Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 586
Reputation: 90.6Reputation: 90.6
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And you still can't ... and haven't ... been able to make a specific charge of anything. You are fanning a hysteria that seems to be centred in government education.

Private school educated. Another fail.

Anyhow, "I laid out specific lawsuits, charges, abandonment by employees, racism, bigotry and the like.

Even Ez is now saying that Rebel needs a reboot. "

Call Ez, argue with him. He sees the troubled waters. You dont. Ok.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What you think of as his sins are what other people think of as his virtues.

He published the Mohammed cartoons. It got a some government Commissions involved in denying him his right to do so ... but it became too public, and they didn't want to stir the public ... they do what they do best in the darkness ... so he endured.

Good for Ezra.

Law suits from the same people who sued Mark Steyn for publishing a New York Times best seller? That's supposed to be a reason to cross him off my list?

We've been over this before.

TC, you should recognize that most sane people in Canada think these things are legally acceptable. You should look at the good he does, and that he does no harm.

I don't know why you prefer to be such a fringe thinker, unless it's you're just trying to a take a platform away from an opposing view.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 586
Reputation: 90.6Reputation: 90.6
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
What you think of as his sins are what other people think of as his virtues.

Can't argue with that. Of course some people support lots of dumb things

Also, Of course the caveat being many are now fleeing and support is severely diminished.
Quote:

He published the Mohammed cartoons. It got a some government Commissions involved in denying him his right to do so ... but it became too public, and they didn't want to stir the public ... they do what they do best in the darkness ... so he endured.

Good for Ezra.

He was denied his rights? Didnt he print them? Ergo his right to do so remained. IN fact he reprinted them on the day of his HRC hearing.

Ok so no rights were denied.

So then what happened. The HRC (Alta) withdrew the complaint, the Calgary Police force complaint went nowhere and the Edmonton complaint was thrown out.

Please dont attempt to change the history of what happened, not becoming.
Quote:

Law suits from the same people who sued Mark Steyn for publishing a New York Times best seller? That's supposed to be a reason to cross him off my list?

Not at all a reason. But if one checks the facts of what is presented with knowledge of law , well then one may very well come to that conclusion.

And by the way, entirely different people involved w Steyn. Agains...facts....
Quote:


TC, you should recognize that most sane people in Canada think these things are legally acceptable. You should look at the good he does, and that he does no harm.
Most 'sane' people think HRC's are legally acceptable? Ok.
Quote:

I don't know why you prefer to be such a fringe thinker, unless it's you're just trying to a take a platform away from an opposing view.


A fringe thinker. Im afraid you have someone else mixed up then.

Fringe thinkers are just that fringe. Dont make up enough of the populous so I dont worry too much about them.

It is impossible for me to take a platform away from anyone so I have no idea (and I suspect you dont either) what you are saying here.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just can't seem to get through to this bird, TC ...

Sometimes he pretends to have some expertise in the law, and pronounced thusly, like the Pope. Other times, he's making the crudest kind of simplification, the kind no quality legal mind would ever make. He seems to think that someone who gets taken to a kangaroo court over his use of free speech has the right intact.

You just have to conclude his supposed expertise in law is fake.

Because you don't have the right if some one can monitor what you are saying, and punish you if they don't approve. It's that simple. And it only makes it more objectionable when they weigh evidence and make decisions on the basis or race, gender and sexual preference rather than any law or knowable standard.

And in Canada, our speech is monitored. It doesn't mean a cop will break down your door if you wonder aloud if 'androgynous' is really a gender.

It means if any member of the official victim groups can -- at no expense -- have someone who offends them made the subject of a government persecution with significant financial penalties, for the allegation of things that are not offenses under the criminal code.

He is perfectly OK with that. He doesn't even argue, he just says most people accept it. But most people have no idea how bad it is.

The rest of his blather isn't worth the keystrokes.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 586
Reputation: 90.6Reputation: 90.6
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I just can't seem to get through to this bird, TC ...

Who are you talking to?
Quote:

Sometimes he pretends to have some expertise in the law, and pronounced thusly, like the Pope. Other times, he's making the crudest kind of simplification, the kind no quality legal mind would ever make.

Here is where you continually fail things.

You are saying above that I make crude simplifications, no lawyer would ever do same, yet it is YOU making that determination in the absence of anything concrete. I have to be somewhat well versed in legal know how for my business. Everything that comes or changes in my profession is almost 100% because of a change in law.
I only state I have a good idea, you on the other hand dismiss any of it and never offer up where your knowledge is gleaned from.

I get it, you hate lawyers and the legal system. It stems from a complete and utter lack of understanding on your part as evidenced over the year(s) from your posts.
Ok ..fine.

Case in point , I gaive you your next words, and trust me, it gets even worse...for you that is.
Quote:

He seems to think that someone who gets taken to a kangaroo court over his use of free speech has the right intact.

Let me be emphatic then, ok?

Someone who gets taken to court over his use of free speech does in fact, have the right to free speech.
In Canada there is an absolute right,the Govt can limit some forms as long as they are reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society.

That is such a basic concept I fail to see how anyone could think otherwise. That they do is woeful, I grant you that.

I have the right to sue anyone should the speech they use towards/at/in earshot of me aggravates me.

In only certain , very specific circumstances would I ever have a hope in winning.

It is shocking that anyone thinks just being sued is tantamount to limiting free speech.
Quote:

You just have to conclude his supposed expertise in law is fake.

Yes, well....you have been schooled now so perhaps you should learn instead of making a complete ass out of yourself.
Quote:

Because you don't have the right if some one can monitor what you are saying, and punish you if they don't approve. It's that simple. And it only makes it more objectionable when they weigh evidence and make decisions on the basis or race, gender and sexual preference rather than any law or knowable standard.

You sir know not a thing you are talking about.
Quote:

And in Canada, our speech is monitored. It doesn't mean a cop will break down your door if you wonder aloud if 'androgynous' is really a gender.

You understaning oif concepts is almost as bad.
Speech is monitored = freedom of speech is denied.

So...what you just said is thus...I (bugs) am not allowed to speak freely when I am speaking freely because it may be monitored. So...you can say it but you are denied free speech.

Wow, misfire of epic proportion.
Quote:

It means if any member of the official victim groups can -- at no expense -- have someone who offends them made the subject of a government persecution with significant financial penalties, for the allegation of things that are not offenses under the criminal code.

Ahh kemosabe....another pratfall here.
Person A takes Person B to the HRC. Free Speech is denied. Right?

Wrong :roll: ... Ez was taken to the HRC and beat the charge. So was his (Ez) speech denied?
Nope !
Quote:

He is perfectly OK with that. He doesn't even argue, he just says most people accept it. But most people have no idea how bad it is.

Kind sir, when you learn what you are talking about , come on back because frankly you are not smart enough to talk about this. You make generalizations that dont work, you are a master of contradiction. Wasnt me to show you how many times in this thread you ahve doen just that?
Nobody cares, next post some care, then you dont care, then you do.
Free speech no one has , then they do kind of....

Oi vey .
Quote:

The rest of his blather isn't worth the keystrokes.


I truly wish you were at least a little bit smarter in order to understand the world around you.
Stick with the economics section, you are at least semi-coherent when posting about that.

I dont like saying it at all, but you just arent smart enough to grasp this. [/i]
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is at least something we can argue about.

Quote:
You are saying above that I make crude simplifications, no lawyer would ever do same, yet it is YOU making that determination in the absence of anything concrete. I have to be somewhat well versed in legal know how for my business. Everything that comes or changes in my profession is almost 100% because of a change in law.
I only state I have a good idea, you on the other hand dismiss any of it and never offer up where your knowledge is gleaned from.

I get it, you hate lawyers and the legal system. It stems from a complete and utter lack of understanding on your part as evidenced over the year(s) from your posts.
Ok ..fine.

Case in point , I gaive you your next words, and trust me, it gets even worse...for you that is.
Quote:
Quote:

He seems to think that someone who gets taken to a kangaroo court over his use of free speech has the right intact.

Let me be emphatic then, ok?

Someone who gets taken to court over his use of free speech does in fact, have the right to free speech.
In Canada there is an absolute right,the Govt can limit some forms as long as they are reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society.

That is such a basic concept I fail to see how anyone could think otherwise. That they do is woeful, I grant you that.


I can't think of any business that needs to 'keep up' on the law that snagged Ezra Levant. How would you have 'kept up' if you were Ezra? He is a trained lawyer himself, and he thought everything he did was legal. He was just worried about getting his throat cut.

But anyone in business knows that anybody can sue and that in some lines of business, suits are normal. A guy like Ezra is a lightning rod. When he published the Mo cartoons, he thought he was playing a role in a public debate. He thought he was being a hero.

What chance would an ordinary citizen have?

You are talking about a civil case against a speaker or writer But in those cases you have to prove actual damages. Someone slipped in a big building in Manhattan, and ended up suiting Hellman's because of the mayonnaise in a sandwich had caused it. Does that make Hellman's a bad company?

In Human Rights, people often don't even know they did anything wrong. There was no way Ezra -- a lawyer himself -- could know that he was violating anything when he published those cartoons. He thought it was legal. How fair is that? He couldn't know because Human Rights had never done that before. There was no written material that would have defined his responsibilities. I could go on for pages about what's wrong with HRCs. The point, however, is a good man can get embroiled with them. It isn't like wiping a cyclist off your car using a telephone post or anything. And you think that's nothing ...

Agree or disagree, it doesn't mean that Rebel coverage of Charlottesville is something that should damage the brand. That's just scapegoating.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 586
Reputation: 90.6Reputation: 90.6
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:


I can't think of any business that needs to 'keep up' on the law that snagged Ezra Levant.

Not 'keep up on the law that snagged Ez" but on law in general as it pertains to my day to day.
What i have learned is to read the whys and hows of law.

In much the same way, the payout to Khadr is a good point. People ignore the reasons why it was done and just keep yapping about a terrorist. His being a terrorist is only one very minor point insofar as that what got him to where he is mistreated.
Quote:

How would you have 'kept up' if you were Ezra? He is a trained lawyer himself, and he thought everything he did was legal. He was just worried about getting his throat cut.

Come on. Seriously?

He knew what he did was going to be a lightning rod for many. It gave him press and put his name out there.
It was a stunt , no more no less. Ez wanted what happened to him in order to play the martyr.
It worked, he didnt lose any suit from it.
Quote:

But anyone in business knows that anybody can sue and that in some lines of business, suits are normal. A guy like Ezra is a lightning rod. When he published the Mo cartoons, he thought he was playing a role in a public debate. He thought he was being a hero.

A hero to only those who can hear that particular dog whistle.
Quote:

What chance would an ordinary citizen have?

To do what? Publish the photos? 100% chance of doing it and nothing happens. (plenty did, blogs and so on.
Quote:

You are talking about a civil case against a speaker or writer But in those cases you have to prove actual damages. Someone slipped in a big building in Manhattan, and ended up suiting Hellman's because of the mayonnaise in a sandwich had caused it. Does that make Hellman's a bad company?

NO it does not.

Of course Hellman's would not lose this case as they would be exonerated in discovery as there could be no way to attribute negligence (you dont have to prove damages-just negligence in this case) to Hellmans when a TP prepped the sandwich.

In this case it would thus...suit brought against the building management, the owner, the owner of the sandwich shop and thats it. The court will sort out any damages and/or vicarious liability.
Quote:

In Human Rights, people often don't even know they did anything wrong. There was no way Ezra -- a lawyer himself -- could know that he was violating anything when he published those cartoons. He thought it was legal. How fair is that?

It WAS legal. He did not lose the case. That means de facto legal.
Quote:

He couldn't know because Human Rights had never done that before. There was no written material that would have defined his responsibilities. I could go on for pages about what's wrong with HRCs. The point, however, is a good man can get embroiled with them. It isn't like wiping a cyclist off your car using a telephone post or anything. And you think that's nothing ...
He may not , but more than likely did know,have known this would case consternation. He gambled and won. Good for him.

Anyone using a pole to wipe off a cyclist would be in big trouble. Thanklfully I know not if that has ever happened.
Quote:

Agree or disagree, it doesn't mean that Rebel coverage of Charlottesville is something that should damage the brand. That's just scapegoating.
But it has damaged the brand.
Not with me per se, I always thought he was a whiny little shit w little journalistic merit
but with those who supported him (not uber right wingers) and paid in.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Points -- Human Rights is not "law" if you mean something that has been passed by Parliament and worked out in application by the Courts. When Ezra published those cartoons, there was no set of regulations to consult. No legal source. It came out of the blue, and it's one of the reasons that HRCs are one of the biggest threats to our charter rights in the country. And, in fact, the cartoons didn't damage any person. And it isnt as if Mohamm├ęd is a God, he's only a highly flawed messenger. He's certainly no Abraham.

The HRC's goal is not to settle disputes, but to socially engineer the country to fit their notions of a 'just' society -- which is an extremely socialistic.

So you can't "keep current'" in any way that's relevant. Human Rights works on the basis of "chill" -- the legal profession's term for INTIMIDATION. When Human Rights goes into a company, management is walking on egg-shells. They literally don't know what to expect or when they will hit. It's all because there is no set down metrics.

Working on the basis of "chill" is the same way terror states like North Korea work. Your neighbour makes a joke about Kim Jong-Un's haircut, and two days later he isn't there for breakfast. That may be "chill" but it is also "terror". That's how he HRCs work. Check it out.

You are right, Ezra was opportunistic and used the cartoons to promote his site. Your leader walks around offering selfies with himself at the G-20! What does that matter? It was a 'lightning rod' is another way of saying a lot of people wanted to see the cartoons badly, and it ended up making the jihadis look like dorks since they really didn't have much bite. So they went to the HRC to prevent their dorkishness from being confused with impotence.

About my "... epic proportion pratfall ...": Free speech means you don't have to account for it to anybody. It means I might go onto a university to proclaim, for example, that boys and boys and girls are girls, and nobody could say anything about it if I had truly free speech. Others may use their free speech to drown me out with chants, and that's OK too.

As it is now, under our government-certified speech programme, someone who did that might be reported to a HRC, and a charge laid which, if they aren't famous enough to get media coverage, means they are almost certain of being convicted, particularly if you are a cis white male. That's how government regulated speech works. It's different.

It is also sexist and racist because if a cis gendered white male made a similar action against a female saying slanderous and hateful things about cis gendered white males, they would decline the complaint.

Anyway, I don't expect to persuade you. It's enough that you don't persuade anybody else.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Steve Bannon out at the white house

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB