Category Archives: Human Rights Commission

2009 hearings on the Human Rights Commissions with Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn

Posted on by

This is an amazing set of testimonies about the nature of Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, revealing among other things, that the HRC’s THEMSELVES are the largest producers of published antisemitism online.

This is not a dated Issue. The Trudeau government is attempting to reinstate section 13 of the Criminal Code, that this commission got rid of.

Below is the hearings the Trudeau Liberals held from June 4th 2019, with mark Steyn again, and Lindsay Shepard along with History Prof.

Below are excerpts from Mark Steyn’s testimony in the June 2019 hearings:

ATTN: anyone in or near Vancouver!

Posted on by
Call To Action!
 
This Friday, July 26, at 9:30am
your presence is requested in Vancouver at
the BC Human Rights Tribunal. 
Located at 605 Robson St.
 
**please arrive at 9am so we can fill the room with opposition to the HRC
and their despicable abuse of power.
 
The event is a gathering in support of the women who have been targeted by J. Yaniv….
the individual who has vindictively been dragging women through the coals
for declining services to wax his genitals.  
JY is also recently reported attempting to arrange an LGBTQ All Bodies Swim in Langley, BC
for children age 12…and up. 
“Individuals permitted to be Topless” (see attached)
Several weeks ago another organization attempted to arrange an All Bodies Swim for ‘Youth’
Age 12-24…which was cancelled due to backlash
as parents were not permitted and clothing was from the waste ‘down’.
Yaniv is 32 and therefore put no cap on age…12+
The UN considers youth to be 12-24. According to the BC Government youth qualify as 13-19.  
What is J. Yaniv up to?

An eyewitness to the HRC ‘trial’ of a man who demands his testicles be waxed by an unwilling woman

Posted on by

 

Personally I think this witness is far far to kind in his account of the HRC Soviet show trial. We all can see that the man, claiming to be a woman, is except from all normal limits and rules, both on Twitter and in real life. This witness also refers to him as “she” which is already going a step too far as if a person has a Y chromosome, its a freaking male. And if it isn’t a male, he doesn’t have balls to wax. So there you go.

Another B.C. woman forced out of business in transgender male-genitalia waxing case

Posted on by

From The Post Millennial:

A mother and business owner was forced to end her Brazilian waxing business after being taken to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to wax a transgender woman’s male genitalia.

 

Maria Da Silva, who is an immigrant from Brazil operated the business out of her home where her small children also live. Da Silva claims she refused to perform the procedure on the claimant, Jessica Yaniv, due to safety concerns raised by her husband and alleged harassment on Yaniv’s part and not because of the claimant’s identity.

Yaniv, who was formerly known as Jonathan Yaniv, has taken fifteen other B.C. women to the tribunal for refusing to wax her male genitalia citing discrimination based on gender identity and is seeking financial compensation. Many of the woman are of East Asian ethnicity and have English as their second language.

 

During Wednesday’s tribunal proceedings Da Silva claims that the incident directly led to her shutting down her business and losing it as a source of income for her family.

“Some of my clients have been very significantly affected on a personal level. [Another client also] closed her business, she has been depressed, anxious, sleepless and that has gone on for a period of many many months,” said her representative and Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms lawyer, Jay Cameron.

 

“It is a very serious thing to launch a human rights complaint against a person. My clients are people. They have a right to make a living and this has interfered with their livelihood, but also you have the stigma of being associated with this hanging over you.”

Please read the rest at the source. Perhaps most shockingly is the justification for these suits by the ‘plaintiff’. A true example of deconstruction of reason and a reversal of victim-aggressor. Something we are sadly getting used to under the new tyranny of leftism and Islamic rule.

It also shows how the “Human Rights Commissions”, a phrase that belongs in the sarcasm hall of fame, is complicit in genuine racism and targeting the vulnerable and hard working, as this plaintiff’s victims are nearly all ethnic, and in this case, East Asian. He clearly selected these people as he knew they were most likely to go with reason instead of post modern thought so he could launch one of his seemingly numerous similar suits.

He also had the astonishing temerity to claim that the people who refused to pretend his testicles is a vulva, of forcing their religious beliefs on him. Perhaps the most astonishing claim of all, and one which the “Human Rights Court” agrees with.

(I am referring to the plaintiff as he, because a person with a penis and testicles is a male and therefore gets the pronoun ‘He’. This entire case, and all his other ones against aestheticians, are about others refusing to pretend that Y is X. In a modernist world, one that adheres to facts, reason and evidence, one goes with reality, and not destroys the business of someone who refuses to pretend along with whatever may walk in.)

H/T SB.

Jordan Peterson meets with Ontario Premiere Ford, to discuss abolishing the HRCs!

Posted on by

CBC ran a story on it here.

 

Denmark: New ruling from the Human Rights Court undermines freedom of the internet

Posted on by

This is an original translation by Liberty Dk.

(EMD is a Danish acronym for Human Rights Court)

From McHangama Denmark

When the Danish media have finished digesting the election, they should probably look at the new European Human Rights Court’s (ECHR) ruling Delphi v. Estonia (16/6 2015) which could potentially have far-reaching consequences for the online platforms of commercial news media. The verdict states that a popular Estonian commercial news portal is held legally responsible for its users’ (including anonymous ones) defamation, “hate speech” and (very abstract) encouragement to violence in comments and news articles. This applies even if the portal removed said comments upon legal request, and even if on the comments page there was a notice-and-take-down system where offensive comments could be reported, just as comments that contain coarse and vulgar words would automatically be caught by a spam filter. The internet portal even had guidelines prohibiting certain forms of offensive comments. EMD stated in Section 110 which principles are at stake and which considerations that must be weighed in:

The Court notes at the outset that user-generated expressive activity on the Internet provides an unprecedented platform for the exercise of freedom of expression… However, alongside these benefits, certain dangers may also arise. Defamatory and other types of clearly unlawful speech, including hate speech and speech inciting violence, can be disseminated as never before, worldwide, in a matter of seconds, and sometimes remain persistently available online. These two conflicting realities lie at the heart of this case. Bearing in mind the need to protect the values underlying the Convention, and considering that the rights under Article 10 and 8 of the Convention deserve equal respect, a balance must be struck that retains the essence of both rights. Thus, while the Court acknowledges that important benefits can be derived from the Internet in the exercise of freedom of expression, it is also mindful that liability for defamatory or other types of unlawful speech must, in principle, be retained and constitute an effective remedy for violations of individual rights.

In paragraph 115 the EMD furthermore restricted the verdict’s reach in relation to other non-commercial actors:

Consequently, the Court considers that the case concerns the “duties and responsibilities” of Internet news portals, under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, when they provide for economic purposes a platform for user-generated comments on previously published content and some users — whether identified or anonymous — engage in clearly unlawful speech, which infringes the individual rights of others and amounts to hate speech and incitement to violence against them. The Court emphasises that the present case relates to a large professionally managed Internet news portal run on a commercial basis which published news articles of its own and invited its readers to comment on them.

Continue Reading →

Today’s game: Guess the IQ of the Canadian bureaucrat

Posted on by

This article is a great example of ‘competing rights’ and despite what the head of the ‘human rights commission’ says, there most certainly is a hierarchy of them. Anyone who has a flip through the case histories will rapidly find out what they are. And this case will prove difficult to them as lesbians have to be very close to Muslims in the ranking by the ”Methinks the woman doth protest too much” Barbara Hall.

To save you the time though, Muslims can do pretty much anything they want in the name of their religion and anyone who criticizes what they do or what they say, will likely find themselves in front of their august board facing 100K worth of legal bills if they choose to fight or paying off people who should really be in jail for genuine incitement and hate crimes with their partners, the HRC, who should really be in jail for extortion.

Click over for the interview with the HRC head. Its like watching an audition tape for the special olympics.

H/T Michael Laudahn:

CTV:

Woman denied haircut, files human rights complaint.

                          CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012 10:04PM EST
Last Updated Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012 10:43PM EST

Barbers in Toronto who refused to cut a woman’s hair have become the target of a human rights complaint, in a case that pits religious freedom against gender equality.

When Faith McGregor went into the Terminal Barber Shop requesting a short haircut, she was told the shop only grooms men.

Click to continue:

The reason, co-owner Omar Mahrouk said, was that as a Muslim he could not cut the hair of a woman who was not related to him.