Sign in to follow this  
Sunday21

Canadian election

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

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

Yes, yes you can. Discrimination is discrimination. No one is exempt.

Are you telling me that if I walk into a restaurant and the owner refuses to serve me because I am white and male, that that is not discrimination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scottyg said:

Yes, yes you can. Discrimination is discrimination. No one is exempt.

Are you telling me that if I walk into a restaurant and the owner refuses to serve me because I am white and male, that that is not discrimination?

That is exactly what Sunday21 is telling you. In her own words, some groups have more rights than others. In other words, the Canadian government explicitly and intentionally ranks people according to classes, then gives special privileges to certain classes.

Canada has long been proud of their connections to the Great Britain. This is simply another example of Canada's close connection to colonial-era England's love of social stratification. Canada despises America precisely because Americans disbelieve in such social stratification codified under law.

Share this post


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

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.

I would never claim fairness as a justification for any laws. Laws are not fair. 

I teach employment law and thus am only concerned with what courts do. You know the saying about ‘things that you don’t want to see made’: laws and sausages. Lots of compromise and lobbying goes into the making of statute law. Then along comes tort law and things go really crazy. 

One of the points that James D made was that if he walked into the HR department, he would be treated a lot less sympathetically than a woman who did the same thing. Such an outcome is the intention of Canadian Human Rights Law, and James is claiming that the same things occur in the States. Perhaps he is right.

Every year, I ask students under which circumstances, they can legally ignore a direct order at work, students tend to respond that they can ignore an order if the order would cause something unethical to occur. Not true. Ethics have nothing to do with it.

Share this post


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

Yes, yes you can. Discrimination is discrimination. No one is exempt.

Are you telling me that if I walk into a restaurant and the owner refuses to serve me because I am white and male, that that is not discrimination?

Well...in Canadian Employment Law, you can only be discriminated against if you belong to a group represented under prohibited grounds. Not sure how this works in the states. 

I know nothing whatever about US or Canadian consumer law.

In the US there are laws that outlaw denying service based on race etc.  This is statute law. The question is, how are these laws interpreted? - tort law.

There  are golf clubs that do not allow female members. From this article it seems that they do so by denying memberships to women.

https://www.si.com/golf/2019/07/01/private-golf-clubs-muirfield-augusta-women-discrimination

Back to employment law! 

in Canada, it is almost impossible to become a counsellor for alcoholics unless you have been an alcoholic. This is an issue of Bone Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR). Similarly, Organizations can decide that you need to be Jewish to work in a Jewish community Centre. 

So could you limit a job to white males using BFOR? I think so. Is there some affliction that tends to afflict white males? Quite likely. In this case, counselors for this affliction could be restricted to white males using BFOR.

Share this post


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

Well...in Canadian Employment Law, you can only be discriminated against if you belong to a group represented under prohibited grounds. Not sure how this works in the states. 

I know nothing whatever about US or Canadian consumer law.

In the US there are laws that outlaw denying service based on race etc.  This is statute law. The question is, how are these laws interpreted? - tort law.

There  are golf clubs that do not allow female members. From this article it seems that they do so by denying memberships to women.

https://www.si.com/golf/2019/07/01/private-golf-clubs-muirfield-augusta-women-discrimination

Back to employment law! 

in Canada, it is almost impossible to become a counsellor for alcoholics unless you have been an alcoholic. This is an issue of Bone Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR). Similarly, Organizations can decide that you need to be Jewish to work in a Jewish community Centre. 

So could you limit a job to white males using BFOR? I think so. Is there some affliction that tends to afflict white males? Quite likely. In this case, counselors for this affliction could be restricted to white males using BFOR.

Makes sense, but just doesn't sit well with me. I guess I will not be moving to Canada anytime soon.

Share this post


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

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.

This isn't true at all.    I work for a consulting engineering firm for highway (and previously airport work).   In the US people are referred to as "disadvantaged individuals" and there are plenty of laws that favor or support minorities (and women).

In order for states to receive federal highway funds, according to Federal Law, States must hire construction companies that commit to hiring minorities and women as well as using a designated percentage of subcontractors that are a "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise".   Such businesses must be owned by a minority or woman or no contract item.

Perhaps it could be argued that the Feds really aren't forcing the states to obey the law, if states want Federal Highway money (which is about half of all road funds), they must by law meet the requirements.

States are allowed to set their own laws and goals, but they must fit within Federal Law.  The Federal Law is long and complex, so I'll just use the Colorado DBE requirement as an example since the requirements are summed up in one paragraph.   Here is the qualification for being considered a DBE:

A firm must be at least 51% owned and controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Women, Black Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic, Asian-Pacific Americans, Subcontinent Asian Americans, and other minorities found to be disadvantaged by the SBA are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged. Firms owned by individuals who are not members of one of the above presumptive groups may also apply for certification. Those individuals must make an individual showing of disadvantage pursuant to Appendix E of 49 CFR Part 26. Each individual whose ownership and control is relied upon for DBE certification must have a personal net worth that does not exceed $1.32 million. The individual’s ownership interest in the applicant firm and equity in their primary residence are not included in the net worth calculation.

https://www.codot.gov/business/civilrights/smallbusiness/dbe/eligible

All contractors must use a certain percentage (which changes depending on the project) of subcontractors who meet the above criteria.

In addition to using a designated percentage of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, prime contractors themselves are required to make efforts to hire minorities and women and interviews of employees are required for every contractor.   One of my jobs as a consultant is to conduct the interviews of those employees and to make sure contractors doing highway work are compliant with the law.  

If anyone is interested in the interview questions (it's a pretty simple interview) I have to ask, a link is below:

https://www.codot.gov/library/forms/cdot0280.pdf/view

It's a pretty short and easy interview, but the contractor can get in trouble if too many employees say that the contractor hasn't asked them (meaning all employees including white males) to refer minorities and women to job openings.  
 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scott said:

This isn't true at all.

The discussion wasn't about awarding construction contracts. It was about fining or otherwise legally penalizing people for saying insulting things about or to minorities that would be legal to say about or to non-minorities.  I am aware of no US law that codifies such legalized discrimination. Do you know of such a law?

Share this post


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

 Do you know of such a law?

No, I do not.

I'm just pointing out that there are US laws that do favor "disadvantaged individuals".  Hopefully you found that info interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 2:08 AM, Vort said:

The discussion wasn't about awarding construction contracts. It was about fining or otherwise legally penalizing people for saying insulting things about or to minorities that would be legal to say about or to non-minorities.  I am aware of no US law that codifies such legalized discrimination. Do you know of such a law?

@Vort People are only fined after years of cajoling, nagging, and probably pleading. Happens very very rarely as a last resort. 

Share this post


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

@Vort People are only fined after years of cajoling, nagging, and probably pleading. Happens very very rarely as a last resort. 

And you have no problem with a government punishing people simply for speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 1:21 PM, Vort said:

That is exactly what Sunday21 is telling you. In her own words, some groups have more rights than others. In other words, the Canadian government explicitly and intentionally ranks people according to classes, then gives special privileges to certain classes.

Canada has long been proud of their connections to the Great Britain. This is simply another example of Canada's close connection to colonial-era England's love of social stratification. Canada despises America precisely because Americans disbelieve in such social stratification codified under law.

Actually, our first source in crafting employment law is the US. We worry about you guys. There is quite a bit of intermarriage and most people that I know have visited the US and have positive experiences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And you have no problem with a government punishing people simply for speech?

No. We are running a condominium and we want people to feel safe and happy. 

Outside of employment law, I know nothing about the law. But there are libel and slander laws in both our countries? 

Okay. We have found a difference between US and Canadian culture. I am cool with hate speech law and you are not. Could we decide to find this an interesting difference in cultures? 

 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


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

No

I love your honesty, and I see it totally differently. 

I find it incredibly disturbing for the government to punish someone simply for speech. In fact, I find as morally reprehensible as racist/sexist speech.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I love your honesty, and I see it totally differently. 

I find it incredibly disturbing for the government to punish someone simply for speech. In fact, I find as morally reprehensible as racist/sexist speech.  

Ok. Interesting difference in cultures. Isn’t it nice that we found this out? 

I remember talking to an American female accountant who lived in Canada who was very angry that she could not conceal a handgun on her person. Now she had never owned a handgun, but the fact that she could not was disturbing.

The dinner party tried to explain why we felt that giving up handguns in our purses made us all safer. She was very unhappy.

But such differences just make us all more interesting right? Fluttering of eyelashes.

Are we not now a more interesting neighbor to have? 

Lets be honest. None of you were ever going to move here anyway, right? So really none of us have lost anything.

Your neighbors ro the north are just interesting and fascinating people.

Try to find us quirky and delightful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-quoting from a different thread...

15 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

These are two young women. Please France, send me more! 

Ugh... don't even get me started on the extremely asinine Canadian Politics that makes it a requirement for government people in positions of power to speak French...

 

Share this post


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

Ok. Interesting difference in cultures. Isn’t it nice that we found this out? 

I remember talking to an American female accountant who lived in Canada who was very angry that she could not conceal a handgun on her person. Now she had never owned a handgun, but the fact that she could not was disturbing.

The dinner party tried to explain why we felt that giving up handguns in our purses made us all safer. She was very unhappy.

But such differences just make us all more interesting right? Fluttering of eyelashes.

Are we not now a more interesting neighbor to have? 

Lets be honest. None of you were ever going to move here anyway, right? So really none of us have lost anything.

Your neighbors ro the north are just interesting and fascinating people.

Try to find us quirky and delightful!

The greatest problem with Canada is that the border between the USA and Canada was placed entirely in the wrong place - It should have gone north and south rather than east and west.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


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

No. We are running a condominium and we want people to feel safe and happy. 

Okay. We have found a difference between US and Canadian culture. I am cool with hate speech law and you are not. Could we decide to find this an interesting difference in cultures? 

 

Just for my information so we're on the same page, which of these 3 do you find worse?...saying something considered "hate speech", making an actual threat against someone, or actually physically harming them?

Share this post


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

Just for my information so we're on the same page, which of these 3 do you find worse?...saying something considered "hate speech", making an actual threat against someone, or actually physically harming them?

Clarify? 

1) saying something is hate speech. Is this the government having a law against hate speech? My current Canadian law is fine with me. In fact admirable policy.

2) Is this an individual making a threat of violence against another? 

I only know employment law so...threats of violence against another in the workplace is a dismissible offense,

3) actual violence against another. Illegal. 

Share this post


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

The greatest problem with Canada is that the border between the USA and Canada was placed entirely in the wrong place - It should have gone north and south rather than east and west.

 

The Traveler

I see. And where would you like us to draw this line? Are you coming for Thanksgiving? It’s in October. There will be no candied yams. No marshmallows in anything. Pumpkin pie but flavored with brown sugar. Can you bring pasta salad?

 

On 9/17/2019 at 2:08 AM, Vort said:

The discussion wasn't about awarding construction contracts. It was about fining or otherwise legally penalizing people for saying insulting things about or to minorities that would be legal to say about or to non-minorities.  I am aware of no US law that codifies such legalized discrimination. Do you know of such a law?

Well actually, we need to branch out a bit.

Employment law Ontario. Saying insulting things about another in the workplace would be Harassment and that’s illegal under Bill 168 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I believe that most provinces have similar legislation. 

When I go to conferences, us profs tell me that States are gradually enacting similar legislation but...I really don’t know about this area of us law at all. There was a time when states refused to enact these laws so the process may be very gradual indeed. 

Statute Law if not enforced ...well that is tricky. Is a law enforceable if it:

is a new law? Hmm. In Canada, we are gentler when laws are in the process of changing attitudes. For example, a few years ago, Ontario released a policy statement about sexist dress standards.  Ontario was signally that polices of asking women to wear short skirts, high heels, and low tops was unacceptable. At some point in the future such policies will be illegal.

In BC it is currently illegal on safety grounds.

Are we not all enjoying our foray into Ontario Employment Law?

Have to make up a lecture! Night nite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennessee 

https://www.workforce.com/2019/05/08/workplace-civility-shouldnt-be-something-we-have-to-legislate/. WARNING! There is at the very end of this article some profanity inserted by the lawyer describing this new law. Thus, I would not click on this link. I include it only as backup for the quote below. The quote below has no profanity.

For example, consider Tennessee’s Healthy Workplace Act. It encourages anti-bullying and respectful workplace policies by granting immunity to an employer from lawsuits alleging negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress if that employer adopts such a policy. Tennessee even provides a Model Abusive Conduct Prevention Policy [pdf].

As originally drafted, Tennessee’s law only applied to public employers. Last week, Tennessee amended it to apply to all employers in that state.

Bravo to Tennessee for taking a stand against abusive bosses and other bullies at work. But also, how sad that we need a law to tell employees to treat each other like, well, like people.

The [Insert Entity Name] is firmly committed to a workplace free from abusive conduct as defined herein. We strive to provide high quality products and services in an atmosphere of respect, collaboration, openness, safety and equality. All employees have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.

The policy prohibits employees from:

  • Repeated verbal abuse in the workplace, including derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets;
  • Verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a threatening, intimidating, or humiliating nature in the workplace; or
  • The sabotage or undermining of an employee’s work performance in the workplace.

And it requires supervisors to:

  • Provide a working environment as safe as possible by having preventative measures in place and by dealing immediately with threatening or potentially violent situations;
  • Provide good examples by treating all with courtesy and respect;
  • Ensure that all employees have access to and are aware of the abusive conduct prevention policy and explain the procedures to be followed if a complaint of inappropriate behavior at work is made;
  • Be vigilant for signs of inappropriate behaviors at work through observation and information seeking, and take action to resolve the behavior before it escalates; and
  • Respond promptly, sensitively and confidentially to all situations where abusive behavior is observed or alleged to have occurred.

Such admirable goals. It’s just so sad that we need to legislate them into existence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarify? Seems like a simple question to me. Which do you think is worse.

1. "Hate speech" / calling someone a name

2. A threat of physical harm

3. Causing physical harm / battery

I don't really care what your employment law has to say...I want to know what you think personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, scottyg said:

Clarify? Seems like a simple question to me. Which do you think is worse.

1. "Hate speech" / calling someone a name

2. A threat of physical harm

3. Causing physical harm / battery

I don't really care what your employment law has to say...I want to know what you think personally.

I think it depends on what you qualify as such.  For some the answers would be obvious...and I think that's what you are trying to make them out to be...however...I will use it to illustrate a different point...that viewpoints do not always align with each other and sometimes what we may view as a way to define it is not how others may see it.

To Godwin the thread...

1.  Hitler mostly utilized speeches in public.  It was not even he who came up with what the Nazi's called the Final Solution, it was his underling.  As such, who was the greater evil, Hitler or the Germans who followed him?

2.  In the 1940s after the attack on Pearl Harbor the US sent thousands of Japanese Americans to what were basically concentration camps.  Now, it was with the threat of physical harm for the Japanese, as well as the fear of them doing harm to the US that caused such a travesty of rights to occur.  Some died in these camps.  Others remember.  Today, too many forget while remember the even greater horrors of the Death Camps of Germany, but of all the crimes against it's citizens of the 20th century, the threat to it's own citizens (the Japanese Americans) and imprisoning them because of it is perhaps the greatest.  Which is the greater crime then, the Japanese that the US fought in the Pacific and actually killed, or those Japanese Americans that they deprived their rights from and imprisoned in their own nation?

3.  In the 1960s and 70s the Vietnamese were trying to free themselves from a Tyrannical system of Colonization.  They were treated as third class citizens in their own home nation.  Many rebelled against this system.  Into this the US entered. They fought on the side of their colonial masters.  Some of the Vietnamese allied with the US, others fought against it.  The Vietnamese sought aid, and as the US was siding with those they opposed, they turned to other sources, one of which were the Communist who were more than happy to use them to fight a proxy hot war with the US.  The US killed many of these Vietnamese (and they killed many of the US soldiers and civilians that were sent there).

Which then is worse...#1, #2, or #3. 

I know it was made out to be clear cut, but sometimes things are not quite as clear cut as we make them.  In the first instance, even without doing the acts himself, WORDS, especially in politics and government have ramifications.  Words CAN be the instigator of other events, even if the one who stated them is not the one who actually executes the brutality they cause.  In the second, only those oblivious to the deprivation of rights (of which this thread is talking about, the preservation of the US constitutional rights vs. the rights granted in other nations) would say that such imprisonment and deprivation of rights (even though shelter and food was provided as such) is a good thing.  Finally, is War that we enter voluntarily a good choice in all instances?  Many would rank them as horrible with #1 being the worst, #2 being the second worst, and some even saying #3 was not a bad thing but something that was necessary (
from some points of view). 

I think the United States guarantees (or should guarantee, though that is being eroded to a degree slowly) certain rights as given in the first few amendments of the Constitution.  This is one thing that makes the United States unique among nations.  That does not mean all others need to agree with the United States, nor that their cultures see situations in the same way.  There could be multiple ways to answer your questions beyond what one may consider the obvious from another's point of view.  For those who want the rights granted by the US, they can move to the US.  For those who want the rights of Canada, they can move to Canada.  They may need to prove that they are worthy of such a thing (as so to attain citizenship, or at least the right to live and work in the chosen nation) but the world is a place full of different cultures and viewpoints.  If one wants to move to the UK, or the Japan, or to China even, let them do so if it aligns with their personal ideas and views.  It should be no surprise that there are different views regarding freedom, the right to freedom, the right to live as one wants, and how that is defined, in different nations and cultures.

Edited by JohnsonJones

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