| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fourhorses
|
 Posted: 10/ 01/ 08 10:07 am Post subject: CHRC: Guille Expanding, Formalizing the Hallmarks of Hate |
 |
|
CHRC: Guille - Expanding & Formalizing the Hallmarks of Hate
CHRC & Warman v Guille: GUILTY Part II
In the warman v Guille case, the Tribunal have expanded and formalized the Hallmarks of Hate.
| Quote: |
1) The Powerful Menace Hallmark: the targeted group is portrayed as a powerful menace that is taking control of the major institutions in society and depriving other of their livelihoods, safety, freedom of speech and general well-being;
(2) The True Story Hallmark: the messages use true stories, news reports, pictures and reference from purportedly reputable sources to make negative generalizations about targeted group;
(3) The Predator Hallmark: the targeted group is portrayed as preying upon children, the aged, the vulnerable, etc.;
(4) The Cause of Society's Problems Hallmark; the targeted group is blamed for the current problems in society and the world;
(5) The Dangerous or Violent by Nature Hallmark: the targeted group is portrayed as dangerous or violent by nature;
(6) The No Redeeming Qualities Hallmark: the messages convey the idea that members of the targeted group are devoid of any redeeming qualities and are innately evil;
(7) The Banishment Hallmark: the messages communicate the idea that nothing but the banishment, segregation or eradication of this group of people will save others from the harm being done by this group;
( 8 ) The Sub-human Hallmark: the targeted group is de-humanized through comparisons to and associations with animals, vermin, excrement, and other noxious substances;
(9) The Inflammatory Language Hallmark: highly inflammatory and derogatory language is used in the messages to create a tone of extreme hatred and contempt;
(10) The Trivializing or Celebration of Past Tragedy Hallmark: the messages trivialize or celebrate past persecution or tragedy involving members of the targeted group;
(11) The Call to Violent Action Hallmark: calls to take violent action against the targeted group.
|
source
They have been formalized.
They now have names.
They are engraved.
They have replaced the Ten Commandments with the new Eleven Commandments of politically correct speech.
They can now be further interpreted through this and future rulings of jurisprudence via the CHRT.
CHRC & Warman v Guille: GUILTY Part I
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=104984
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
 Wlyonmackenzie
Joined: 30 Oct 2002 Total posts: 14830 Location: Knee deep in Progressivist BS Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 08 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In the warman v Guille case, the Tribunal have expanded and formalized the Hallmarks of Hate |
Well yes... but they did a backstep as well. Obviously it was telegraphed loud and clear to them by Chrisie in the Lemire constitutional challenge that the process is REMEDIAL not PUNATIVE.
So to superficially band aid that breech they denied a cash award to a complainant who was not damaged in any perceptible way and which was "punitive" to the respondent. In reality if she removed the offending posts the remedial purpose of the CHRC would have been fulfilled...it is obvious this went to tribunal with the hope of justifying another cash award which would be punitive to the plaintive...but it appears the ultra vires nature of this punitive sentencing has been realized to take the tribunal outside the scope (ultra vires) of their statute commission....so they have back tracked...at least on this one while the media is watching them closely.
Let's be honest about the past operation of the CHRT, it HAS been running a punitive process with the size of the cash awards to plaintives who had no need for the money and no provable damages. The cash awards were implemented in the CHRC process when it was used as arbitrating in discrimination cases that resulted in a plaintive having lost work or housing or promotion due to discrimination. It was not instituted to rob fiscally disadvantaged respondents to enrich gainfully employed plaintives.
_________________
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive; those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis, In Freedom .
Celebrate Hard Likker and Handgun week here at the Shadowy GroupTM   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Narrow Back
Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Total posts: 2588 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 08 11:20 am Post subject: Re: CHRC: Guille Expanding, Formalizing the Hallmarks of Hat |
|
|
| fourhorses wrote: | CHRC: Guille - Expanding & Formalizing the Hallmarks of Hate
CHRC & Warman v Guille: GUILTY Part II
In the warman v Guille case, the Tribunal have expanded and formalized the Hallmarks of Hate.
| Quote: |
1) The Powerful Menace Hallmark: the targeted group is portrayed as a powerful menace that is taking control of the major institutions in society and depriving other of their livelihoods, safety, freedom of speech and general well-being;
(2) The True Story Hallmark: the messages use true stories, news reports, pictures and reference from purportedly reputable sources to make negative generalizations about targeted group;
(3) The Predator Hallmark: the targeted group is portrayed as preying upon children, the aged, the vulnerable, etc.;
(4) The Cause of Society's Problems Hallmark; the targeted group is blamed for the current problems in society and the world;
(5) The Dangerous or Violent by Nature Hallmark: the targeted group is portrayed as dangerous or violent by nature;
(6) The No Redeeming Qualities Hallmark: the messages convey the idea that members of the targeted group are devoid of any redeeming qualities and are innately evil;
(7) The Banishment Hallmark: the messages communicate the idea that nothing but the banishment, segregation or eradication of this group of people will save others from the harm being done by this group;
( 8 ) The Sub-human Hallmark: the targeted group is de-humanized through comparisons to and associations with animals, vermin, excrement, and other noxious substances;
(9) The Inflammatory Language Hallmark: highly inflammatory and derogatory language is used in the messages to create a tone of extreme hatred and contempt;
(10) The Trivializing or Celebration of Past Tragedy Hallmark: the messages trivialize or celebrate past persecution or tragedy involving members of the targeted group;
(11) The Call to Violent Action Hallmark: calls to take violent action against the targeted group.
|
source
They have been formalized.
They now have names.
They are engraved.
They have replaced the Ten Commandments with the new Eleven Commandments of politically correct speech.
They can now be further interpreted through this and future rulings of jurisprudence via the CHRT.
CHRC & Warman v Guille: GUILTY Part I
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=104984 |
Thanks fourhorses for all the great info.
My question is about whether this is retroactive. If it is, there are thousands of people who would be found guilty on several of these. Can they claim to be unaware of these new ‘standards/laws’? Will ignorance of the laws to come in the future be no defense – at this point, nothing will surprise me. It’s all so surreal.
Here's my take on the real meanings.
1. The Powerful Menace Hallmark: the targeted group is portrayed as a powerful menace that is taking control of the major institutions in society and depriving other of their livelihoods, safety, freedom of speech and general well-being;
Unless you are the CHRC?
(2) The True Story Hallmark: the messages use true stories, news reports, pictures and reference from purportedly reputable sources to make negative generalizations about targeted group;
Who decides what a ‘reputable’ source is?
(3) The Predator Hallmark: the targeted group is portrayed as preying upon children, the aged, the vulnerable, etc.;
Except if it is the Catholic Church or Catholic priests.
(4) The Cause of Society's Problems Hallmark; the targeted group is blamed for the current problems in society and the world;
Unless they are white Christians.
(5) The Dangerous or Violent by Nature Hallmark: the targeted group is portrayed as dangerous or violent by nature;
Unless you are speaking of men in the context of male female relationships.
(6) The No Redeeming Qualities Hallmark: the messages convey the idea that members of the targeted group are devoid of any redeeming qualities and are innately evil;
Unless they are white Christians.
(7) The Banishment Hallmark: the messages communicate the idea that nothing but the banishment, segregation or eradication of this group of people will save others from the harm being done by this group;
Unless they are white Christian Conservatives, then talk of re-education camps is quite acceptable.
( 8 ) The Sub-human Hallmark: the targeted group is de-humanized through comparisons to and associations with animals, vermin, excrement, and other noxious substances;
Unless they are white Christians.
(9) The Inflammatory Language Hallmark: highly inflammatory and derogatory language is used in the messages to create a tone of extreme hatred and contempt;
Unless directed at white Christians.
(10) The Trivializing or Celebration of Past Tragedy Hallmark: the messages trivialize or celebrate past persecution or tragedy involving members of the targeted group;
Unless directed at white Christians of European (east and west) heritage.
(11) The Call to Violent Action Hallmark: calls to take violent action against the targeted group.
Unless you work for the CHRC, then the “pie” is the limit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 08 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hate speech on Canadian government website (from our bulging "Oh, But That's Different" files)
The Guy Who Is Suing Us has won (sort of) another case against someone else.
What gets me is that this Government of Canada website (note the famous wordmark) has all the details of this "hate speech" case, including transcripts of the actual "hate speech" in question.
So: writing this stuff is a crime when it appears at some dumbass little neo-Nazi chat room nobody ever heard of until the Government of Canada and a major news service reported on it... (Hey, where have I heard that before?)
But: when this same stuff appears on a taxpayer supported Government of Canada website, innocent readers are somehow magically "immune" from its (imaginary) "hateful" effects?
Alas, I'm just a stupid, ordinary person, and not a liberal Trudeaupian Establishment lawyer -- please explain the subtle alchemy involved.
Anyway, the Guy Who Is Suing Us read some stuff into evidence that he finds objectionable.
And the Government of Canada duly reprinted it all.
more -
Five Feet of Fury
============
so what happened to Margo Blight's
1. no free pass for anyone
2. absolute liability for webmasters
3. intent is no excuse
3. the truth is no defense
.
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| CHRC: Guille Expanding, Formalizing the Hallmarks of Hate |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
