Comedian facing tribunal over a joke

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.

As to how regularly, that is difficult to say.  But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.

1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.

Standards of evidence for the Human Rights Tribunal are contained in the relevant pdf here.

You're welcome.

[davedan]

Far from being unusual it is exceedingly common in Commonwealth Countries for Tribunals to relax the strict rules of evidence. Usually this is so that lay people do not have to grapple with the rather complex and sometimes arcane rules of evidence.

[Canadian Mojo]

Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.

As to how regularly, that is difficult to say.  But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.

Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal.  And it follows different rules.

I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:

1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.

2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.

3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.

4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.

As for the "reform" bit, how about making sure stuff like this doesn't get this far?  You shouldn't be able to sue somebody because they told a joke that hurt your feelings.

Do you realize that no one is being sued here? Show me a dollar figure that the kid is going after if you don't believe me.

This is a tribunal that's purpose is determine if somebody is having their human rights violated and stop it. Right now they are only in the determination phase. Even if your four points are true the tribunal is subordinate to the court system. In other words if it tries to pull any shenanigans that violate the spirit of the law it will get slapped down so hard the person pulling it out of the ground will be crowned king/queen of England. Given this balance of power I'm pretty sure that the tribunal follows the spirit of the law and even if it doesn't we have ample mechanisms in place to make sure it has no choice but to.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.

As to how regularly, that is difficult to say.  But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.

1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.

Standards of evidence for the Human Rights Tribunal are contained in the relevant pdf here.

You're welcome.

Alright, guess I was wrong about that.

Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.

As to how regularly, that is difficult to say.  But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.

Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal.  And it follows different rules.

I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:

1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.

2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.

3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.

4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.

As for the "reform" bit, how about making sure stuff like this doesn't get this far?  You shouldn't be able to sue somebody because they told a joke that hurt your feelings.

Do you realize that no one is being sued here? Show me a dollar figure that the kid is going after if you don't believe me.

This is a tribunal that's purpose is determine if somebody is having their human rights violated and stop it. Right now they are only in the determination phase. Even if your four points are true the tribunal is subordinate to the court system. In other words if it tries to pull any shenanigans that violate the spirit of the law it will get slapped down so hard the person pulling it out of the ground will be crowned king/queen of England. Given this balance of power I'm pretty sure that the tribunal follows the spirit of the law and even if it doesn't we have ample mechanisms in place to make sure it has no choice but to.

Well, considering some other rulings, pardon me if I'm not reassured.

[Even Then]

Turns out lesbophobic slurs and abuse directed towards lesbians (particucarly lesbians with pre-existing mental conditions involving anxiety and panic) can cause legitimate trauma. Who knew.

[Eiki-mun]

Well, considering some other rulings, pardon me if I'm not reassured.

You should really read your own links here, UP. You make a post claiming that you're not reassured that these human rights tribunals follow the spirit of the law, and yet in the very link you use to back up your point, we see the Supreme Court of British Columbia upholding the decision of a human rights tribunal, which is a rather strong suggestion that they are, indeed, following the spirit of the law just fine. In fact, it's exactly the sort of link I would use to rebut the point you're trying to make.

That said, to an American it might seem ridiculous that the man could be fined for simply yelling at a couple and telling, quote, "increasingly offensive quips" towards them, it makes perfect sense in Canada, where free speech is not enshrined above literally all else, and obvious hate speech is condemned and fined - yes, even in comedy clubs, which are not and never have been places where anything goes with regards to speech. There is literally nothing wrong with this case.

Which is probably why the BC Supreme Court, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, upheld the ruling.

[The_Queen]

This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.

You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?

What I think is that there needs to be some kind of reform.

Look into tort reform and the Hot Coffee lawsuit as to why I think this is an entirely asinine thing to say. It's not even worth my time to argue with you, or even present sources. So, from now on, take the time to do some reading. It will help you learn things and not be wrong so often.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Well, considering some other rulings, pardon me if I'm not reassured.

You should really read your own links here, UP. You make a post claiming that you're not reassured that these human rights tribunals follow the spirit of the law, and yet in the very link you use to back up your point, we see the Supreme Court of British Columbia upholding the decision of a human rights tribunal, which is a rather strong suggestion that they are, indeed, following the spirit of the law just fine. In fact, it's exactly the sort of link I would use to rebut the point you're trying to make.

That said, to an American it might seem ridiculous that the man could be fined for simply yelling at a couple and telling, quote, "increasingly offensive quips" towards them, it makes perfect sense in Canada, where free speech is not enshrined above literally all else, and obvious hate speech is condemned and fined - yes, even in comedy clubs, which are not and never have been places where anything goes with regards to speech. There is literally nothing wrong with this case.

Which is probably why the BC Supreme Court, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, upheld the ruling.

That's not exactly what I meant.  It may follow the spirit of the law, but the problem is that Canadian law is severely flawed.

This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.

You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?

What I think is that there needs to be some kind of reform.

Look into tort reform and the Hot Coffee lawsuit as to why I think this is an entirely asinine thing to say. It's not even worth my time to argue with you, or even present sources. So, from now on, take the time to do some reading. It will help you learn things and not be wrong so often.

I'm not talking about tort reform.  What I'm saying is that some lawsuits are bogus to begin with, and should be laughed out of court.  This guy is literally suing over hurt feelings.

[Even Then]

Oversimplifying a matter of public harassment and dehumanization into "hurt feelings" to delegitimize the psychological harm of having your death advocated for in public because you're disabled.

- justUPthings

Seriously though, a lot of things that are legitimately harmful and should be addressed before this kind of tribunal (or court) can be stripped down to "hurt feelings". Emotional and mental domestic abuse, for one. Emotional and mental parental abuse, for another. Does it follow that these things are not worth addressing, and their perpetuators should not be brought to justice? Is UP being an apologist for these things as well?

[Ironchew]

Okay, maybe I don't read shit and I'm forced to retract my statements when people with brains take notice. But I'm still going to make fun of those damned PC SJW bolshevists, and so help me God, here's another dastardly thing they were up to!

So pardon me if I'm outraged about the manufactroversy of the week.

[Eiki-mun]

That's not exactly what I meant.  It may follow the spirit of the law, but the problem is that Canadian law is severely flawed.

In your opinion. As a person from a very different culture. Which I covered in my second paragraph of the previous post.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Oversimplifying a matter of public harassment and dehumanization into "hurt feelings" to delegitimize the psychological harm of having your death advocated for in public because you're disabled.

- justUPthings

Seriously though, a lot of things that are legitimately harmful and should be addressed before this kind of tribunal (or court) can be stripped down to "hurt feelings". Emotional and mental domestic abuse, for one. Emotional and mental parental abuse, for another. Does it follow that these things are not worth addressing, and their perpetuators should not be brought to justice? Is UP being an apologist for these things as well?

Apples and oranges.  A single joke does not qualify as emotional abuse.

[Canadian Mojo]

Well, considering some other rulings, pardon me if I'm not reassured.

You should really read your own links here, UP. You make a post claiming that you're not reassured that these human rights tribunals follow the spirit of the law, and yet in the very link you use to back up your point, we see the Supreme Court of British Columbia upholding the decision of a human rights tribunal, which is a rather strong suggestion that they are, indeed, following the spirit of the law just fine. In fact, it's exactly the sort of link I would use to rebut the point you're trying to make.

That said, to an American it might seem ridiculous that the man could be fined for simply yelling at a couple and telling, quote, "increasingly offensive quips" towards them, it makes perfect sense in Canada, where free speech is not enshrined above literally all else, and obvious hate speech is condemned and fined - yes, even in comedy clubs, which are not and never have been places where anything goes with regards to speech. There is literally nothing wrong with this case.

Which is probably why the BC Supreme Court, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, upheld the ruling.

That's not exactly what I meant.  It may follow the spirit of the law, but the problem is that Canadian law is severely flawed.

[Sigmaleph]

On the one hand, I tend to support free speech as a matter of principle. If offensive speech is not protected then what is even the point, etc.

On the other hand, the reason I care about free speech is protecting unpopular opinions, because most true ideas were at some point unpopular. Making fun of a kid is not an opinion.

It might be that a world where being a giant asshole to a kid has consequences is at least somewhat kinder. It might also be that this extends to actual views on fact that people find intensely offensive (plenty of those going around).

[The_Queen]

This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.

You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?

What I think is that there needs to be some kind of reform.

Look into tort reform and the Hot Coffee lawsuit as to why I think this is an entirely asinine thing to say. It's not even worth my time to argue with you, or even present sources. So, from now on, take the time to do some reading. It will help you learn things and not be wrong so often.

I'm not talking about tort reform.  What I'm saying is that some lawsuits are bogus to begin with, and should be laughed out of court.  This guy is literally suing over hurt feelings.

No, there is already a function for that, called dismissal on the pleadings or summary judgment.

 So, you are talking about tort reform. You are advocating making changes to the legal system that will make it harder to bring torts against various people. Tort reform is not just economic caps, it is raising and shifting burdens of proof, which will reduce successes that plaintiffs have in court. Much like the hot coffee lawsuit, there will be collateral effects beyond the change you wish to effect, and plaintiffs will have a harder time bringing and being successful in lawsuits.

And please do not attempt to pull a fast one on me in legal matters.