On 2021-11-20 2:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-11-20 12:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 05:29:25 -0500, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
>
>>>>> The Human Rights commissions are a travesty of justice and need to have
>>>>> their powers greatly cut back if not abolished entirely.
>
>>>> I agree with that ESPECIALLY as they've taken more on themselves in
>>>> the past 20 years than I believe the legislation gives them.
>
>>> Thankfully, such star chambers would be legal anathema if the government
>>> tried to implement them here.
>
>> As I understand it, these tribunals were originally only intended for
>> minor disputes like landlord/tenant issues
>
> But the examples of landlord/tenant issues have been infringements upon
> liberties. They weren't ruling on tenant contract rights.
>
Ezra Levant, the operator of Rebel News, is always championing people
who he thinks are getting unjustly treated. His championing is not just
verbal support either: he'll make videos about their cases and organize
crowd-funding on their behalf to cover their legal fees in challenging
the tribunals or courts that he believes have acted unreasonably.

I remember one case in particular where a landlord, a black immigrant
man who'd bought a (small?) apartment building and got taken to the
tribunal because a tenant had objected to the landlord wearing his shoes
in their apartment. The tenant was a Muslim woman who had only briefly
been in the apartment and had decided it wasn't to her liking and gave
notice that she was moving out. The landlord was showing the apartment
to a prospective tenant and allegedly failed to remove his shoes. (The
Muslim woman hadn't moved out yet in case that isn't obvious.) The
shoe-wearing in her apartment offended her religious sensibilities and
she took him to the human rights tribunal claiming he had acted
Islamophobically if I remember correctly. She won at the tribunal so
Ezra offered to help the man fund an appeal, which would go to the court
system. The landlord agreed but they lost in court as well. Rebel News
offered to help fund a further appeal but the landlord said the whole
thing had been too stressful as it was. Apparently the stress of the
whole affair had already destroyed his marriage and his child had
apparently died in the meantime of unrelated causes. Who'd have thought
this matter required a human rights tribunal in the first place, let
alone that it would levy a large fine for wearing SHOES at the wrong
time? I never heard the Muslim woman's side of this but I'm at a loss to
imagine what she could have said that would lessened the impression that
this whole thing was a travesty of justice.

>> and human rights just got
>> added in to keep that from clogging up the court system. But the
>> tribunals seem to be staffed mostly with SJWs who look for opportunities
>> to thwart the defendants. The plaintiffs are provided free
>> representation while the defendants have to pay for theirs, so the deck
>> is stacked against the defense from the very beginning. I was pleasantly
>> surprised when Yaniv, who seems to see the tribunal a bit like an ATM,
>> lost cases demanding compensation because they wouldn't shave Yaniv's
>> balls; I thought they would surely find in Yaniv's favour because Yaniv
>> claims to be a trans-woman.
>
>> Steven Harper reduced the powers of the tribunals when he was in office
>> but Trudeau restored those powers once he got into office.
>
>> The vast majority of Canadians know little if anything about the
>> tribunals and just assume they're fair so they're never going to demand
>> that they be shut down unless someone can educate them. Ezra Levant
>> tries but he is demonized as "Far Right" so not many people take him
>> seriously.

--
Rhino

On 2021-11-20 2:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <snbher$8rt$1@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-11-20 1:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <snbel9$l6b$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-11-20 12:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <snb5st$ki3$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-11-20 9:35 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rhino
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is
>>>>>>>> essentially a Constitution, DOES protect our freedom of speech.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When even objectively true facts can be banned as “hate speech”,
>>>>>>> you don’t have freedom of speech.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/sD3CSJD3/Canadian-freedumb-of-speech.jpg
>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/gW4LFHR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't the US have prohibitions against "hate speech"?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. In fact, just the opposite. The Supreme Court has specifically
>>>>> ruled that hate speech is 1st Amendment protected speech:
>>>>>
>>>>> National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43
>>>>> (1977)
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know about the Skokie incident. I even remember seeing the TV
>>>> movie about it many years ago.
>>>>
>>>> So you only have activists screaming that certain things are hate speech
>>>> but no legislation in any state or at the federal level prohibiting it?
>>>
>>> Pretty much. Just like many Americans mistakenly think Rittenhouse shot
>>> black people because 'progressive' politicians and their garbage media
>>> enablers have pushed that narrative, so too do you have an entire
>>> generation that has grown up being taught by their leftist teachers and
>>> professors and politicians and the garbage media that 'hate speech' is
>>> not protected speech and is an exception to the 1st Amendment.
>>>
>>> Just one example... CNN's Chris Cuomo (who is also a law school
>>> graduate):
>>>
>>> "Hate speech is excluded from protection. Don't just say you love the
>>> Constitution. Read it."
>>>
>>> And his brother Andrew, the now-disgraced governor of New York, claimed
>>> while signing a constitutionally questionable law banning the display
>>> and sale of 'hate symbols' on state property that "hate has no refuge in
>>> the 1st Amendment" in response to questions on whether the law infringed
>>> free speech rights.
>>>
>>> Bonus points when these censorious assholes use the discredited and
>>> overturned 'fire in a theater' case to justify their position.
>>>
>> Which raises the question of whether the courts uphold those laws or
>> rule them unconstitutional.
>>
>>>> If so, good on you!! I only wish our government took that position.
>>>> Unfortunately, our nanny state thinks it needs to protect us from
>>>> ourselves and too many of my compatriots are ready to let it.
>>>>
>>>> Trudeau the Lesser is already working on legislation to restrict what we
>>>> can say online. I may have to invest in a VPN just to have any hope of
>>>> speaking freely and even then I'm not sure that is really enough if the
>>>> feds can just issue a court order so that the VPN opens its logs to the
>>>> them. (It might have to be a foreign VPN that doesn't do logging to be
>>>> really secure.)
>>>
>>> They'll just make using a VPN they can't access a crime in and of itself.
>>
>> Yeah, that's my concern too. It's what your federal government did with
>> respect to encryption: you can only use an encryption scheme that has a
>> "back door" that the feds can use to see what you said.
>
> That's what they want, but that's not currently the law.
>
It's not? I thought that had been in effect for years now. I'm glad to
hear I am wrong about that. That's great news! (Well, MOSTLY great news.
I can also see how spies and terrorists would be delighted to know
that....)

> It would be a major free speech issue if Congress banned people from
> communicating in any manner that can't be spied on by the government.
>
It *IS* a huge free speech issue but if I look at things from a national
security point of view, I can see their concern that bad guys could take
advantage of that to encrypt their communications with each other,
whether those bad guys are working for foreign agencies like Al Qaeda or
the CCP or domestic scumbags.

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2021-11-20 2:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-20 12:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 05:29:25 -0500, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
>>
>>>>>> The Human Rights commissions are a travesty of justice and need to have
>>>>>> their powers greatly cut back if not abolished entirely.
>>
>>>>> I agree with that ESPECIALLY as they've taken more on themselves in
>>>>> the past 20 years than I believe the legislation gives them.
>>
>>>> Thankfully, such star chambers would be legal anathema if the government
>>>> tried to implement them here.
>>
>>> As I understand it, these tribunals were originally only intended for
>>> minor disputes like landlord/tenant issues
>>
>> But the examples of landlord/tenant issues have been infringements upon
>> liberties. They weren't ruling on tenant contract rights.
>>
>Ezra Levant, the operator of Rebel News, is always championing people
>who he thinks are getting unjustly treated. His championing is not just
>verbal support either: he'll make videos about their cases and organize
>crowd-funding on their behalf to cover their legal fees in challenging
>the tribunals or courts that he believes have acted unreasonably.
>
>I remember one case in particular where a landlord, a black immigrant
>man who'd bought a (small?) apartment building and got taken to the
>tribunal because a tenant had objected to the landlord wearing his shoes
>in their apartment. . . .

Right. You've discussed that on Usenet before. That's an example of the
tribunal not considering the usual contractual issues of tenancy but
something that has nothing to do with contract law. That's why I wrote
that your tribunal examples in which landlords were taken before the
tribunal aren't minor at all, given how severe the consequences might
be.

> Rhino
> > BTR1701
> >
> > It would be a major free speech issue if Congress banned people from
> > communicating in any manner that can't be spied on by the government.
>
> It *IS* a huge free speech issue but if I look at things from a national
> security point of view, I can see their concern that bad guys could take
> advantage of that to encrypt their communications with each other,
> whether those bad guys are working for foreign agencies like Al Qaeda or
> the CCP or domestic scumbags.

Then the government is just going to have to find another way to deal with them.

Free speech (and other human and civil rights) don’t get tossed out the window
just because it makes it harder for the police.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:45:35 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>The vast majority of Canadians know little if anything about the
>tribunals and just assume they're fair so they're never going to demand
>that they be shut down unless someone can educate them. Ezra Levant
>tries but he is demonized as "Far Right" so not many people take him
>seriously.

Specifically it's espousing that cause that GOT Levant demonized
though he is considerably to the left of someone like Ben Shapiro.

On 2021-11-20 3:12 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-11-20 2:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-20 12:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 05:29:25 -0500, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
>>>
>>>>>>> The Human Rights commissions are a travesty of justice and need to have
>>>>>>> their powers greatly cut back if not abolished entirely.
>>>
>>>>>> I agree with that ESPECIALLY as they've taken more on themselves in
>>>>>> the past 20 years than I believe the legislation gives them.
>>>
>>>>> Thankfully, such star chambers would be legal anathema if the government
>>>>> tried to implement them here.
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, these tribunals were originally only intended for
>>>> minor disputes like landlord/tenant issues
>>>
>>> But the examples of landlord/tenant issues have been infringements upon
>>> liberties. They weren't ruling on tenant contract rights.
>>>
>> Ezra Levant, the operator of Rebel News, is always championing people
>> who he thinks are getting unjustly treated. His championing is not just
>> verbal support either: he'll make videos about their cases and organize
>> crowd-funding on their behalf to cover their legal fees in challenging
>> the tribunals or courts that he believes have acted unreasonably.
>>
>> I remember one case in particular where a landlord, a black immigrant
>> man who'd bought a (small?) apartment building and got taken to the
>> tribunal because a tenant had objected to the landlord wearing his shoes
>> in their apartment. . . .
>
> Right. You've discussed that on Usenet before. That's an example of the
> tribunal not considering the usual contractual issues of tenancy but
> something that has nothing to do with contract law. That's why I wrote
> that your tribunal examples in which landlords were taken before the
> tribunal aren't minor at all, given how severe the consequences might
> be.
>
Indeed!

--
Rhino

On 2021-11-21 1:59 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:45:35 -0500, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> The vast majority of Canadians know little if anything about the
>> tribunals and just assume they're fair so they're never going to demand
>> that they be shut down unless someone can educate them. Ezra Levant
>> tries but he is demonized as "Far Right" so not many people take him
>> seriously.
>
> Specifically it's espousing that cause that GOT Levant demonized
> though he is considerably to the left of someone like Ben Shapiro.
>
I think several things got him demonized, including the contempt he
shows for media outlets that take tax money from Trudeau, Conservatives
that don't have conservative policies, the Liberal Party in general and
Trudeau in particular, his willingness to talk to the PPC, etc. etc.

--
Rhino

On 2021-11-20 8:58 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Rhino
>>> BTR1701
>>>
>>> It would be a major free speech issue if Congress banned people from
>>> communicating in any manner that can't be spied on by the government.
>>
>> It *IS* a huge free speech issue but if I look at things from a national
>> security point of view, I can see their concern that bad guys could take
>> advantage of that to encrypt their communications with each other,
>> whether those bad guys are working for foreign agencies like Al Qaeda or
>> the CCP or domestic scumbags.
>
> Then the government is just going to have to find another way to deal with them.
>
You're right of course but that doesn't mean the government isn't going
to try as hard as it can from as many angles as possible to get access
to people's communications because it is easier/safer to listen in on
their comms than to infiltrate their organizations with undercover agents.

> Free speech (and other human and civil rights) don’t get tossed out the window
> just because it makes it harder for the police.
>
I agree in principle but I suspect the government will always find ways
to rationalize surveillance and even persuade voters to allow it,
regardless of the vociferous objections of people like us. Heck, they've
already accomplished it in some respects with CCTV in more and more
places.... There are always plenty of people that are willing to give up
privacy in exchange for perceived increases in safety.

--
Rhino

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 10:33:12 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>> The vast majority of Canadians know little if anything about the
>>> tribunals and just assume they're fair so they're never going to demand
>>> that they be shut down unless someone can educate them. Ezra Levant
>>> tries but he is demonized as "Far Right" so not many people take him
>>> seriously.
>>
>> Specifically it's espousing that cause that GOT Levant demonized
>> though he is considerably to the left of someone like Ben Shapiro.
>>
>I think several things got him demonized, including the contempt he
>shows for media outlets that take tax money from Trudeau, Conservatives
>that don't have conservative policies, the Liberal Party in general and
>Trudeau in particular, his willingness to talk to the PPC, etc. etc.

Again Levant isn't an ideologue - he's more a strong libertarian and
as we both know in this day and age that can attract a lot of flak.
And Levant DOES like to talk as you say and will talk to almost
anybody. So far as I know he DOESN'T talk to active anti-semites (like
most neo-Nazis are) but that's about the one place he draws the line.

I mentioned Shapiro who is your standard GOP Never Trumper (though
more articulate than most of those which you would expect from his
legal training) - Levine isn't particularly close to the Conservative
party though being from Alberta one can reasonably guess how he votes.

(For non-Canadians the Conservatives won 30 of 34 seats in Alberta in
2021 and that was a decline from 2019)

In article <8ovkpg5v4lkfsr4u0pi4vj8o1ume8d2onr@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 10:33:12 -0500, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The vast majority of Canadians know little if anything about the
> >>> tribunals and just assume they're fair so they're never going to demand
> >>> that they be shut down unless someone can educate them. Ezra Levant
> >>> tries but he is demonized as "Far Right" so not many people take him
> >>> seriously.
> >>
> >> Specifically it's espousing that cause that GOT Levant demonized
> >> though he is considerably to the left of someone like Ben Shapiro.
> >>
> >I think several things got him demonized, including the contempt he
> >shows for media outlets that take tax money from Trudeau, Conservatives
> >that don't have conservative policies, the Liberal Party in general and
> >Trudeau in particular, his willingness to talk to the PPC, etc. etc.
>
> Again Levant isn't an ideologue - he's more a strong libertarian and
> as we both know in this day and age that can attract a lot of flak.
> And Levant DOES like to talk as you say and will talk to almost
> anybody. So far as I know he DOESN'T talk to active anti-semites (like
> most neo-Nazis are) but that's about the one place he draws the line.
>
> I mentioned Shapiro who is your standard GOP Never Trumper

He's not a "Never Trumper". He didn't vote for Trump in the first
election but did vote for him in the last one. A Never Trumper would
never have voted for Trump.

On 11/21/2021 12:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <8ovkpg5v4lkfsr4u0pi4vj8o1ume8d2onr@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 10:33:12 -0500, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The vast majority of Canadians know little if anything about the
>>>>> tribunals and just assume they're fair so they're never going to demand
>>>>> that they be shut down unless someone can educate them. Ezra Levant
>>>>> tries but he is demonized as "Far Right" so not many people take him
>>>>> seriously.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically it's espousing that cause that GOT Levant demonized
>>>> though he is considerably to the left of someone like Ben Shapiro.
>>>>
>>> I think several things got him demonized, including the contempt he
>>> shows for media outlets that take tax money from Trudeau, Conservatives
>>> that don't have conservative policies, the Liberal Party in general and
>>> Trudeau in particular, his willingness to talk to the PPC, etc. etc.
>>
>> Again Levant isn't an ideologue - he's more a strong libertarian and
>> as we both know in this day and age that can attract a lot of flak.
>> And Levant DOES like to talk as you say and will talk to almost
>> anybody. So far as I know he DOESN'T talk to active anti-semites (like
>> most neo-Nazis are) but that's about the one place he draws the line.
>>
>> I mentioned Shapiro who is your standard GOP Never Trumper
>
> He's not a "Never Trumper". He didn't vote for Trump in the first
> election but did vote for him in the last one. A Never Trumper would
> never have voted for Trump.

Thank you Capt. Obvious!