Canadian Society, Political Correctness etc..

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Canadian Society, Political Correctness etc..
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

Posted by brunette on Oct-05-2003 22:44:

quote:
Originally posted by TranceGeek
ahhh DALI!!

I'll never forgive you for that

oh, now it's my fault?!
if anything, I wanted to check it out more than you

and besides, you missed Sistine too

Posted by LKD on Oct-05-2003 23:56:

quote:
Originally posted by brunette
oh, now it's my fault?!
if anything, I wanted to check it out more than you

and besides, you missed Sistine too

brunette..is that u in ur avatar??cos if it is, ur hot

Posted by Crazy Serb on Oct-06-2003 00:28:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ El Kay Dee
brunette..is that u in ur avatar??cos if it is, ur hot

Oh not again... another "Is she hot?!" post...

Posted by Ortemy on Oct-06-2003 00:43:

quote:
Originally posted by brunette
North America is such a sex-obsessed society..

Posted by Mako on Oct-06-2003 00:56:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ El Kay Dee
brunette..is that u in ur avatar??cos if it is, ur hot

Bahahaha

OMGHI2U

Bahahaha

OMGHI2U

Posted by StereoPrincess on Oct-06-2003 22:57:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut

quote:
Originally posted by alahmalek
your freedom ends where someone's else freedom starts. in that case, expressing herself about her disgust won over the guys expressing their ... euh horniness? You go to a club, say, hey girl i love your tities, can I put my **** in your ***** ? she's gonna slap you. are you gonna say "hey! freedom of speech!" hehehehe

Yeah, you have the right to say that to a girl in a club, and she's got the right to slap you for it. She doesn't have the right to call the cops and have you ejected from the club because of it.

Aaron, I hope that you don't really believe this. In a situation like this one described by Malek, the girl actually has a lot of rights to complain and call the cops and all that great wonderful stuff. It's SEXUAL HARASSMENT, there are a lot of laws about it (and not only in Canada). You wouldn't want that said to your mother either and I'm sure you would bring it to the authorities. Freedom of speech is one of those really hard things to define. You don't have the right to spread lies about people (defamation of character) and you don't have the right to sexually harass women either. But technically you should be able to since you have the right of free speech. I would like to see this angle being used in a sexual harassment trial.

Posted by DigiNut on Oct-06-2003 23:26:

quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
Aaron, I hope that you don't really believe this. In a situation like this one described by Malek, the girl actually has a lot of rights to complain and call the cops and all that great wonderful stuff. It's SEXUAL HARASSMENT, there are a lot of laws about it (and not only in Canada). You wouldn't want that said to your mother either and I'm sure you would bring it to the authorities. Freedom of speech is one of those really hard things to define. You don't have the right to spread lies about people (defamation of character) and you don't have the right to sexually harass women either. But technically you should be able to since you have the right of free speech. I would like to see this angle being used in a sexual harassment trial.

I don't know about that, Margs. "Harassment" by definition refers to repetitive behaviour, and sexual harassment is persistent sexual advances. You think someone would have a case with just that one comment? I sincerely hope not!

How has the guy in question honestly done any damage to the woman? If she slaps him and he quietly walks away, where's the problem? Now, if he followed up that gesture by grabbing her boobs, then yes, she'd definitely have a case, because that's violating her. Or if she slapped him and he tried to sue her for assault, he'd probably be booted out of court.

I'd also move to say that if a woman said something along those lines to a man, the man wouldn't have much of a case no matter how persistent she was with it. Why? Because apparently a man would like it, whereas a woman would just be offended.

It's the double-standard that bothers me.

Posted by dEsidEL on Oct-06-2003 23:29:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
I don't know about that, Margs. "Harassment" by definition refers to repetitive behaviour, and sexual harassment is persistent sexual advances. You think someone would have a case with just that one comment? I sincerely hope not!

How has the guy in question honestly done any damage to the woman? If she slaps him and he quietly walks away, where's the problem? Now, if he followed up that gesture by grabbing her boobs, then yes, she'd definitely have a case, because that's violating her. Or if she slapped him and he tried to sue her for assault, he'd probably be booted out of court.

I'd also move to say that if a woman said something along those lines to a man, the man wouldn't have much of a case no matter how persistent she was with it. Why? Because apparently a man would like it, whereas a woman would just be offended.

It's the double-standard that bothers me.

Aaron u sound bitter again .. ur the most vocal masculinist i've ever seen ..

Posted by 'mju:zik on Oct-07-2003 00:15:

Funny how Durfei STILL HASN'T POSTED HOW HE KNOWS WHO GOT THE POSTER BUSTED. I WONDER WHY!?!?

Posted by StereoPrincess on Oct-07-2003 00:42:

Posted by malek on Oct-07-2003 00:59:

Posted by DigiNut on Oct-07-2003 02:10:

quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
Well, I actually hope SO. If a woman wouldn't have a case with just one comment then I would be scared. For sexual harassment the literal meaning of harassment is much more lax. Does a girl have to get raped twice to have it count in court.

Just out of curiosity, you do realize that the term "sexual harassment" was originally coined to apply to the workplace? You do understand that it's actually part of the Canadian Labour Code, and not part of the Criminal Code? It's only very recently that people have tried to extend it to ordinary on-the-street situations; it does not and should not apply to such circumstances. The law was intended to curb situations that would prevent a woman in the workplace from doing her job properly. The Criminal Code deals solely with sexual assault, i.e. blatant unwanted physical sexual conduct with another person. Does that mean that a girl has to get raped twice? Of course not! But it does mean that the guy she's charging actually has to touch her, otherwise she's got no case.

I'm sure I could be wrong about this - if so, please show me a credible link that defines sexual harassment outside the context of employment or education.

I think women should have to choose: are they empowered, capable people that can run their own lives and make their own decisions, or are they poor defenseless china dolls that can never hope to overcome the opression of the sex-hungry animals known as men? Come on now, one or the other, you can't be both.

If a guy jumps you on the street and tries to rape you, or even just gropes you, then yeah there is definitely legal recourse, but since when is a girl incapable of dealing with an verbally obnoxious guy on her own? She needs the law to help her out why exactly?

Brainwashing. Ever read Disclosure? I'm not a masculinist at all, in fact, the reason I'm arguing this is that I don't believe in the superiority of either sex, although I do believe that there are fundamental differences that go beyond the genitals.

And yes Emery, I am bitter, bitter that you ignored my plea for help with PvD tickets and then went out to get 'em for other people. Bitter about this though? Nah, not really, just very vocal, I don't believe in "political correctness."

Posted by StereoPrincess on Oct-07-2003 03:00:

As it turns out sexual harassment is actually governend by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publication...ar_lcdp.asp?l=e

I also did not know any of this.

quote:

for a practice to be considered harassment it must be reasonably perceived as a term or condition of employment (including availability or continuation of work, promotional or training opportunities) or of the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public; or influence decisions on such matters; or interfere with job performance or access to or enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or accommodation; or humiliate, insult or intimidate any individual;

To apply the meaning to the above mentioned situation. The girl's right to enjoy services (going to a bar) available to the general public would have been taken away from her. Also she would feel humiliated, insulted and intimidated. I personally think that human right violations are very serious, sometimes more morally wrong then petty crimes.

Its a right of humans to be able to enjoy all things equally. I personally would not bring such a thing to court but a woman that does has a perfect right too. As well as a man has the same right. If a man feels to ashamed to report harassment occurances, what does that have to do with the woman's right to do the same?

Posted by DigiNut on Oct-07-2003 04:02:

Ok Margs, I understand all that, but the header to all that is that it's a "discriminatory practice", and therefore only apples to situations where the "harassing" person is in some position of authority. You can't discriminate against someone for whom you're not offering any goods or services.

Let's digress for a minute with a totally hypothetical example: If a black man walks into a 7-11 to buy a magazine, and some random white guy beside him snatches the last copy and says to the black man's face, "Sorry, this magazine's for white guys only" - do you think that this white guy can be sued and/or criminally charged? No. Is it crude, immoral, and generally detestable behaviour? Yes. Is there legal recourse? No! However, if the owner of the store refused to sell him that magazine, then he could be charged.

Do you understand what I'm saying here? The affirmative action/human rights laws aren't there to give people a way to get revenge on other people who say or do things that might be politically incorrect or downright rude. People are entitled to be rude. The laws are there to protect people who could not otherwise protect themselves. The black guy in this example could just as easily give the finger to the white guy and try to wrestle the magazine out of his hands, but if it's the store owner that refuses to sell it to the black guy, the guy can't do anything about it without legal aid.

The guy who hits on a girl in the bar isn't "taking away her right" to enjoy the service provided by the bar... now if the bouncer says the girl can't come in unless she takes her top off, then that's harassment. If a stranger asks her if she wants to f*ck? No, it's not.

Hopefully you see where I'm going with this... the law is meant to be an armor, not a weapon, and I think it's unfortunate that people try to use it as the latter.

Edit: by the way, this isn't anything personal, just hoping that's understood... just defending my opinion here.

Posted by Durafei on Oct-07-2003 04:04:

quote:
Originally posted by 'mju:zik
Funny how Durfei STILL HASN'T POSTED HOW HE KNOWS WHO GOT THE POSTER BUSTED. I WONDER WHY!?!?

Dude, please read all the posts.. I posted this earlier:

quote:
She saw it through the window(the door to this lab has a window)

Posted by StereoPrincess on Oct-07-2003 04:21:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Let's digress for a minute with a totally hypothetical example: If a black man walks into a 7-11 to buy a magazine, and some random white guy beside him snatches the last copy and says to the black man's face, "Sorry, this magazine's for white guys only" - do you think that this white guy can be sued and/or criminally charged? No. Is it crude, immoral, and generally detestable behaviour? Yes. Is there legal recourse? No! However, if the owner of the store refused to sell him that magazine, then he could be charged.

I can see where you are going with this but I just think we are interpreting this law a different way, and this means that it will probably cause problems in many cases and will probably be adjusted after some prominant case. Harassment does not have to be from a person of authority. For example, if I have a phone stalker calling me and harassing me, that person is not in a place of authority because I may not know who they are but they are infringing on my right to feel confortable picking up the phone. In the 7-11 case, there is no past case to go on. I do understand where you are coming from though. That is a good example but I would personally interpret that case as definite harassment. A service is being stopped because of racist ideas, no matter who causes it. Technically, the store owner could be held partly responsible for not stopping it.

quote:
Do you understand what I'm saying here? The affirmative action/human rights laws aren't there to give people a way to get revenge on other people who say or do things that might be politically incorrect or downright rude.

Even criminal laws aren't meant as revenge. It's justice. You mentioned earlier that you would like equality for all humans, these human right laws try to guarantee that

quote:
The guy who hits on a girl in the bar isn't "taking away her right" to enjoy the service provided by the bar... now if the bouncer says the girl can't come in unless she takes her top off, then that's harassment. If a stranger asks her if she wants to f*ck? No, it's not.

Again, I personally think that if a guy says what was the original example then he is definitely taking away a right and humiliating the girl. Hitting on a girl is way different then asking her if you can slap you dick in between her tits.

Posted by 'mju:zik on Oct-07-2003 05:52:

quote:
Originally posted by Durafei
Dude, please read all the posts.. I posted this earlier:

DUDE, all you said was that she saw it, you didn't say HOW YOU KNEW she saw it...thats a big difference. I did read all the posts, DUDE.

Posted by Durafei on Oct-07-2003 05:56:

quote:
Originally posted by 'mju:zik
DUDE, all you said was that she saw it, you didn't say HOW YOU KNEW she saw it...thats a big difference. I did read all the posts, DUDE.

hehe.. again, read all the posts;

quote:
I know that it was a HER to complained about us, because on our local newsgroup discussion a person to whom the complaint was first addressed, posted that it was a woman that complained.

Posted by 'mju:zik on Oct-07-2003 06:09:

quote:
Originally posted by Durafei
hehe.. again, read all the posts;

did this person say what woman? or just "a woman?" doesnt it sound like a pressed answer. like i dont have to tell u so im gonna make up this "woman" because thats convenient for obvious reasons.

Posted by 'mju:zik on Oct-07-2003 06:10:

youre just giving hear-say, no real answer.

Posted by Durafei on Oct-07-2003 13:02:

quote:
Originally posted by 'mju:zik
did this person say what woman? or just "a woman?" doesnt it sound like a pressed answer. like i dont have to tell u so im gonna make up this "woman" because thats convenient for obvious reasons.

Fuck, THAT WAS A woman who complained..

The person who posted on the newsgroup wasn't just anybody. It was a course instructor(also female) for CS 342. She wouldn't lie in her posting. So, the girl who saw the poster, got offended, complained to that female instructor, who in turn posted on newsgroup that it was a woman that complained.

Posted by DigiNut on Oct-07-2003 19:32:

quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
Harassment does not have to be from a person of authority. For example, if I have a phone stalker calling me and harassing me, that person is not in a place of authority because I may not know who they are but they are infringing on my right to feel confortable picking up the phone.

Ok, yes, you're right. The kind of harassment you're referring to is outside the realm of discrimination and now falls into the category of tort law dealing with harassment in general. This is what I mentioned in my original post about repeated unwanted behaviour. In this case it doesn't necessarily have to be sexual harassment; if a telemarketer calls you at 3 am every night asking you to switch your long distance plan and continues to do so after you've asked him/her to stop, that's harassment and you can sue them for it. The burden of proof in court will be on you to prove that the harassment was constant, undesirable, and not just a single isolated incident.

Strictly speaking, you don't have the "right" to feel comfortable picking up the phone, or to feel comfortable in any other situation. Your civil rights are simply whatever is in our charter of rights, and the charter of rights only applies to public laws and municipal and provincial rules and regulations - it's like if you loiter in a store or cause shit in a club, they can throw you out; you don't have the right to be there, because you're on their private property.

quote:
In the 7-11 case, there is no past case to go on... A service is being stopped because of racist ideas, no matter who causes it. Technically, the store owner could be held partly responsible for not stopping it.

There is no precedent for the 7-11 case because it's ludicrous. The store owner can't be held responsible for anything because there's no responsibility to be had. Rest assured that no competent lawyer would ever take this case. Even IF the store owner refuses to sell to a black person or jacks up the price - those cases have been brought to court and often lose when argued on grounds of discrimination. The way those cases are won is actually through contract law, because the store owner has advertised (i.e. made an offer) to sell a piece of merchandise for a certain price, and he is bound to his end of the agreement no matter who chooses to buy it.

"Human Rights" is sort of a misnomer, actually. The way the laws are structured don't technically guarantee rights to private citizens, but rather place responsibilities on businesses and government to provide equitable treatment for each person they deal with. Again, the laws are there to ensure equal opportunity, so if a guy tells a girl he wants to f*ck her, he's not denying her any rights (and I'm sorry, but the "right to enjoy her day" is not a real right!).

Again, I'm not trying to put you down, but I think you may be surprised if you look at some of the legal precedents out there. Your interpretation of human rights laws is very common, but not correct. If you can show a legal precedent that contradicts anything I'm saying, then I'm willing to concede the point to you, but for now I am going to say that what I'm presenting to you is actually a point of fact, not just an opinion.

To recap: I can't seem to find any clause in the charter that guarantees an individual's "right to feel comfortable, happy, and otherwise free of annoyance."

Posted by 'mju:zik on Oct-07-2003 19:38:

quote:
Originally posted by Durafei
Fuck, THAT WAS A woman who complained..

The person who posted on the newsgroup wasn't just anybody. It was a course instructor(also female) for CS 342. She wouldn't lie in her posting. So, the girl who saw the poster, got offended, complained to that female instructor, who in turn posted on newsgroup that it was a woman that complained.

That's a crock of BS. Wouldn't she think this "girl" would be harrassed if people know who she is? SHe wouldn't tell you complained. But if this person walking by saw this poster, right? Then wouldn't countless others too? Get a girlfriend man.

Posted by 'mju:zik on Oct-07-2003 19:39:

quote:
Originally posted by Durafei
Fuck, THAT WAS A woman who complained..

The person who posted on the newsgroup wasn't just anybody. It was a course instructor(also female) for CS 342. She wouldn't lie in her posting. So, the girl who saw the poster, got offended, complained to that female instructor, who in turn posted on newsgroup that it was a woman that complained.

You can't tell me that you're sure that it wasn't the i nstructor who wanted to get rid of the poster and claimed that someoneone else had complained? And you're saying that instructors never lie? How would you know.

Posted by StereoPrincess on Oct-07-2003 21:01:

Well Aaron, obviously we will have to disagree with our interpretation of how human rights work within our society. If you feel that any man has the right to harass any woman in any sense of the word and she doesn't have a right to fight back in any form (be it slapping you in the face or calling the cops) then we just disagree on this point.
I guess I never realized how much of an idealist I am but I truly hope that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Human Rights are real and there have been wars started because of them. Everyone has a right to do what they want as long as they don't bring down another person's right to do the same (this is general politeness). It is polite for Iliya's class to take down the poster if someone complained, what is the big deal? Just like everyone is saying what was the big deal with the girl complaining, but now everyone is complaining about the girl. There is no big deal, just take the poster down and put up another one. It shouldn't be an issue of law which it turned into after the rest of the University heard about it. There may not be set precedents for things like this because we should not even think of things like this happening. It sort of becomes a morality issue and not a law issue. I hope that from reading what you wrote about the actual laws doesn't influence someone on here to actually go and do some of the things mentioned. Do you think it might be wrong to propagate such beliefs?
I am not a law student and never wanted to be, I look at things as either wrong or right (in my head) not if there is a law that can back me up on doing things and I am the "judge" of the things that I do.

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »