes to social status,  justice is blind.

American justice, that is. The Canadian version would have Lady Liberty peeking over her blindfold before using her scales. It's an image many Democrats in the US would support. You can denigrate a white man, because under Canadian law, he is simply less human than a non-white and/or non-male person.

Welcome to 21st century justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vort said:

The traditional American picture of Lady Liberty looks like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s.jpg

Note the blindfold. When it comes to social status,  justice is blind.

American justice, that is. The Canadian version would have Lady Liberty peeking over her blindfold before using her scales. It's an image many Democrats in the US would support. You can denigrate a white man, because under Canadian law, he is simply less human than a non-white and/or non-male person.

Welcome to 21st century justice.

Yes the concept of prohibited grounds explicitly gives more rights to specific groups. These specific groups have more protection under the law than others. California state law and us federal law same idea. An IT worker famously wrote an email complaining about this and also stating that women, as a class, were not as suited for it careers as were men. Quite a ruckus ensued. I can try to find the case if you are interested. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utah antidiscrimination law

What kinds of discrimination are against state law in Utah? The UtahAntidiscrimination Act makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age (40+), sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, childbirth, pregnancy-related conditions and disability from https://www.workplacefairness.org/file_UT

https://laborcommission.utah.gov/divisions/AntidiscriminationAndLabor/employment_discrimination.html

Hello @Vort ! What state did you say that you lived in? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Yes the concept of prohibited grounds explicitly gives more rights to specific groups. These specific groups have more protection under the law than others. California state law and us federal law same idea.

Nope. Not the same idea at all. American justice is blind to social status.

Is anyone else dismayed to see such a corrupt and patently unAmerican perversion of justice being blithely accepted by our northern neighbors?

17 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

An IT worker famously wrote an email complaining about this and also stating that women, as a class, were not as suited for it careers as were men. Quite a ruckus ensued. I can try to find the case if you are interested. 

You know not of what you speak. Please do find the case. When you do, you will discover that it bears little resemblance to your claim, though it's exactly the false narrative that the MSM wants you to have.

A Google software developer named James Damore was participating in a private discussion about Google hiring policies, assured by Google that he was free to speak his thoughts openly and candidly. So he did. He wrote a long post in which he argued that the preponderance of male software engineers over females was rooted, not in gender-based discrimination, but in the fact that fewer women chose to study computer science and programming. He further argued that women were generally less suited to such engineering roles due to differences in temperament and interests. A common enough belief, and not without studies backing it up.

Google's response? They fired him.

No one who loves liberty can view that situation with anything other than outrage. Yet to date, Google has not been made to account for its wrongful termination of Damore.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sunday21 said:

Hello @Vort ! What state did you say that you lived in

I said that I live in Washington state.

Your example laws are meaningless. You keep citing laws that prohibit employment discrimination, as if they were relevant. They are not. They do not, in your words, give more rights to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sunday21 said:

This is the latest info I find on James D. If you have anything more recent, or from a better source I would be interested

https://gizmodo.com/google-fails-to-have-lawsuit-originally-brought-by-jame-1835351078

Then do you concede the point that your characterization of the matter was completely wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vort Have to get to profy stuff. But thank you for your interest. If I could possibly interest my students in the same way I would be delighted! Feel free to keep going and I will try to keep up. I have to move slowly as I have a serious illness and a full time job, but feel free to keep going. What is more interesting than employment law?

By the way, employees can be fired for activity away from work (in both of our countries) so if James had posted the same info on his Facebook page, he could have been fired for that. Every summer a teacher or cop is fired for moonlighting as a stripper (or maybe it just seems that way to me).

By the way, have you heard of a tv show called the Guild? Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Utah antidiscrimination law

What kinds of discrimination are against state law in Utah? The UtahAntidiscrimination Act makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age (40+), sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, childbirth, etc.

So, for example  it is illegal in Utah to fire someone because he's a man. It is illegal to refuse to hire someone because she's white. This is rather the opposite of what you have been claiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Utah antidiscrimination law

What kinds of discrimination are against state law in Utah? The UtahAntidiscrimination Act makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age (40+), sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, childbirth, pregnancy-related conditions and disability from https://www.workplacefairness.org/file_UT

https://laborcommission.utah.gov/divisions/AntidiscriminationAndLabor/employment_discrimination.html

Hello @Vort ! What state did you say that you lived in? 

I’ll repeat what Vort said just to drive it home. There are no laws that favor or support any minority/majority in the country. Only laws that make it illegal to discriminate in ANY fashion. White or black, male or female. We have no “historically disadvantaged” concepts in our law. It is equally illegal for me to fire someone because they are a straight white male as it is for me to fire a black trans gender Muslim.

The concept of “discrimination” is different between us just as it is different between the left and the right here in the USA.

to many far left liberals and, from what it seems, Canadians, discrimination can only occur to minority or “disadvantaged” groups.

In the USA, discrimination can happen to anyone, even us at the top of the “privilege” pole. The straight white christian republican male.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Fether said:

In the USA, discrimination can happen to anyone, even us at the top of the “privilege” pole. The straight white christian republican male.

Let's hear it for the Irish - straight, white, Christian, male.... historically persecuted in Europe, the USA,  and Canada... in the USA would have the same rights as an androsexual, black, wiccan, transman... in Canada would have less rights than everybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Let's hear it for the Irish - straight, white, Christian, male.... historically persecuted in Europe, the USA,  and Canada... in the USA would have the same rights as an androsexual, black, wiccan, transman... in Canada would have less rights than everybody else.

Maybe I should just move to South Africa in a couple decades. I’m sure after all this murdering and landsiezing that is happening to the whites, we will be worshipped as a “disadvantaged” race... or since a disadvantaged race is doing all the killing, will it just get erased from history?

Im also waiting for my pay check from the British for disadvantaging us Protestants/Americans long before we Americans enslaved the blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

So, for example  it is illegal in Utah to fire someone because he's a man. It is illegal to refuse to hire someone because she's white. This is rather the opposite of what you have been claiming.

From Gizmodo article above: 

I think [Damore’s] odds are terrible,” AJ Bhowmik, managing partner at San Diego’s Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik law firm, told MarketWatch soon after the filing. “The judge will absolutely consider the facts. We’re moving in an upside down world where an individual can claim discrimination for being a white male” when Google is disproportionately staffed with both whites and males. 

“It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of free speech,” Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP chairman David Sanford told Forbes in 2017. “...What [employees] don’t have the right to do is say any stupid thing that pops into their head. For conservatives to say they’re ‘shocked, shocked,’ they should look at the constitution and some case law.” Cole Schotz litigation department special counsel Neoma Ayala told Forbes that in Damore’s memo, “If you replaced ‘woman’ with ‘black person,’ we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.”

Normally, Human Rights Law protects the ’protected group’ eg black people but does not protect the general population eg white people BUT and this is a big BUT, judges could decide to extend to the general population. For example, the man who was offended by an ad for a female server. The judge extended this right to the male complaintant. 

Looking at the comments from the article above it seems that Rights are normally not extended to the general population in the states. This is only my inference however from reading this article .

As we know law involves both statute and tort law. Tort law is based both on statute law and on tort so the only people who know what’s going  on  are those who follow cases very closely. Even if one follows the law very closely judgements can be a surprise which is why, as the saying goes: If it gets to court, you have lost. 

It will be interested to see the outcome of this case! But the case can be overturned on appeal and subsequent judges may interpret the law slightly differently. Judges cannot go too far off the rails thought or their judgements will be overturned on appeal.

So many things can happen. For example if the case is settled out of court, this result may not be a part of tort law.

Another interesting wrinkle, would the judge deciding this case be elected? In C, judges are not elected but appointed so this procedure likely affects the outcomes of trials. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fether said:

I’ll repeat what Vort said just to drive it home. There are no laws that favor or support any minority/majority in the country. Only laws that make it illegal to discriminate in ANY fashion. White or black, male or female. We have no “historically disadvantaged” concepts in our law. It is equally illegal for me to fire someone because they are a straight white male as it is for me to fire a black trans gender Muslim.

The concept of “discrimination” is different between us just as it is different between the left and the right here in the USA.

to many far left liberals and, from what it seems, Canadians, discrimination can only occur to minority or “disadvantaged” groups.

In the USA, discrimination can happen to anyone, even us at the top of the “privilege” pole. The straight white christian republican male.

Are you sure? Looking at the sections that I posted from the article, it seems that only ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘protected’ people can be discriminated against. In C only those who fall under ‘prohibited grounds’ can be discriminated against which is why I am wondering. 

Here we go! Reverse discrimination. So it seems that you can claim discrimination if you are part of the dominant group.

https://brobertsonlaw.com/reverse-discrimination/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know. There is this policy of Affirmative Action: 

National Summary
What is affirmative action?
An affirmative action program (AAP) is a management tool designed to ensure equal opportunity in recruiting, hiring, training, promoting, and compensating individuals.
A good AAP is a diagnostic tool that evaluates the composition of the workforce, compares that with the composition of the relevant labor pool, and then includes practical steps to address underrepresentation of specific groups.
This policy sounds a bit like Employment Equity, here in Canada. Under EE, companies that have contracts with the Government over a certain size have to report the % of this staff in 4 categories: women, disabled, aboriginals. Visible minorities. If the % of those in the company are less than % in the local population then the company needs to commit to increasing these percentages by a certain time. The company provides a schedule.
But! The devil is in the details! It is entirely possible that the laws are not routinely enforced unless there is a lawsuit. I know for certain that no one in my university is keeping track of % of disabled. I know because the questionnaire that was sent out to assess had fields that did not work. I pointed this out and got Avery rude response from HR employee. I raised this issue at a higher level and received a profuse apology but the survey was never resent. Likely I am the only person who opened the survey!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fether said:

Maybe I should just move to South Africa in a couple decades. I’m sure after all this murdering and landsiezing that is happening to the whites, we will be worshipped as a “disadvantaged” race... or since a disadvantaged race is doing all the killing, will it just get erased from history?

Im also waiting for my pay check from the British for disadvantaging us Protestants/Americans long before we Americans enslaved the blacks.

Not sure moving to S A will help

Affirmative action falls under the Employment Equity Act. In South Africaaffirmative action makes sure that qualified designated groups (black people, women and people with disabilities) have equal opportunities to get a job. They must also be equally represented in all job categories and levels of the workplace.

https://mywage.co.za/decent-work/fair-treatment/affirmative-action

Once you have a policy which says that blacks must be equally represented at all levels, this suggested that formerly predominately white companies need to start hiring blacks over whites.

BUT it all depends on how the law is enforced. If companies need to meet certain standards before obtaining a contact from the government then this is a level of enforcement. The government may not do anything to companies that do not have these contracts. 

How the law is interpreted and enforced really determines what can be done. In Ontario, we passed a law to reduce violence in the workplace, the effects of domestic violence affecting employees at work, and bullying. The part of the law which has been rigorously enforced is the violence part. Even very indirect threats count and are severely punished. In addition, certain sectors of the economy can collectively approach the government and beg for a separate deal. You never know where the law will take you. Statute law is part of the puzzle but it depends on the details which brings us to the messy reality of tort law.

Tort law reminds me of anatomy class. You look at the picture in the textbook and it all looks so clear. The liver is there. The heart is here. How hard can it be? And then you open up the body and what a mess! 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

From Gizmodo article above: 

I think [Damore’s] odds are terrible,” AJ Bhowmik, managing partner at San Diego’s Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik law firm, told MarketWatch soon after the filing. “The judge will absolutely consider the facts. We’re moving in an upside down world where an individual can claim discrimination for being a white male” when Google is disproportionately staffed with both whites and males. 

“It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of free speech,” Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP chairman David Sanford told Forbes in 2017. “...What [employees] don’t have the right to do is say any stupid thing that pops into their head. For conservatives to say they’re ‘shocked, shocked,’ they should look at the constitution and some case law.” Cole Schotz litigation department special counsel Neoma Ayala told Forbes that in Damore’s memo, “If you replaced ‘woman’ with ‘black person,’ we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.”

Normally, Human Rights Law protects the ’protected group’ eg black people but does not protect the general population eg white people BUT and this is a big BUT, judges could decide to extend to the general population. For example, the man who was offended by an ad for a female server. The judge extended this right to the male complaintant. 

Looking at the comments from the article above it seems that Rights are normally not extended to the general population in the states. This is only my inference however from reading this article .

As we know law involves both statute and tort law. Tort law is based both on statute law and on tort so the only people who know what’s going  on  are those who follow cases very closely. Even if one follows the law very closely judgements can be a surprise which is why, as the saying goes: If it gets to court, you have lost. 

It will be interested to see the outcome of this case! But the case can be overturned on appeal and subsequent judges may interpret the law slightly differently. Judges cannot go too far off the rails thought or their judgements will be overturned on appeal.

So many things can happen. For example if the case is settled out of court, this result may not be a part of tort law.

Another interesting wrinkle, would the judge deciding this case be elected? In C, judges are not elected but appointed so this procedure likely affects the outcomes of trials. 

 

 

I think you're missing the point on what we're saying here.  You're pointing out left leaning articles as if they're a good thing.  We're pointing out these articles as an example of unconstitutionality.  The law specifically states one cannot discriminate based on certain immutable characteristics as specified in the Civil Rights Act.

And that's why one of the main reasons Trump was elected President is due to the people's desire to put Constitutional Judges on the Fed Courts once again.  The fed courts - especially the 9th Circuit which covers California - have been usurped by Canadian-style judges.  These judges have made the justice department legislators from their benches... creating law where none is present.  It became so bad they've become a meme... 

The Civil Rights Act DOES NOT allow discrimination nor preference (which is the same as discrimination) for certain immutable characteristics.  It is just as illegal for an employer to not hire somebody because he's black as it is to not hire somebody because he's white.  Therefore, "Diversity Quotas" are actually very blatantly unconstitutional.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

From Gizmodo article above: 

As a rule, Gizmodo is a terrible source for understanding or interpreting law.

Blindfolded justice, Sunday21. It's the only justice. Anything else is injustice.

You seem to have gone from arguing what's "fair" to instead arguing what the courts do. What the courts do is often wrong. I'm concerned about what's right. Saying "I can fire YOU because you're merely a white man, but I can't fire YOU because you're a protected black transsexual" is the very opposite of just. If the law protects one, it must protect the other. If it does not, then you have an unjust, corrupt police state, which is apparently what Canada has become.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this