Bookstores and Responsibility

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not sure why you consider this an adequate response to the government of Canada violating the rights of its citizens by hauling them before an ill informed tribunal to answer such idiotic charges.

LUV YA

No one's rights have been violated. They're not even dealing with private citizens here.

Macleans is the one involved here, not the author. More specifically, Macleans' corporate overlord. That was also made clear in the thread if you'd bother to read the "facts" post rather than Ben's sensational bull**** posts.

You're not violating anyone's rights by putting them before a commission.

Before you continue, I need you to identify which right has been violated by going infront of the human rights commission.

Your protests are funny considering the whole purpose of the HRC. The HRC exists to ensure rights are respected -- for instance, when a schoolboard banned a student from bringing his boyfriend to the prom, it went before the HRC which ruled this was discrimination by a publicly funded entity. That's justice and ensuring rights are respected, not the opposite. Though I'm sure you think a boy bringing another boy to his prom is criminal...

[DinoDoc]

Should I take your post here as an admission that you can't come up with a cogent defense of the incident as anything other than an assault on free speech rights?

[Asher]

There's no assault. Someone makes a complaint -- anyone. It goes infront of a commission to see if there's any possible merit, and if so, then it goes infront of the Tribunal as it is now.

It's legal procedure. Citizen makes complaint --> Commission -> Tribunal to investigate if something wrong occurred.

Again, you do not seem to comprehend the Canadian political and judicial systems so it's best not to make an ass out of yourself. Don't worry, Ben doesn't have a clue either. He spent more than half of that thread yammering on about how the Tribunal's decisions can't be appealed, when they explicitly can.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Seeing explicit nude images in B&N is not.

I think Catholic and High Anglican churches should carry warnings that people may be exposed to graphic imagery of semi-naked men and women subject to extreme cruelty and torture, and that depictions of breastfeeding are likely to be found there too.

Good grief.

It's a bookstore.

It stocks books. Some books on art or photography have depictions of naked men and women, because surprisingly for centuries, people have been depicting men and women WITHOUT THEIR CLOTHES ON.

Did the woman seek out any tables that might have had history books on, carrying illustrations of the aftermath of bombing raids, or the liberation of Dachau ?

That's the stuff of nightmares, not a common or garden penis.

Stone Age man centrespread material: