And tyranny is easier, cost effective and truncated civil systems, so much more streamlined for the aspiring autocratic termite than that mucky old democracy. Termites have a hard time outside the ant hill society that’s why real populist democracy stymies them.

They lead off their argument with a distraction and a lie. The fact is section 13 (1) of the CHR act has been arbitrarily interpreted by zealots in the HR industry to be a defacto speech code to which only industry insiders have the arcane [artisan key to unlock application od this code….generally on their ideological dissenters.

Speech codes are not “human rights. It is sovietism wrapped in Christmas paper. The disingenuous human rights industry workers who advocate for expansion of the quasi judicial commissariat into a speech code enforcer will be on the morally wrong side of history and on the losing end of the eternal battle between tyranny and freedom.

Pearl Eliades – scares me!!!!

1. She does not even know what freedom of speech is if she thinks she is
supporting it.

2. Where in libel law has ‘incitement to hatred’ been recently added? It
hasn’t. This is Pearl’s HRC law.

3. Finally, the scariest of all, we “do need to be carefully watched’ by Pearl
I guess, like children. Hell, the whole HRC industry is staffed by a
bunch of busy body naturally nurturing women….and a few unnaturally
nuturing men.

Fire them all and find them government paid daycare jobs at lot lower salaries.

“HRCs simpler than courts, more cost-effective, and have more flexibility regarding remedies.”

So it’s easier? Right, exactly who wants to bother with those real courts, real law, even if they are older than 40 – What BS!!!!

More cost effective? For whom exactly? Yes far more flexible. We cant make MURDER’S apologize to the families of their victims but will shut any one else up with a difference of opionin.

I’m going to go bobbing for apples now – maybe I’ll be lucky and drown in the water as opposed to drowning in her BS!!!!!

What “rules” should we as Canadians be following — the very cut and dried indications of the Canadian Constitution and Canadian law or the vague outlines of section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Code?

The rights to freedom of speech, expression and religion are all in great danger as a result of this particular section in a code that does not even deign to allow itself to be governed by the standard rules of law. It simply runs rampant over our rights as Canadians, saying that it is “protecting” the rights of “other” Canadians.

Aren’t we all entitled to our opinions? Aren’t we all entitled to the same rights?