Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
andrewcb
Published Letters: 4
I am guy. I read the article and was offended by not only the female stereotypes exhibited, but the negative male stereotypes as well. At least the female stereotype she posited was one of a woman doing useful work and enjoying. Her stereotype of a man was a couple of guys sitting on the lazi-boy, watching football and belching.
I am also speaking from the point of view of a guy who has cooked a number of meals (holiday and otherwise) for my partner and her children. The reasons are quite simple. I can cook; she is not so good at it. I love working in the kitchen; she finds it stressful. A nice holiday for both of us involves her relaxing with her boys and me working in the kitchen to feed them; she is happy doing what she loves, I am happy doing what she loves.
Cheers
Andrew
Sorry but your post is extremely misleading.
Ezra Levant is not being charged with violating our hate speech laws; that is an offence under the Criminal Code and requires the consent of the attorney-general to prosecute. If you want to read more about those hate speech laws, read the Zundel and the Keegstra cases in the supreme court of Canada.
What Mr. Levant is facing is a complaint under the Alberta Human Rights code. This deals only with issues of Discrimination. Hate speech has occasionally been found in violation of various Human Rights codes; curiosly enough the discriminatory hate speech took the form of Holocaust denial. The process that Mr. Levant faced is early in the proceedings where an investigator with the commission determines whether to proceed with the complaint; most complaints (depending on the commission over 90%) are dismissed at this early stage.
What has never happened is that a major media publication has been successfully brought before a Human Rights Tribunal. I would not mind this happening because I would like to see our courts dealing with the issue. The only way it would get to the courts is if the Human Rights Tribunal makes a decision and then it gets appealed (likely all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada).
Hate speech is the hard case in Free Speech and requires a balancing of the right to Free Speech with the right to be free of discrimination. This balance is probably better left to the courts to determine than either Free Speech absolutists (like yourself and Ezra Levant) or the anti-discimination absolutist (in all liklihood the various Human Rights Tribunals).
Cheers
Andrew
sorry I don't have much more to say; you said it all.
Cheers
Andrew
I am really familiar with the kinds of theoretical discussions of the negative impact of rules around discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. These were the kinds of discussions we were having in Ontario oh about 20 to 25 years ago, when we ended this sort of discrimination.
Women (and pregnant women) still ended up getting hired. Maybe these conservative types might look at the empirical evidence elsewhere before they make these absolutely absurd claims.
Cheers
Andrew
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
