Lesson learned: 1) Don't start a business in Canada, and 2) Don't live there either.

@mysticone1798

Ай бұрын

If you do start a business, run it yourself and don't hire anybody. Much safer!

Human Rights bureaucracies are out of control.

@ReverendDr.Thomas

Ай бұрын

Do you mean Human "Rights" bureaucracies?

Human rights tribunal: a bunch of clowns in "robes".

@ReverendDr.Thomas

Ай бұрын

Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.

@mysticone1798

Ай бұрын

Now it's a "human right" to remain employed by a failing business. How crazy does it have to get in Woke Canada before people realize the error of their leftist ways???

Well said JF.

its the government punishing people it doesn't like, without the Legal system interfering.

Wow, just wow!

So the real headline is, "Human Rights commission fines immigrant"

human rights: In most cases, it seems that this term refers to certain (often vague) moral or legal entitlements that humans possess in relation to having or obtaining something, or to act in a certain way. This phrase has been used increasing more ubiquitously over the past century or so, with the implication that every human being, without exception, has identical and inalienable entitlements. However, this is a very obvious fallacy, as it invariably ignores the hierarchy of society. For example, very few persons would doubt that parents have the right to discipline their children. However, their children OBVIOUSLY do not have the converse right, to chastize or instruct their parents. Therefore, it is nonsensical to speak of human rights in general, when each and every individual person has unique rights, depending on his or her place in the hierarchy of society. The notion of rights is intimately intertwined with morality (or to be more accurate, the concept of dharma). So, in the above example, it is in accordance with morality/dharma for a parent to disciple his or her children, and if required, administer some form of punishment. However, it would be objectively immoral for a child of any age (even a geriatric) to admonish his or her parents, except, perhaps, if a parent was afflicted with a disease or disability that inhibited the parent’s cognitive capabilities, such as dementia. Cf. “dharma”. According to a criminal organisation called the “United Nations”, there are thirty so-called “human rights”, listed in a document entitled “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, but objectively speaking, only a couple of the listed articles of “rights” are predicated on the only ONE and ONLY human right, and that is the right for any person (that is any human being or non-human animal) to not be harmed unjustifiably. As is to be expected of a declaration by a bunch of deluded, ignorant fools, there is nowhere in the preamble any semblance of a stated definition of “human rights”. This is practically a universal occurrence in the fields of sociology, law, philosophy, ethics, and even in the so-called hard sciences. Just see the dramatic contrast between almost every academic essay paper and thesis/book ever published, compared with this Book of All Books! In order to be charitable to that evil body, the United Nations, it is probably fortuitous that they failed to proffer a definition of “rights”, since the “definition” that they are likely to have conjured-up in their feeble intellects would be incompetent, if not truly laughable.

@1495978707

Ай бұрын

The one and only right is private property. The right you mentioned derives from self ownership

@loulasher

Ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing that! "Rights" are claimed in a very haphazard & self-serving way. I remember maybe 15 years ago talking to guy, for whom being gay was a big deal for him, talking about his rights. I said something along the lines of how I see, in the NYC theater scene, a lot of very comfortable middle class people seeking more "rights" but what I think they want are privileges. A lot of it came down to freedoms of speech & association. Following up on the other reply you got here, I think you can't seperate rights from responsibilities. I don't see an advantage to "dharma" over morality, but seeing as I see rights & responsibilities inextricably linked, the point is moot.

@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR.

Ай бұрын

Rights are indeed hierarchical in nature. Greater rights=greater responsibilities. A monarch, bearing the right to rule, also has a deep and profound responsibility and all of the blame, for when things went wrong. Feudalism, when properly understood and practiced, was a proper balance between rights and responsibilities.

@ReverendDr.Thomas

Ай бұрын

@@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR. So, in order to make it as succinct as possible, there is but a singular RIGHT, and that is the RIGHT for one to not be unduly harmed by another, predicated on the principles of dharma. Therefore, if a man claims that he has the RIGHT to punish any of his subordinates for their transgressions, that would be a genuine RIGHT, because according to the law/dharma, society is organized hierarchically, and thus a superior has the RIGHT to control the actions, and discipline the behaviour of, a subordinate. On the other hand, if a woman claims that she has the RIGHT to perform the duties of a national ruler if she is voted into office after a democratic election, that would not constitute a genuine RIGHT, because according to the law/dharma, a woman’s role is to serve her masters (any adult male in her family) as a daughter, wife, and/or mother, not to mention the fact that democracy is an illegitimate form of governance.

@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR.

Ай бұрын

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Of course, one must clarify that the ruler, in this case, a monarch does not have arbitrary power. He may have absolute power, which is still bound by, what you say Dharma, Tradition, Rita etc. Because even the absolute ruler's power is derived from a still Higher Power. Thoughts?

1:48 We rarely acknowledge that "discrimination" in and of itself is neither illegal nor inherently immoral. We discriminate when we choose to eat a restaurant that serves healthy food instead of a greasy spoon diber

@liz9284

Ай бұрын

We discriminate in dating and marriage too. We discriminate in hiring employees, but as you pointed out, there’s good discrimination and bad. If I discriminate when hiring someone, I’m looking at their merits, not their skin color. Unfortunately, if I don’t hire someone who happens to be a different race, but I didn’t hire them bc they weren’t qualified, they’ll assume I discriminated, not on merit, but race. Then they take me to court. It’s ridiculous. A family member of mine is a manager and he had two choices to offer a promotion. The person he didn’t offer the promotion to sued him for “racism and discrimination”, but found out in court that the person who DID get the promotion was also black. Yet my family member had to go through the expense and stress and the attack on his character to present that evidence bc the accusation could not be dismissed before he went through all that. Another friend of mine had to fire a black man after months of warnings, she had to go to court, and when her black husband and 3 biracial children walked into the courtroom with her, the case was quickly dismissed. It happens all the time here in the US too, we just don’t have a “tribunal”. At least not yet. What will happen, though, is that racial minorities will become too expensive, too much of a liability, to hire. If a company knows they can’t fire you without being dragged into court, they’ll have to weigh it out-do we get accused of racism by not hiring this person, or do we get accused of it later if we have to fire them? It’s a no win situation, and the ppl who are harmed the most are the qualified, hard working racial minorities who got there on merit, but everyone assumes they’re a DEI hire. It’s causing the very thing these idiots claim to be fighting.

@pukeachu

Ай бұрын

@@liz9284 Here in The US, we DO discriminate based on skin color AND names, when it comes to entry level employment. Amazon's warehouses now mostly refuse to hire Shaquandas and DeAndres, as well as Zekes and Julie Annes. Why? Well, companies have tried hiring blacks with ghetto names and whites with hillbilly monikers, only to find that they're both troublesome employees, who revel in being ratchet beyond all belief Until more Americans clean up our act*, corporations are going to keep favoring Hernando and Ngo over black and white folks who were born here *The tragedy of The MRM has been that the assclowns who form it's generalship(Paul Elam, the failed artists over at HBR)have been ENCOURAGING men to "go their own way"/drop out of society, and excoriating men who try to help themselves in small ways, by being reliable employees, as "doing Normie stuff", or "Upholding The Gynocentric Social Order". Subsequently, men continue to be grossly over-represeented among the poor

Re absolutely correct

This would be so easily solved by respecting private property. Who cares if someone denied you renting THEIR unit for any reason? Including "omg rEzesm"? It doesn't matter, move on and rent something else. All you do is invite evil by bringing government into stupid stuff like this.

Since when did, "Your spouse has AIDS." become a human right?

I'm sure that Johnathan Yaniv was denied his pound of flesh only because of the widespread controversy generated on the internet.

It sounds like your human rights code must be mostly positive human rights and not negative human rights. The latter are valid, the former are ways of taking away the latter and sounding like you're taking a superior moral position at the same time. I don't think that any of the code really has to do with rights. It's a way for the government to punish you for trying to make a living honestly.

Pseudo crime

First

Here's the question, can we file a complaint against landlords who ALWAYS discriminate against men when they place ads specifying that they're only looking for female tenants ?? This IS open and blatant discrimination against men and no one ever says anything about it. I'm sick of it and would like to know if there's something we -can- SHOULD do about it .

@mysticone1798

Ай бұрын

You've got a point. Generally speaking, a landlord who lives in a residence together with his tenants has a right to choose anyone he pleases, based on his own preferences. In this case, there is NO group that is protected from his choices. If your landlord is also a resident in a private home, he is free to choose. Renting a space where the landlord does NOT live himself is quite another matter. In renting an entire apartment or a house, etc. I don't believe that gender discrimination is allowed. Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, age, and children is also illegal. You will never see "women only" in ads for commercial apartments, for example. If you do, it's likely a violation of real estate rental law. Hope this helps.

@liz9284

Ай бұрын

I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not the same thing. If I have a basement apartment I want to rent out and I’m a single woman, and I don’t feel safe having a man I know nothing about living right below me with access to my home, then I have the right as a homeowner to choose who I rent to. If I own a bunch of apartments that’s different, of course, but there are girls schools and boys schools, there are girls dorms and boys dorms, we have long segregated living spaces based on gender. The military does it too. You’d be hard pressed to claim this is “unfair discrimination” when you’re talking about ppls living quarters and safety. Unless you’re telling me that men should be allowed in women’s locker rooms and bathrooms too, and surely you’re not saying that. Don’t look for problems where they don’t exist, and understand that ppl have the right to feel safe in their own homes. Let’s not make this an “anti man” thing when it isn’t. MOST women who don’t want to rent to male tenants are motivated by feeling safe, not “bc they’re men”. I understand that for all the men out there who wouldn’t pose a threat to a female landlord that it’s frustrating, and feels like they’re being targeted unfairly, that’s just not the case. Like I said, if I owned an apartment building with separate living quarters for ppl, and refused to rent to a man bc he’s a man, that’s different, but if you’re mad that women don’t want to have male tenants in their own homes and calling that “gender discrimination”, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

@user-xo8ng7sd3h

Ай бұрын

@@liz9284 "feeling safe" for women is NOT ground to discriminate against men. There are men everywhere and any one of them can hurt a woman if they want. But today's women want things to be done based on what they feel. Feeling something does not equal reality. Many people can feel different ways about a lot of things. But why are you making the assumption all those who want female renters are women ?? MOST if not all of those who want female renters are families with men, not women, owning those properties. It's just people have this assumption that men will cause trouble or be dirty when in reality that's not the case at all. But regardless, it IS discrimination. Male "spaces" don't exist any more because according to women they're all "discriminating against women" !!! Clubs, gym, or whatever that used to be places for men are now gone, all under the same banner of "fighting discrimination against women" BUT SHELTER, which IS a basic and the most important part of anyone's life is "not discrimination against men" ???!!!!! And again, just because a woman doesn't "feel safe" about something that doesn't mean anything. But you don't even realize you ARE discriminating against men because you ASSUME EVERY man is a potential criminal JUST because he's MALE. That's called GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. DO YOU EVEN SEE THIS ? This IS discrimination against men in housing and it MUST and SHOULD be stopped without ifs or buts....