British Columbia Human Rights Code

[Asher]

I find it interesting that all the admin I've PMed have ignored my question as to the IP of the guy.

[Flubber]

Oh and Asher give it up-- The HRC should turf your complaint out of hand-- You can sue for slander but calling you a stalker or a liar or whatnot does not discriminate on a proscribed ground. If you want to complain you would need something that you could link to say your homosexuality so you can tick their boxes on the form. Bottom line is the human rights commission will not care of you obviously slandered someone (say if I called someone a thief) unless it hits one of their criteria

Besides the merits, I read the thread in question now and agree with David Floyd. Raising this makes you sound like a big douche. Nobody on here takes BK seriously generally and I dobt that anyone would believe you stalked him to anywhere. Why not just ignore Ben like you did for a while?

[Asher]

Think you missed a lot, Flubber.

The problem was Ben was lying to defame my character. He repeatedly accused me of "stalking" him elsewhere. Claims easily disproven by the fact that I was there 3 years before he ever went there.

I was trying to wind him up by using his irrational hatred of the HRC against him (which he has repeatedly claimed had 100% conviction rates, were a tyranny to free speech, etc) by telling him I was filing a complaint.

In almost no time at all, this new poster came in and reminded people not to send hatemail to the address Ben gave out without specifically specifying Ben's full name, as he didn't want the mother opening up the mail by accident. I PMed the guy to verify if he knew Ben in person, he verified that he was Ben's brother.

Ben is now claiming that I am this poster (Zanzozz), and that I PMed myself so that I could have a PM but then never be stupid enough to show it on the site --because if I did, I would be banned.

Quoted again for Flubber's benefit.

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber's read Steyn so he's obviously familiar with my arguments.

[Flubber]

Quoted again for Flubber's benefit.

Thanks asher I had read that before-- If you want to wind him up with completely implausible things why not threaten to force him to abort the fetus he himself is carrying. The fact that he is a male non-pregnant virgin should be little impediment.

[Flubber]

Flubber's read Steyn so he's obviously familiar with my arguments.

I subscribe to Macleans and pretty much read it cover to cover. Steyn is usually entertaining.

I actually see him as similar to Asher in that both sometimes employ overblown rhetoric to make a point

[Asher]

I could probably get a job writing half-baked op-eds pretty easily.

Then I could be as wealthy as Ben, getting paid a buck a word...

[Asher]

Thanks asher I had read that before-- If you want to wind him up with completely implausible things why not threaten to force him to abort the fetus he himself is carrying. The fact that he is a male non-pregnant virgin should be little impediment.

To be consistent with Ben's opinions on the HRC/HRTs, it wouldn't have been implausible. Ben's been fearmongering about the HRC/HRTs for years about how absurd they are.

[Flubber]

To be consistent with Ben's opinions on the HRC/HRTs, it wouldn't have been implausible. Ben's been fearmongering about the HRC/HRTs for years about how absurd they are.

Even very reassonable people have questioned some of their forays into "speech" and many people have questioned how the HRC will first supposedly investigate a complaint as an impartial party and then switch and adopt the role of advocate for the complainant. Those are not strange or unusual views.

But the commissions do need grounds. I could slander you by your real name in a newspaper-- clear slander that a court would award damages for . . But if it isn't based on race, sex, religion or some other proscribed grounds, the commissions won't touch it.

THats why I said your threat was totally implausible.

[Asher]

I still don't think you're getting it. Ben has asserted many, many absurd things about the HRC -- that they're akin to Star Chambers, that they have 100% conviction rates, that you don't need any evidence to convict someone, etc. In Ben's mind, the HRC/HRT are summary judgements. You make a complaint, the person is convicted. He's said as much many times in his critique of it.

Given that background, it was not implausible to Ben.

You'll note that Ben didn't even know what you're saying now -- in his response to it, he basically thought he was "safe" because he "didn't use my real name". Not that it's not a relevant topic at all to the HRC/HRT.

[Flubber]

I could probably get a job writing half-baked op-eds pretty easily.

Then I could be as wealthy as Ben, getting paid a buck a word...

It does appear that if you are moderately articulate and opinionated with views that are shared by a reasonable sized group, there would be an audience

[Flubber]

I still don't think you're getting it. Ben has asserted many, many absurd things about the HRC -- that they're akin to Star Chambers, that they have 100% conviction rates, that you don't need any evidence to convict someone, etc. In Ben's mind, the HRC/HRT are summary judgements. You make a complaint, the person is convicted. He's said as much many times in his critique of it.

Given that background, it was not implausible to Ben.

You'll note that Ben didn't even know what you're saying now -- in his response to it, he basically thought he was "safe" because he "didn't use my real name". Not that it's not a relevant topic at all to the HRC/HRT.

Ahh you are choosing to play in the Beniverse where reality is often suspended -- Carry on then and enjoy