Great...one more category for Warman to 'feel' offended...

Tax cut looking better and better. Why not start by refunding the entire budget for the CHRC, Tribunal, the lot.

I wanna see Lucy W. pull this crap with no budget.

Wow! The HRC has come up with the perfect racket to shut down incorrect (non progressive) thought and speech in this country. Just slap a "disadvantaged group" label on it. From then on, no one is allowed to discuss them in any negative way. Then let the entitlements: roll-affirmative action, HRC lawsuits, more tax money, free stuff etc.

Yep, let us equalize the condition for those of the disadvantaged "socially condition" group. One more proud step forward in social justice.....But, I wonder what would happen if the crack addicts demanded that their kids be given free and equal access to attend the same elite preschool and Upper Canada College with the champagne socialist children.

In Alberta, we've been prohibited from discriminating on the basis of "source of income" (defined to mean any lawful source) for several years. It was intended to prevent landlords from refusing to rent to people on welfare, etc. Unfortunately, it also means a landlord can't refuse to rent to a prostitute, since prostitution is not illegal.

"I wonder what would happen if the crack addicts demanded that their kids be given free and equal access to attend the same elite preschool and Upper Canada College with the champagne socialist children." Posted by: lynnh at April 1, 2008 1:29 PM

And then won their demands through a CHRC tribunal ruling. Wouldn't that be poetic justice? Well... some kind of justice anyway.

I'd can the idiot pretty damned quickly myself . It isn't a sales clerks job to comment on anybodys source of income . Take the $$$ and stfu.

Does this mean I could be hauled before The Federal HRC for referring to our unelected Senators as "socially conditioned" and state teat suckers?

Just wondering.

First rule of business.

Do not do business with people who have no money.

You don't need to tell them so, just ignore them, get rid of them or make it impossible for them to deal with you.

That is actually the way it is now. At least in my business. There is no reason to be rude to these losers, just don't let them into your world.

It's a pity that the gestapo feels a need to make a law or ruling about this situation when subtlety is presently doing the trick. Perhaps all that is really needed is some customer relations training regarding the trailer people who drive you nuts with their bleating and bounced cheques.

Some quotes from various documents (See Blazing Cat Fur), and my comments. Essentially, the HRC cabal is trying to expand its powers by moving out of searching the Canadian population for instances of 'discrimination' by virtue of the old standby categories of:

Human Rights Act. 3.1 "For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."

Now, the cabal is moving into the more ambiguous and possibly quite lucrative one of 'Social Condition'. What the heck is that?

"as part of a comprehensive review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission's recommendation that the ambit of human rights protection in Canada be expanded to include economic, social and cultural rights."

What are economic rights? Social rights? Cultural rights?

Note that we've moved out of the category of assumed 'hereditary' classifications, or, aspects of your nature that you can't do very much about. Gender, ethnicity, colour, age, sex...that kind of thing.

And we've moved into classifications of yourself that are, heck, up to you. Whether you have a job, keep that job, save your money and etc. That's up to you. No-one else.

But, the HRC don't agree. They think it's up to The Government. That is, it's up to others. Who have jobs, keep jobs, and pay taxes. To give to you, who won't work, won't keep a job, won't pay taxes. But you still want that nice car and tv, and home, and etc.

So, the view is that, "social condition referred to social rank, referred to an individual's position in society and the social class they belonged to by birth, by their income, by the level of education or by their occupation."

That's quite a mess. What if I'm born poor, and struggle through to get an education and a good income? What 'social class' am I in?

And economic rights? Well, that's " economic security guaranteeing a basic standard of living."

That's because the HRC people feel that "the government has had an obligation to look at poverty as a human rights issue."

So, it's up to the working people to buy the homes, cars, tvs, food, clothing etc, of those who don't work. But, not having these things is defined as 'poverty'...and that's a human rights issue.

What about my human rights to work hard and keep my money for me and mine? Hmmm?

Well...I hope the following will be considered "fair comment"...

Kate: do you really think this exclusive focus on negatives is healthy? Don't you find you are walking around sort of tilted to one side with all these negative and disturbing thoughts in your head. Listen, I know perfectly well that I am free to come here, or not. And I admit I am happy to have your readers come to my blog occasionally. One of your readers called me a "link whore" but I think that's just normal blog surfing stuff.

Now, I guess you won't answer, or maybe you will. But that's my challenge. You are remarkably negative in your world view. It's not as if you are actively promoting a better world. You're just enumerating all the ways the world sucks.

lynnh:

Hey, lay off UCC! I went there, and in a recent old boy newsletter, the editor noted that fully half the boys attending now are receiving some sort of financial support, and that the school actively recruits within lower income families to increase diversity. Sure, if your father went there and he has money, it's easier for you to get in, but that doesn't mean everybody there is rich.

Like me for instance - my dad was a schoolteacher, and the only reason we could afford it was I won a scholarship, and that was back in the 1970's.

cantuk..that was hypothetically speaking...

And good salesclerks are trained not to say what they are thinking, just like social workers,police and health care workers, and other taxpayers who have opinions on the social welfare users.
Must be politically correct.
Must not say what we are thinking.
Must not offend,must not offend

It's already been happening. A few years back, a colleague of mine had some rental apartments, fairly nice ones too. Someone applied to rent one of them, and not only did this person have a terrible credit record, but clearly didn't make sufficient income to cover the rent each month, never mind anything else. So the place was rented to someone else. The deadbeat complained to my friend, and here's where he made his mistake: he told the complainer the truth about why he didn't get the place -- bad credit, insufficient income. Now, the fellow had _some_ income, and could have easily found something in his price range, but not nearly as nice: he wanted to live in _this_ unit. So, he took my colleague to the Human Rights Commission, on the grounds that he was discriminating against the poor. In other words, people have a human right to live where they please, regardless of their ability to pay.

My colleague was prepared to fight this, but his lawyer told him that there was a good chance that he'd lose, which would set a terrible precedent. So, they made an offer of a large cash settlement, if the person would sign a piece of paper that he would drop the complaint and never apply to live in one of his buildings again. He took the offer. My colleage paid because he figured he had a better chance with contract law than human rights law. Then he started selling off his residential properties, and moved his money into commercial real estate. Less hassle and risk.

I debated about posting this ... might be giving someone ideas ... but it's only a matter of time before something like this goes all the way to the Tribunal and wins, thereby stripping all remaining value out of all residential rental property. And who will be the big losers? Why, the working poor, who will have nowhere to live because they don't qualify for assisted housing (they work), but the usual low-to-middle-income apartment blocks will have been mass-converted to condominiums in the wake of such a ruling. Or, worse, the government might be forced to use eminent domain to take over all rental property to prevent its conversion.

And this is just housing, never mind other areas of society and the economy. Turning "social condition" into a special rights category would pretty much nuke anything it touched.

Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for bringing this to our attention. Time for another letter to the MP and the PM.

John, I think you might polish the lens you're reading through, before assigning negativity to the one I write with.

bluetech.

There is line between being polite and being politically correct. We don't want or need an agency to tell that difference. Most people are capable of learning and employing those distinctions as they go through their lives. The politically correct would deny us our learning experiences and prosecute us for not complying. That is what Ezra and others are fighting. All we want is the right to live our own lives and have our opinions and take our lumps as they come.

The conservative worldview is "tragic" -- that is, realistic about the incurable flaws that are inherent in human nature. The world does indeed "suck" and unlike the liberal, the conservative accepts that it always will to some extent.

In fact, it is that very 'suckness" that makes us human.

These flaws in our nature can never be removed. The belief that they can be, that it is possible to "make a better world" has in fact led to the deaths of millions at the hands of leftwing social engineers.

Being children at heart, leftists insist on referring to realism as "negativity."

Complaining about someone else's negativity is the ultimate in negativity itself.

God deliver us from the John Daly's of this world.

KevinB. I'll clarify what my comment was about. It is about the hypocrisy of rich progressives concerning their fight for the disadvantaged. Scholarships still leave the control over students in the hands of the admissions department. They then base their decision on merit,money, charity and connections (or whatever). Which is good because both of my examples are private services/businesses that have every right to decide on criteria for admissions. The HRC's mission is to force private businesses like these to admit/hire based solely on the HRC's criteria. Not scholarships and such simply because the HRC has defined them as disadvantaged by "social conditions". I believe that if the socialist own cocoon of security and elitism was threatened by such forced HRC admissions then the mask of solidarity with the poor would drop. They would understand the plight of rental owners and employers that are affected by this type of social justice. Right now they are too far removed from any direct repercussions of the actions that they support.

Is'nt it the left now screaming about the lending practices of the big banks in the States? lending huge loans to individuals who could'nt afford to make the payments. If I go to a bank for a million dollar morgage I would hope the bank would discriminate my proposal because of my careless stupidity.

kathy shaidle. Very nice analysis. That's exactly it. The Conservative view is, in a sense, tragic, because it does indeed recognize that reality is not and can never be, 'perfect'.

The leftist utopian view insists that mankind can be MADE (I emphasize that word) to behave and be 'perfect'. That's their social engineering which is essentially totalitarianism.

Lots of issues here.

US situation wasnt just lending money to people who couldnt pay....they could at the initial rates but the contracts had these "exploding rates" in them, which meant then went to double and triple normal rates after a period of time.

Whose fault is that....both sides for pretending that things would change dramatically in the future. It was all based on home equity increasing so even if they defaulted the loan would be recovered OR the mortgagee would be able to refinance based on their new equity.

Home ownership is a very good thing, and getting people into it is good...but soe of these practices were crazy. So the loans become worthless because the borrower cant pay and the equoty backing the loan disappears....thats what the problem is.

Now being discriminated against because you are poor....silly if you can still pay, but the guy has a crappy repayment record. I cant believe you cannot make the decision based on past payment history, you are extending a form of credit, being the amount of time it would take you to remove someone should they stop paying rent. If you took a 90 day deposit and took all rent in advance then there would be no credit being extended under any circumstance.

Anyway, I cant believe the guy would lose. That would mean any bank would be forced to lend you money regardless....that wont happen.

Social condition....thatnks for raising the alarm. This is all about getting the socialism they seek through bureaucratic and regulatory means without having to be elected. It will take a courageous government to clear all this underbrush away. It will take time to get rid of some of the more pernicious stuff, as it just grows.

Conservative view of life. It isnt that life sucks, just that life is full of imperfections and problems, some being inequities. That doesnt mean you ignore them but you accept that they exist and be more of the view that changing them will take time, journeys of thousands of steps that likely will not acheive the ultimate goal.

Yes conservatives are suspicious of grand schemes that promise perfection in short order. Doesnt happen, or rarely without unintended consequences. So Conservatives by nature demand a plan before movement, are wary of the overpromise and susceptible to the inertia of existing.

What fuels modern conservatism is the infusion of human dignity, possibility, resposnsibility and freedom. That individuals are free to take dramatic action where it makes sense to them as opposed to the state.

The stifling of this freedom is what conservatives would say is the ultimate stagnator of progress since it snuffs out human ingenuity. From the challenges we face come the best answers to our problems. No government can make those things go away.

So if conservatives seem stern it is because they see the immensity of the challenges ahead to acheive the gains.

It is an imperfect explaination. Where I agree with John is that Conservatives can seem negative. I think the better way for conservatives to express their concerns is better put as we can do better, there are higher goals as opposed to the negative of tearing down other schemes...this is something conservatives tend to do. The criticism of Harper was that all he seemed to be doing was criticising what had happened when what people also wanted to hear was that there was something better......but that is semantics and tactics.

Much as I agree with the sentiments of many of you, if I operated a business I wouldn't want any of my employees referring to potential clients as
welfare cases. I've encountered many in my years as an employee only and can't find fault with the animosity toward them, however in a business one needs to project a professional image if they want to succeed.
Honest Ed Mirvish in Toronto was a prime example.
He made millions catering to the welfare cases.

It's even simpler Kathy and ET: on the left, you have the right to life without having to compete for the resources to sustain your life.

The left world view is that society can be engineered to be conflict free, and therefore, there is no need for competition, which means there is no risk. When there is no risk, there is no failure.

It's a philosophy orthagonal to nature and life itself, and that is why re-education camps in gulags are necessary.

Competing means constantly applying assessments of reality to calculate risk, and plot trajectories that mitigate risk. Or, you can think positively, and leap off the cliff. Apparently, one has the right not to splatter on impact.

Competition is scary, isn't it John?

John West said:"Do not do business with people who have no money "
Reading Dutch Canuck reminds me of too many stories to tell here.
HRC does not have to write this in to their 'mandate'.It is already unwritten law.
If tax-payers complain about the non-taxpayers, the tax payers are labeled as small minded and lacking compassion.
We are in agreement on principle, John.

John Daly, you've got some serious nerve coming here with this attitude given the exchange I've had with you the last couple of days.

Negativity? Go look in the mirror. Two bit link whore doesn't begin to cover your malfunction.

"You don't need to tell them so, just ignore them, get rid of them or make it impossible for them to deal with you."

I just had a chain-smoking single mother -- who I *know* is on welfare -- come into my shop last week and drop $120 on a beefed up video card so that her five illegitimate children can play Guitar Hero III on that computer. I also know that this lady is a regular patron of the food bank.

(Small town: we know everything about everyone who lives there.)

In other news, I patched up an older system for another customer yesterday who is mom to three kids, a farm wife, and who has two part-time jobs that she works when she's not raising kids or helping with the ranching. I can tell you for a fact that they've had a helluva time with cattle prices as of late and can't afford Guitar Hero III or the video card that you need to run it. I'm surprised that they can afford groceries. They sure can't afford to pay the taxes that have been supporting "Guitar Hero Single Mom", that's for sure.

Price welfare bums out of your business? Sounds great in theory, but doesn't work so well in practice. At least not for me. It seems like a lot of folks on assistance have computers and hi-speed Net these days. I bet a lot of folks in third-world countries would give their eye teeth to be that "poor".

A lesbian homosexual called me a fat white rich bastard woman hater.
The comment emotionally destroyed me so Ill sue him/her/it at the CHRC tribunal.
Ill be awarded more money.
I will now become fatter, richer and Ill still be white and male.
Oh what a viscious cycle.

What to do?

Exactly Sean. Come to Toronto and count the satellite dishes sticking out of the public housing apartment buildings.

My late father was a cab driver. He loved the last day of the month when the welfare bums would call him to take them to the bank, then to the grocery store to buy chips, then to the beer store, etc with the meter running the whole time.

He had a lot of colorful things to say about these people, as did my mom and dad's friends.

The nice thing about the HRC's adding "culture" and "class" to protected categories is that it was demonstrably part of his/my culture to dis welfare bums.

So how can that be 'hate speech' huh?

Who would win such a case? The welfare bums or those of use simply being true to our working class Hamilton "culture" by dissing them?

:-)

I dunno. Maybe it's just me. If I saw adults fighting and calling each other names like 'welfar case' or whatever...it would be a case of two idiots fighting and that's it.

Why should my tax dollars go into getting the gov't involved in a chit fight between two idiots?

That's just so wrong!

There not welfare bums .... just folks yet to enter the lucrative world of telemarketing.....
Opportunities abound and I'm sure the individuals being bad mouthed at the check out line today will become the social better of the lowly store clerk soon as they find their cubicle career!

Yeah, and these welfare bums send their incredibly unruly, abusive, bully children to school, where they use up substantially more education $$, than the kids whose parents pay taxes, in Special Education classes.

And the system altogether kow-tows to these totally inadequate parents (they're vitually never challenged), while leaving out on a limb the teachers and support staff, who both work in close quarters with these kids and are regularly and calculatedly abused by them--respect-wise, verbally, and even physically.

The system has no idea what to do with these "Lord of the Flies" kids. Administration just tells burned out--and totally cheesed off--staff to "take a leave". My contempt for the educational establishment knows few bounds, however, their hands are somewhat tied by the Charter "rights" given to all the ne'er do wells: no one dares to call a spade a spade.

Orwellian.

If this kind of legislation gets passed it simply asserts my opinion that the leftards can't keep up intellectually or financially with us Cons, ergo they need the HRC to stack the deck in their favour. It's sad really, they are capable of bettering themselves but to plucking lazy to attempt to make a success of their lives. They want the HRC to mandate lazyness as a social condition so they can get welfare for a lifetime but that already exists for leftard women I guess the fellas want a stab at the best career the left ever invented "WELFARE FOR A LIFE TIME".

John we are negative because there is so many leftards and we have so little time on this planet to fight such evil. Thanks for asking buttercup.

"Yeah, and these welfare bums send their incredibly unruly, abusive, bully children to school, where they use up substantially more education $$, than the kids whose parents pay taxes, in Special Education classes."

Speaking of which, as the chair of my school's parent council I caused an *extremely uncomfortable* moment at a division meeting last year by following up a question about "special needs" children by asking what the division was doing for "gifted" children. The answer was: basically nothing.

At that point one of the other council chairs snottily informed me that there was only so much money and that programs couldn't be created "willy-nilly" for every type of student.

That's when I asked why, if funds were so limited, were we wasting them on the investments with the lowest returns? Why not put the money where it will have the greatest benefit, i.e., the gifted children?

It was worth it to get all of the Oprah Moms to stop chewing their cud for a few minutes while they tried to choke down their rage.

Needless to say, I am not popular at these meetings. Not that I mind.

"In Alberta, we've been prohibited from discriminating on the basis of "source of income" (defined to mean any lawful source) for several years. It was intended to prevent landlords from refusing to rent to people on welfare, etc. Unfortunately, it also means a landlord can't refuse to rent to a prostitute, since prostitution is not illegal."

Prostitution: presumably she has no "visible" source of income.

If you can't discriminate on that, then you can sue Honda, GM and Benz too. Every place I've ever rented has required some sort of evidence that you can afford it.

I can just see it, "I'd like a Maybach/ Veyron/ Cadillac please, on lease. " "Sir, you earn less gross per month than the lease payments, and your credit score is crap. Sod off." Me: "That's discrimination. Bwhahahaha"

bluetech hypothetically speaking if i'm hypothetically running a business and a hypothetical clerk says something that could hypothetically harm my business i'd hypothetically fire his hypothetical sorry ass. Is that hypothetical enough for you ?

You do that cantuk ..when it really happens to ya!

Sean @4:46...you described my life 20 years ago. I was the mom working on the 'ranch' and watching my husbands taxes go for 'handouts' in the 'hood. The best results from those days are my fantastic kids. The other result was a keener interest in how this government works so I can have a say in where my taxes are going.
We are getting better, still a long way to go. I'll be happier when expecting 'accountability' and 'responsibility' take the place of some of these 'handout' programs.

Sounds like a great idea to me.

Imagine the horror of lefties when taken to task financially for disparaging remarks about "the rich", "corporate CEOs and their undeserved pay and/or golden parachutes", "men are all like that..."...you get the picture.

Love it; this bit of lefty foolishness, at least as written, would logically apply in *all* directions.

Fun stuff.

And Cantuk, that's how it's supposed to work.

The customer complains to _you_. You decide if the clerk is worth keeping. If they are, you deal with the loss of business, if not, you deal with finding a new employee.

But you don't find yourself at the end of a ruling ordering you to cut a 4 figure cheque because someone's feelings were hurt.

I would gleefully pay the complainant with Asset Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) which now has a valuation that is becoming vanishingly small!!!

Or perhaps we could pay the complainant with Canadian Tire money; which in some circles is considered the official currency of Canada.

Curiously, I have not yet heard of US Tire money; nor what the exchange rate for Cdn Tire money might be.

Were all Canadians to use ABCP and Cdn Tire money we could then join the said complainant in the welfare roll call.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Cantuc said: "I'd can the idiot pretty damned quickly myself ."

Exactly. Regardless of the circumstance, or the provocation of the 'customer', nothing can come of such a statement. I'ts 'lose/lose' so what's the point.

As my wife tells me all the time, "it's not what you say, it's how you say it". And taking the high road is it's own reward.

Leftists and NDP'ers (I know, its a redundency)often slip into vitriol and viciousness in their zeal to brand. I don't want our side to begin to behave like the so often do.

At the same time, I reside in Leftdom Central. Vancouver Island, NDP held riding. Kathy S. and ET are on the right track with 'conservative's' recognizing the 'tragedy' of reality. I've been arguing that conservatives see the world as it is, while the NDP/hard left see the world as they wish it could be.

In our town, we have a beautiful multi-story subsdidezed housing for 'youth' complex. Man, I wish I could have lived in such a place in university - or even for the first several apartments afterwards. I've been in them. Nice. 650 sq. ft. Small kitchen, bath, combined living/sleeping area.

BTW, 'youth' are defined as those between 15 - 29 here. The weather is great here. Lots of pot. Not much industry, but plenty of service jobs. Who'd have thought we'd see the day when McDonald's and Tim Horton's are offering benefits?

Needless to say the 'Youth Complex' is always full. It's like having your parents pay your rent, without the annoyance of dealing with parents. Who'd leave? Jeez, if I got in at 15, I wouldn't leave until they pulled me out at 29. It's like having a NYC controlled apartment.

All well and good as they ding our pockets to keep these kids there. The only alternative we're told, is 'on the streets', so what are you gonna do? None of these kids I guess, came from a home or have a home to which they could return?

Hell, I left at 17. But not because I had a terrible home. In fact I had a great home. But it was time, I wanted to see the world. At 17 I crossed Canada (earning my own money as I went) attended Expo 67 and spent a winter in P.E.I. before returning to the other ocean again. Nobody paid a cent on my behalf and I have great memories of meeting a challenge.

Now I recognize that I can't lay the boilerplate of my life on someone elses and say, "if I did it, you can do it too." Life's more complicated than that.

Most conservatives have real empathy with people who really struggle. But we don't want excuses. Work within the possibilities of the hand that was delt you, be they physical, intellectual, economic, social or culture. When you've done that, we're here to help and help generously.

What we hate, and here's where stereotyping (just for you John Daly)comes in.....is the behavior of those who we are tasked to support thorough our taxes.

If you're a skank (non-gender specific, non-sexual-connotation of course)living off the avails of the taxpayer, at least show your appreciation by demanding the least of us, rather than the most. And cut the bad behavior that turns people off your plight. Stop the agressive panhandling, the petty theft, the B&E's, the smashing of car windows for a DVD, the ##^$$#@!in the alleyways after you've fixed and dropped your needles. Clean up your street language. Show some respect, for yourself and for other people.

Is that too much to ask of someone who takes my money and resents me for it?

Incidentally, before I got off on that rant, I wanted to make a point about the 'youth housing'. The cost of foregone rent alone must be a couple hundred thousand a year. Then the maintainence. These people don't pay strata or anyother fees, so there's a few union people looking after the grounds to pay $50K plus benefits, too.

But what really gets me, is the amount requied for repairs due to.....wait for it.... wilful damage. You couldn't find two square feet in the walls of any hallway that hasn't been patched and repainted due to holes. The elevator is constantly being painted due to 'graffitti' scratched in - I guess because on a 30 sec. ride, you need something to do.

And these apartments are furnished. Can you imagine how often replacement/repair is needed when you've got a place rented out to young men and women with semi-autonomy and a history of "I don't get along with my family'? As a city owned/operated facility, cost is no object. I do agree instant repair to avoid more damage, but hey, somewhere i'ts gotta stop.

The simple fact is that we only truly care for that in which we have an investment. Either emotionally or better still, financially.

Barring that, human nature is that we don't give a rat's ass. And that's why 'the poor' behave badly as a class.

Sean wrote, "It was worth it to get all of the Oprah Moms to stop chewing their cud". (Good for you, Sean!) I've used the very same metaphor to describe the deadbeats I've had to deal with. A PC family member, who only works with establishment types, was SHOCKED that I should think of describing such people . . . exactly as they look and behave.

As long as we have to pretend that things aren't as they really are--the PC, Liberal formula--we're doomed. (And more and more of us are damned angry too at being abused in this way.)

Yeah , I'd probably be bankrupt in no time flat , sued by the customer , sued by the disgruntled employee, several customers waiting in line and 3 winos in the back alley.

Too many good insightful comments myself to add anything new, but to say that this Country is moving a head on these issues at a tremendous speed comparatively by political action standards. Its only been 2 years since a Harper victory. It took the Liberals 40 to almost to sink the ship of State.

The best news though is that its not government agencies or politicians calling for this reform although some will be used to strangle this poison ivy parasite of a Ersatz- legal society. Its coming about, from you the people as individuals, expressing yourselves by dint of common rights, held by free peoples to combat this very thing .
To me, seeing the back end of the HRC,s for good is to restore a sense of dignity with fair mindedness back to our Nation by its population demanding real law, a miracle in & of itself.

As for the teller in the service industry or like me working for parks. Where paid to smile even when grinding out teeth. No excuse for bad behavior with the public unless attacked. She should have called her supervisor to handle any PR. problems.

Just my opinion.

It is important that people respect others regardless of the value of money.

It is upon an individual to behave from the position of respect even if the other behaves as a jack ass. You don’t have to agree or support stupid behavior, though if you behave the same way back it is no different.

Look how many people call ET assorted names and try to put ET down. Half the time I don’t agree with ET, though ET’s argument gains validity with ET remaining on the subject at hand in spite of the name calling and silly arguments. ET self does not call people names and puts them down.

Remember, you do things for your reasons, others for theirs.
If you want to be insulted, go ahead be insulted.
If you don't, it would be nearly impossible for anybody to do it to you.

Hey, this could be a great way for that welfare bum Shaidle to suppliment her imcome.

Remember, you do things for your reasons, others for theirs.
If you want to be insulted, go ahead be insulted.
If you don't, it would be nearly impossible for anybody to do it to you.

Posted by: Lev at April 1, 2008 9:33 PM

So Lev...you are saying that people stay on welfare,and are proud of it(remember,they are not insulted)for their reasons. So just what are their reasons?

Noguff:"Leftists and NDP'ers (I know, its a redundency)often slip into vitriol and viciousness in their zeal to brand. I don't want our side to begin to behave like the so often do."

Are you reading the same blog as I am?

now I know why I got rid of my business and my rentals, because you ain't supposed to call a scumb sucking welfare bumb a scum sucking welfare bumb!!!!

I know that what I said is not as precise as I would like it to be.

I think that there should be no welfare or maximum only for emergency situation, not as a way of life.

Those that would like to live on welfare should be made to contribute and in short order get going on their own.

Of course they are not insulted because they are told by their enablers that they are special, rather then being told in not uncertain terms that the lifestyle in unacceptable.

What is lacking is a direct talk to the welfare crowd that the lifestyle is no go. I would venture to say that there are few if any politicians that will do that. Certainly there are none of those that make their eighty to hundred grand from the welfare industry.

"In Alberta, we've been prohibited from discriminating on the basis of "source of income" (defined to mean any lawful source) for several years. It was intended to prevent landlords from refusing to rent to people on welfare, etc. Unfortunately, it also means a landlord can't refuse to rent to a prostitute, since prostitution is not illegal."

We are not in Alberta so the rules MAY be somewhat different. But I help my daughter in renting her revenue apartment.
When we get a application to rent we run it through a credit referencing service. Welfare and indians are immediatley discarded. Its unfortunate for the good ones but the landlord tenants act is so tenant slanted you can't even take a chance. At best you can get a 1/2 month damage deposit. This doesn't go far if there is ANY damage. Its similar to what the auto insurance companies do. If you are in a certain demographic (i.e. young male drivers)you pay through the nose.

I'm always surprised when landlords are convicted of descrimination. If you don't rent to someone you don't have to give reasons.

Horny Toad

Lev, with due respect, I believe you're naive. E.g., You say, "If you want to be insulted, go ahead be insulted. If you don't, it would be nearly impossible for anybody to do it to you."

You haven't, obviously, had to deal, on a day to day basis, with barbarians--children, "Lord of the Flies" kids--who have no manners whatsoever. As I said, these bullies and their quite useless to actively subversive parents (now THAT’s an insult to the hardworking, professional teacher), especially if they're viz-min, are altogether supported by the PC administration. (I was recently in a class, where some of these kids, whom I know well, have reverted “to nature”. It was sad and scary to see. The insults they directed at the adults in the class came fast and furious. In the public school systems, there are no workable remedies allowed anymore. The kids have the upper hand and they, especially the bullies, know it. Teachers have fewer rights than these kids and their parasite parents.)

We're losing civilization by according to the lazy, the barbaric, and the criminal elements of our society more rights than those of us who are courteous (until sometimes pushed to the absolute limit), hard working, and law abiding.

When we remove all means by which the latter group may try to protect itself from the leech-like to criminal behaviour of the former group, I believe things might get truly nasty. People who are treated unjustly--the majority of hard working, law abiding, tax paying Canadians, who have noticed that the Charter offers them little to no protection--will not roll over and accept it forever: remember, in 1989, the Berlin Wall finally came down.

In the meantime, living in a once proud and free country, which is now held hostage by the lowest common denominator, who have been allowed almost unlimited "rights" by a truly ignorant and arrogant elite--they don't deal with the miscreants, other than at arms’ length--is becoming a huge burden. (And, Lev, BTW, a huge insult, not because we want it: we have no choice.) We know it's grossly unfair and nonsensical. Canada's becoming more like Alice's Wonderland by the minute, where the Red Queen’s cruel craziness and arbitrariness rules.

Among others (REAL Women for the past 25 years), people, like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, are leading the charge against our pea-brained and dangerous overlords. I just hope there are enough “strong and free” Canadians to join them. If not, as I said, I think we’re doomed.

Daly - you got me. I went to your pathetic site to try to have an intelligent conversation with you about life views and such. I discovered it can't be done. No intelligence apparent on the site.

Regarding the question - of course the server should be retrained on customer service. But that answer avoids the question. Is this an area for HRCs to be involved - of course not!

On world views - the conservative view is a realists view. Mans natural state is nasty short and brutish. Order comes not from imposing a utopian ideal, but from individuals agreeing to behaviour that limits the natural state. Not my idea, but one worth remembering.

I want a new Rolls Royce. So the vendor says - "Fine, Sir. That'll be $400,000 plus GST. Will that be by cheque or will you be financing it through your bank?"

So I say - "Can't you reduce it? I only have $2,000 ready cash, my bank's refused to lend me any money, I have a wife and three children to support, and because I work for the Aid To Disadvantaged Children Society, my income after taxes is only $30,000 a year ."

And the dealer says - "Look, that obviously means you can't afford it. If you can't pay me the $400,000 I'm not selling to you."

So I go to a Human Rights Commission and claim that he's discriminated against me on the basis of my source of income. It costs me nothing. The dealer has to spend $200,000 on defending himself, and the HRC Tribunal orders him to pay me a five-figure amount as compensation......

That'll teach people like him not to discriminate, eh?

Maybe we should talk about more hush-hush subjects and try to get a little information out as to exactly what's going on otherwise it'll get worse.

We should be concerned about people who come here who are not employable or there are only low paying jobs or no jobs available. We set them up in subsidized housing, pay them welfare and they go ahead and breed large families. What will happen to these children? Will they do the same? Will they get the necessary education to become contributing citizens or will the cycle continue?

The Conservative government is attempting to fast track immigrants who we badly need and have jobs for, then we have the Liberal/Leftoids trying to twist it around as cutting immigration. It's no such thing of course, those in line will not lose their place.

It appears we're in for some interesting times.

Just heard today that "visible minorities" make up more than 50% of Vancouver's (Greater Vancouver) population. Doesn't that make a white male a visible minority now? ... or is it anything but.

What about Calgary?

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2008/04/03/5180476-sun.html

25% of the population calling themselves a visible minority does not include many Arabs or Latinos who self classify as white.

Considering that some global population estimates put “white people” of European ancestry below 15% who indeed is in the minority? Some estimates predict that by 2050 no country on earth will have a majority white population. None!

Will affirmative action stop in traditionally ethnic European societies then?

Will remaining peoples of European white ancestry have special entitlements to jobs and education?

Will affirmative action remain for privileged majority groups as it does in Malaysia today, particularly Islamic groups?

Will people of European white ethnicity have an option of picking up and traveling elsewhere because they feel discriminated against and a minority?

Impossibly attempting to not sound “racist” because I know how it sounds to the sensitive politically correct ears of many, we need to ask ourselves if this is the inevitable future we wish upon our shrinking culture and ethnic inheritors. It’s not meant as racist’s comments at all, simply put it’s a matter of survival of European descendants and I believe all cultures have a right to exist. The “white” world seems more concerned with saving the humpbacked whale than itself, which is extremely ironic because very few other cultures care less about either.