Canada's Star Chambers

[LotC]

Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

[Asher]

Admit you were wrong and I was right.

[LotC]

That too.

[Ben Kenobi]

As I said, yay democracy.

Now, let's shut down the HRC's so they can't do that again.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As I said, yay democracy.

Now, let's shut down the HRC's so they can't do that again.

Seems to me this shows they served their purpose quite well, and is no reason to shut them down.

So you are not admitting you are wrong.

Fool.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seems to me this shows they served their purpose quite well, and is no reason to shut them down.

So you are not admitting you are wrong.

Steyn and Macleans should never have faced a day of trial. That the lawsuit lasted as long as it did isn't a victory for Canadian democracy.

I'm happy he was exonerated, although the aggrieved parties may still appeal.

[Asher]

What kind of Star Chambers allow appeals, Ben?

Face facts -- you puffed out a lot of smoke out of your ass without knowing a clue about anything. Every single thing you said about this case and the Human Rights Tribunal was wrong and simply ridiculous. You don't have a leg to stand on here, and you're still trying to squirm out of it.

[Elok]

What this thread needs is a cute cartoon pic of a beaver in jackboots.

[Wezil]

.

[Ben Kenobi]

Face facts -- you puffed out a lot of smoke out of your ass without knowing a clue about anything. Every single thing you said about this case and the Human Rights Tribunal was wrong and simply ridiculous. You don't have a leg to stand on here, and you're still trying to squirm out of it.

The fact that you consider appeals to be a beneficial thing says it all for me.

It should never have gone to trial at all, let along Macleans and Steyn being out of pocket for the frivolous complaint.

As it is it's better exonerated, but steps need to be taken to ensure it doesn't happen again, and the way to do that is to get rid of the star chambers altogether.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The fact that you consider appeals to be a beneficial thing says it all for me.

You think appeals are a bad thing?

Ben, people go to trial for improper reasons all the time here in the U.S. Citing one case where you personally feel it shouldn't have gone to trial as evidence of Canada being "totalitarian" as compared to the U.S. is simply ludicrous.

[Elok]

Okay Wezil, that's a bea--er, vagina squirrel, but where are the jackboots? An army helmet would be nice too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, people go to trial for improper reasons all the time here in the U.S. Citing one case where you personally feel it shouldn't have gone to trial as evidence of Canada being "totalitarian" as compared to the U.S. is simply ludicrous.

I'm not just talking about this one case, I'm talking about the Human Rights Commissions in general.

First off.

1. They were established by Trudeau for the specific purpose of defending human rights legislation.

2. They are not, in any way shape or form precluded by a higher court, not even the surpreme court.

3. The commissioners who sit on them are not required to be lawyers. Their only qualification is that they are friends with the liberal party, to which point the commissioners are appointed.

4. The commission appeals work one way, the party of the claimant. If Steyn had been found guilty at one step of the way, he could not turn around and appeal to a higher court.

5. They have the power to garnish wages, impose fines, etc. Why? Because Trudeau wanted them to be able to do so.

6. If someone files a lawsuit against you through the HRC, their costs are covered, whereas yours are not. Even if you are proven not guilty, you are still on the hook for your court costs, whereas a civil court can award damages to the accused party, and court costs, the same is not true of the HRCs.

The big question is why the regular courts were insufficient. The reason for that are the rules by which the regular courts operate are not conducive to the abuses we are seeing in the HRCs.

Steyn is just the latest and most prominent target. The HRC's are star chambers, and were designed to be such by PET.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not just talking about this one case, I'm talking about the Human Rights Commissions in general.

First off.

1. They were established by Trudeau for the specific purpose of defending human rights legislation.

The horror.

2. They are not, in any way shape or form precluded by a higher court, not even the surpreme court.

Don't know what your point is. The appeals end up in the federal courts.

3. The commissioners who sit on them are not required to be lawyers. Their only qualification is that they are friends with the liberal party, to which point the commissioners are appointed.

You know as well as I do that's not the qualifications. More lies from Ben, pathological liar...

4. The commission appeals work one way, the party of the claimant. If Steyn had been found guilty at one step of the way, he could not turn around and appeal to a higher court.

Both parties can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada if needed. Another lie. This was cited in this very thread.

5. They have the power to garnish wages, impose fines, etc. Why? Because Trudeau wanted them to be able to do so.

A court with no teeth is not a court at all. Duh.

6. If someone files a lawsuit against you through the HRC, their costs are covered, whereas yours are not. Even if you are proven not guilty, you are still on the hook for your court costs, whereas a civil court can award damages to the accused party, and court costs, the same is not true of the HRCs.

Didn't Harper's government kill the funding for the plaintiff too now? All I want to see is consistency -- this is the only thing you have a slight argument about. If the government can fund the plaintiff's lawyers, they need to fund the defenses' lawyers too. If neither are funded, that works too.

Steyn is just the latest and most prominent target. The HRC's are star chambers, and were designed to be such by PET.

You just made the claim that they are Star Chambers without once backing up that claim. You clearly don't even know what the **** Star Chambers are.

[Ben Kenobi]

You know as well as I do that's not the qualifications.

The point is there isn't a requirement to be a lawyer. That's a huge problem.

Both parties can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada if needed. Another lie. This was cited in this very thread.

And refuted.

A court with no teeth is not a court at all. Duh.

I have a problem with liberal party hacks taken off the streets having the power to levy fines for things that aren't crimes.

Didn't Harper's government kill the funding for the plaintiff too now? All I want to see is consistency -- this is the only thing you have a slight argument about. If the government can fund the plaintiff's lawyers, they need to fund the defenses' lawyers too. If neither are funded, that works too.

That was the court challenges program, which was something else entirely. Now he needs to kill off the CHRC's too, because they are being abused to trample on our fundamental freedoms.

You just made the claim that they are Star Chambers without once backing up that claim. You clearly don't even know what the **** Star Chambers are.

All I know is that some king a long time ago in a land some call Albion made them and the people revolted and chopped off his head.

Here in Canada, a wise man from the city named after Bloody Mary did the same, but rather then chopping off his head, we proclaimed him a saint, and embalmed his body in a tomb which still stands in Ottawa as a beacon of truth, righteousness and pigeons.