Monday, February 25, 2008

Lawyers and the art of hiding Nazis in your attic in WWII

So, someone might want to have a little chat with Janet Epp Buckingham and fill her in on the basic facts before she goes on to lower depths of public idiocy.

Some people are using the mere fact that the commissions are considering the complaints to argue that they should be abolished. That is like saying that the courts should be shut down just because someone has sued me! Sure, it is a pain and it can be costly if you hire a lawyer to defend you. But that is what happens in a country where you have laws and courts. You may have to defend yourself against someone whose claim has little merit. Everyone deserves their day in court.


Someone? Quick before everyone figures out what a pack of morons is representing the interests of freedom of speech in my erstwhile country.

With friends like these, who needs a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?

7 comments:

Dale P. said...

This is devoutly stupid.

Speaking as a finned one, there is a world of difference between HRC complaints and lawsuits.

Starting with having to persuade a lawyer that what you have is worth filing. Sure there are pro se litigants, but they get pounded quickly, starting with filing fees, scheduling orders and the like. Neither of which HRC whiners have to worry about.

The next difference is this thing called "the burden of proof." Which is allocated to the filer of a lawsuit. Again, not so in the HRC.

Thirdly, there are frivolous litigation sanctions (American courts) and loser-pays provisions (Britain, maybe Canada) that help to deter moonbattery in the court system. Again, not so the HRC.

Finally, not everybody "deserves a day in court." That's what dismissal and summary judgment motions are for. Very, very few litigants see a jury. Which is, come to think of it, similar to the HRC Star Chambers, but only superficially....

Sir Henry Morgan said...

I've just posted a reply to your (correct?) comment on Green Arrow. I think you will like it; provideing, that is, he lets it through his moderation. He occasionally doesn't let my comments through.

Let us just say that he and I don't quite see eye to eye on a particular matter internal to the BNP. It's private between us. Our basic opinions, however, on matters political are roughly the same.

Are you a schoolteacher?

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Damn!

Preview is your friend.
It should be used before posting.
Make the most of it.
Preview first.

Read in any direction you wish.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

One does not have to be a school teacher to know and use a rule of grammar that was taught in the fourth grade. Or to have an interest in having writers who claim to represent my political opinions take the trouble not to make us look like illiterates.

marginalizedactiondinosaur said...

Hugh Owens quoted the title of 4 chapters in the bible and after his day in court paid 20k, for thinking that when the charter says he should have freedom of thought it meant you could quote the bible in this Nation that recognizes the supremacy of god.

Scott Brockie thought he had freedom of association his day in court cost over 100k. His rights got cherry picked too.


But why is any insult to Christians to you acceptable but those who hate Christianity never ever get their day in court.

Last summer the NDP were calling Christianity poison.

Yet I'm the moron eh.

Maybe we should just actually put into law what happens when we get our day in court.

Christians ca ching, pay up.

Socialists well thats ok to say that about Christians they are poison.

But hey let people pay fines because anyone with no proof is offended and then make sure anyone can offend me with impunity. After all unidirectional multiculturalism is what makes this country great!

Remember no one in Canada has ever been charged with hating Christians, even thought the number of churches being burnt has caused my hapless Anglicans to whine about insurance rates going up.

Then there was Bill Whatcott nailed for quoting that a homosexual Magazine was breaking the law in advocating pedophilia.

Jim Pankiw was also nailed for "quoting" government numbers,

Mark steytn has to get his day in BC because he "quoted"

Never mind free speech we need free quoting!

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Um,

I see you have not had a moment to review our commbox rules. Please do so before posting again. They are on the sidebar beneath the 'thought crimimal' tag.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

and, I think you would do well to do a little research here and elsewhere on the nature of the HRC's. There is no "day in court" with them, unless you count a government star chamber as a "court".

You're not paying attention. Do some reading first.