Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
J4L

Time to Abolish Human Rights Tribunals

Recommended Posts

First, it was BC resident Jonathan "Jessica" Yaniv that has been gaming the system.  Now, a 28 year old man has filed a Human Rights complaint with the Province of Alberta, since he claims he was discriminated against due to his age and sex, when he answered an ad posted by a single Dad wanting a babysitter.  The complainant, has previously taken citizens to the Human Rights Tribunal for the exact same thing, and lost.  Keep in mind, the tab of the complainant is picked up by the Human Rights Tribunal, so it's a no lose situation!

Todd said in an email he doesn’t want to speculate on possible motives but was thankful for the help after he reached out to the JCCF. “There have been many sleepless nights,” he said on Tuesday. “I did not realize that people could object to me finding out all the relevant information I can about a potential babysitter, including their age and sex. I thought I was doing what was best for my young children.” Todd, who is self-employed, said while he rarely uses babysitters, he’s reluctant to try again because of this experience.

“Just trying to learn enough about a potential new babysitter can get me in trouble and I need to ensure that my children are safe,” he added. In the complaint, dated Sept. 1, 2017, Cyrynowski said he received a message 10 minutes after applying to the job posting asking for his age and gender.

“I told him I’m male and 28 years old,” he wrote. “I never heard back from him since.”

This is not the first time Cyrynowski has filed a human rights complaint. A similar case dating back to May 23, 2014, involved a mother posting an ad for a babysitter for her five-year-old son. Court documents show her ad listed a preference for an older woman with experience to look after her son. When Cyrynowski replied to the ad, he was told that she was looking for a female. Cyrynowski filed his complaint a few days later on May 26. The court case went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was ultimately dismissed in May this year.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/babysitter-files-human-rights-complaint-against-edmonton-area-father

Edited by J4L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to be at least amended so that the defendant is provided with a lawyer, it's not fair or equal that the HR tribunal pays the tab for the complainant, which leads to frivolous complaints.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, there is a lot of sexism against men when it comes to hiring babysitters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find them to be a useful self inflicted wound by the left to the advantage of right wing reactionary forces, classic overreach inciting chaos to discredit itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

To be fair, there is a lot of sexism against men when it comes to hiring babysitters.

That may be true, but just like the Yaniv case, where do we draw the line?  I can see this being an issue if it was working at a summer camp, organized sports coaching, or even working at a day care.  The problem with this case is:

 

1. The man put out an ad in kijiji looking for a babysitter. The 28 year old replies and states his age and gender.  The father does not say "no I am looking for a woman under 25." He does not bother to respond. Regardless, the 28 year old takes the father to the Human Rights Tribunal, which coincidentally cover a complainant's legal fees, unlike real courts.

2. The 28 year old has tried this before, after losing a different babysitting case a few years back, appealing it all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Tribunals decision.

3. Judging by the complainant's social media accounts, it looks like he has a history of nuisance lawsuits, and may be in danger of being declared a "vexatious litigant."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 11:45 PM, J4L said:

That may be true, but just like the Yaniv case, where do we draw the line?

I don't know.

If we accept that people should not be able to discriminate in their workplace services based on race or sexual orientation, then why not gender identity? Or should people be able to deny employment, housing, and services to black people on the basis of race?

If we take the position that some discrimination in the case of black people and housing should be illegal, but discrimination of services in the case of Yaniv should be legal, where are we drawing the line and how do we justify that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that people are discussing the case seems to indicate it's worth considering.  There are problems with a quasijudicial board like this but replace it or fix it as suggested above.

Also, why is consideration of individual and group rights considered the domain of the left?  Near as I can see it's because of LBJ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also, why is consideration of individual and group rights considered the domain of the left?  Near as I can see it's because of LBJ...

Lyndon Johnson LBJ?     He was a New Dealer Democrat, his hero was FDR, so,  LBJ was of the left.

In terms of the right, LBJ's opponent was Barry Goldwater, who was fine with individuals suing in the courts, but not extrajudicial kangaroo courts like the HRT.

Mind you, neither would LBJ, only Canadians fall prey to this sort of government overreach, Americans don't accept kangaroo courts.

The problem with the HRT is simple, it's extrajudicial, it's not the judiciary, these cases would thrown out of a real court without further ado.

Once again, nanny state Canadians shoot themselves in the foot by bureaucracy run amok,  who knew?

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 5:11 AM, Michael Hardner said:

The fact that people are discussing the case seems to indicate it's worth considering. 

Most cases brought before the Human Rights tribunal are not newsworthy.  This case has made the news, since the complainant is gaming the system for a easy payout.

Edited by RaphaelBenAvraham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 11:52 AM, J4L said:

First, it was BC resident Jonathan "Jessica" Yaniv that has been gaming the system.  Now, a 28 year old man has filed a Human Rights complaint with the Province of Alberta, since he claims he was discriminated against due to his age and sex, when he answered an ad posted by a single Dad wanting a babysitter.  The complainant, has previously taken citizens to the Human Rights Tribunal for the exact same thing, and lost.  Keep in mind, the tab of the complainant is picked up by the Human Rights Tribunal, so it's a no lose situation!

Todd said in an email he doesn’t want to speculate on possible motives but was thankful for the help after he reached out to the JCCF. “There have been many sleepless nights,” he said on Tuesday. “I did not realize that people could object to me finding out all the relevant information I can about a potential babysitter, including their age and sex. I thought I was doing what was best for my young children.” Todd, who is self-employed, said while he rarely uses babysitters, he’s reluctant to try again because of this experience.

“Just trying to learn enough about a potential new babysitter can get me in trouble and I need to ensure that my children are safe,” he added. In the complaint, dated Sept. 1, 2017, Cyrynowski said he received a message 10 minutes after applying to the job posting asking for his age and gender.

“I told him I’m male and 28 years old,” he wrote. “I never heard back from him since.”

This is not the first time Cyrynowski has filed a human rights complaint. A similar case dating back to May 23, 2014, involved a mother posting an ad for a babysitter for her five-year-old son. Court documents show her ad listed a preference for an older woman with experience to look after her son. When Cyrynowski replied to the ad, he was told that she was looking for a female. Cyrynowski filed his complaint a few days later on May 26. The court case went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was ultimately dismissed in May this year.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/babysitter-files-human-rights-complaint-against-edmonton-area-father

If I had my way all the HRC outfits would be gone from every province in Canada. As long as those communist outfits are allowed to exist freedom of expression will always be attacked by these SJW's and in real danger. The only reason why provinces keep them around is because they can use them to throttle their opponents or anyone who dares to criticize or challenge their political correctness laws without having to taking them to a real court of law where they may lose their case. Why there are two court systems running alongside each other is beyond me.

The one that needs to go here is the HRC. These frivolous HRC court cases like the one mentioned above are so bloody ridiculous, and they are costing the taxpayer's of Canada hundreds of millions, if not billions, of their tax dollars every year to keep these HRC commie outfits up and running. They all need to be abolished now. Save taxpayer's their tax dollars and their freedom of expression. Why not? Works well for me.  :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 8:45 PM, J4L said:

That may be true, but just like the Yaniv case, where do we draw the line?  I can see this being an issue if it was working at a summer camp, organized sports coaching, or even working at a day care.  The problem with this case is:

 

1. The man put out an ad in kijiji looking for a babysitter. The 28 year old replies and states his age and gender.  The father does not say "no I am looking for a woman under 25." He does not bother to respond. Regardless, the 28 year old takes the father to the Human Rights Tribunal, which coincidentally cover a complainant's legal fees, unlike real courts.

2. The 28 year old has tried this before, after losing a different babysitting case a few years back, appealing it all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Tribunals decision.

3. Judging by the complainant's social media accounts, it looks like he has a history of nuisance lawsuits, and may be in danger of being declared a "vexatious litigant."

 

 

Now that one really takes the cake. Where did this guy get the money to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court. Taking a case to the Supreme Court costs lots of money. And what is really surprising is that the SC agreed with the HRC. Why would the SC even agree with a kangaroo court like the HRC? As far as I am concerned, the HRC is illegal. The HRC is only around because of the many special interest minority groups who can use the HRC to get their minority so called rights complaints thru and in most cases they do win with their unconstitutional stupid kangaroo court cases. Remember that the HRC has already said that "truth is no defense". Bloody shocking. It is sure not hard to see and figure out that all of our courts and kangaroo courts like the HRC in Canada are pretty much all staffed with leftist liberal SJW' warrior appointed judges. Freedom of expression will exist only if these politically correct leftist liberal judges will allow and agree with you. If they do not like what you have to say then you are guilty, period. Especially if one his straight, white, conservative and Christian. Then your chances of winning are very slim. Freedom of expression in the COR is all just words on a piece of scrap paper. Words said by someone can be interpreted anyway a judge wants to interpret them. Remember that here in Canada there is no 1st Amendment. And this is where those people I just mentioned above have not much of a chance of winning their court cases. My opinion,, of course. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 4:12 AM, Michael Hardner said:

What's the proof?

Sealioning: The subtle art of trolling, involving bad-faith questions. To disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened, placing the burden of educating one entirely on the other party.

If your bait is successful, the other party may engage, painstakingly laying out their logic and evidence in the false hope of helping someone learn. In fact you are attempting to harass or waste the time of the other party, and have no intention of truly entertaining their point of view. Instead, you react to each piece of information by misinterpreting it or requesting further clarification, ad nauseum.

Edited by Rolfs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2019 at 6:26 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Actually, Rolfs, many people put users like you - the ones who don't understand why facts have value - on ignore.  I also do this.

I realize that. You brag about how many you have on ignore all the time on the other forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...