Hmm... This should be interesting. That same Ontario Human Rights Tribunal levied a stiff fine against a tiny rural town's mayor and council and ordered them to take "re-education" because they had refused to declare a Gay Pride month. It didn't seem to matter that, far from being specifically AGAINST alternative sexuality, the council simply felt that the business of sexuality was none of the town's business period, and that they should be focused instead on more typical town concerns like roads and police and fire protection. As the council put it, they don't have a "straight" sex celebration either. The Pride activists who filed that complaint were especially vindictive and gleeful in "winning" their case, and showed no restraint in villifying that little opponent, ironically missing the point that their own malicious conduct was doing far more to foster anti-gay resentment than any refusal to issue a pro-Pride proclamation could ever do. Only a very small minded mean spirited individual kicks his perceived enemy when they are already down. In so doing, they lost all moral high ground, even if they did think they won the "battle". Smart going guys. But it seems like "Gay = good, Jewish = bad" in modern left wing politics, so it'll be interesting to see what techicality excuses the defendent in this new Tribunal kangaroo court. Let's hope the OHRT rises above kangaroo this time. Hope so. but I won't hold my breath. As for "re-education" that practice reminds me of what a lot of communist dictatorships like to do with dissent. Not surprising that it's a favorite among the woke left. Check out George Orwell's "1984" for a primer in totalitarian re-education programs. Careful lefties: the freedom of belief you take away might one day be your own.
All of this is happening with a blessing from all government levels: federal, provincial, local. Until our elected officials stay indifferent situation will go worse and worse.
They took the grants ( $$ ) under false pretense. Pay it back. All of it . They are antisemitic in their political views. Regardless of part or full time work.
It clearly states that. What word didnt they understand? They are making up their own rules to fit the govt handout. Cheaters!!!
I want to add a bit, as I think this case is instructive. It highlights the difficulty of maintaining freedom of speech -- essentially, freedom of thought -- when two views of right and wrong collide. I am as a rule opposed to human rights "Tribunals" because they tend to do more to harm the human condition than help it. The process is fundamentally flawed because such a small quasi-judicial body starts off from the outset with a mandate to find fault. The "fix is in" you might say. Their powers are overreaching and their institution lacks the centuries of hard earned wisdom and elaborate checks and balances of the mainstream legal courts system. To be sure, the criminal and civil courts are far from perfect, but tribunals are that imperfection on steroids; the best of intentions terribly weakened by utter lack of long evolution and a mandate to be both prosecutor and judge simultaneously. Calling someone a "dangerous.. zio" disgusts me, but by the same token, judgement and penalty engenders the risk, in this case, of forcing someone to take into their own home a guest whose views may be diametrically opposed to their own. Will an aggressively atheist spokesperson suing a Christian retreat be the next human rights tribunal case? Both Christianity and atheism have valid justifications, and neither is, at its core, deliberately "hateful". Solomon would have had a hard time deciding what's right, and as the recent Gay Pride decision illustrates, we can have little faith that this tribunal system is a good forum. All of these complaints belong in a properly constituted civil court; if that venue is too costly and inaccessible then perhaps a program of access support would be a remedy. Courts have a mandate to balance conflicting rights, with the roles of prosecutor and judge explicitly separated and the wisdom of centuries of carefully refined common civil and criminal law behind them. Most importantly, with even our highest leaders turning a blind eye to vitriolic anti Jewish state politics, how is some small time farm family supposed to do better? This is what happens when our so-called "leaders" have no core moral code and blow with the wind of whoever happens to be the largest or most vocal voting block of the day. From their spineless lack of clarity follows a rudderless ship of poorly managed courts and even more poorly settled civil disputes in which universal freedom of belief and fairness to all sides becomes almost impossible. It was always a difficult but noble quest. With the compass at the top spinning aimlessly, it is an impossible one.
Hmm... This should be interesting. That same Ontario Human Rights Tribunal levied a stiff fine against a tiny rural town's mayor and council and ordered them to take "re-education" because they had refused to declare a Gay Pride month. It didn't seem to matter that, far from being specifically AGAINST alternative sexuality, the council simply felt that the business of sexuality was none of the town's business period, and that they should be focused instead on more typical town concerns like roads and police and fire protection. As the council put it, they don't have a "straight" sex celebration either. The Pride activists who filed that complaint were especially vindictive and gleeful in "winning" their case, and showed no restraint in villifying that little opponent, ironically missing the point that their own malicious conduct was doing far more to foster anti-gay resentment than any refusal to issue a pro-Pride proclamation could ever do. Only a very small minded mean spirited individual kicks his perceived enemy when they are already down. In so doing, they lost all moral high ground, even if they did think they won the "battle". Smart going guys. But it seems like "Gay = good, Jewish = bad" in modern left wing politics, so it'll be interesting to see what techicality excuses the defendent in this new Tribunal kangaroo court. Let's hope the OHRT rises above kangaroo this time. Hope so. but I won't hold my breath. As for "re-education" that practice reminds me of what a lot of communist dictatorships like to do with dissent. Not surprising that it's a favorite among the woke left. Check out George Orwell's "1984" for a primer in totalitarian re-education programs. Careful lefties: the freedom of belief you take away might one day be your own.
All of this is happening with a blessing from all government levels: federal, provincial, local. Until our elected officials stay indifferent situation will go worse and worse.
They took the grants ( $$ ) under false pretense. Pay it back. All of it . They are antisemitic in their political views. Regardless of part or full time work.
It clearly states that. What word didnt they understand? They are making up their own rules to fit the govt handout. Cheaters!!!
I want to add a bit, as I think this case is instructive. It highlights the difficulty of maintaining freedom of speech -- essentially, freedom of thought -- when two views of right and wrong collide. I am as a rule opposed to human rights "Tribunals" because they tend to do more to harm the human condition than help it. The process is fundamentally flawed because such a small quasi-judicial body starts off from the outset with a mandate to find fault. The "fix is in" you might say. Their powers are overreaching and their institution lacks the centuries of hard earned wisdom and elaborate checks and balances of the mainstream legal courts system. To be sure, the criminal and civil courts are far from perfect, but tribunals are that imperfection on steroids; the best of intentions terribly weakened by utter lack of long evolution and a mandate to be both prosecutor and judge simultaneously. Calling someone a "dangerous.. zio" disgusts me, but by the same token, judgement and penalty engenders the risk, in this case, of forcing someone to take into their own home a guest whose views may be diametrically opposed to their own. Will an aggressively atheist spokesperson suing a Christian retreat be the next human rights tribunal case? Both Christianity and atheism have valid justifications, and neither is, at its core, deliberately "hateful". Solomon would have had a hard time deciding what's right, and as the recent Gay Pride decision illustrates, we can have little faith that this tribunal system is a good forum. All of these complaints belong in a properly constituted civil court; if that venue is too costly and inaccessible then perhaps a program of access support would be a remedy. Courts have a mandate to balance conflicting rights, with the roles of prosecutor and judge explicitly separated and the wisdom of centuries of carefully refined common civil and criminal law behind them. Most importantly, with even our highest leaders turning a blind eye to vitriolic anti Jewish state politics, how is some small time farm family supposed to do better? This is what happens when our so-called "leaders" have no core moral code and blow with the wind of whoever happens to be the largest or most vocal voting block of the day. From their spineless lack of clarity follows a rudderless ship of poorly managed courts and even more poorly settled civil disputes in which universal freedom of belief and fairness to all sides becomes almost impossible. It was always a difficult but noble quest. With the compass at the top spinning aimlessly, it is an impossible one.