Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Breast feeding in public


McMillan

  

185 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

That story didn't make me feel any better about the process. I can see buddy getting fired. But you getting payment? The store as a whole having to issue an apology? Wasting the CEO's time? Every person in the company now gets the pleasure of going through sensitivity training all because of one idiot? The threat of worse because of one bigoted remark?

I imagine a female you breastfeeding on the bus with little regard to anything, just lift the whole shirt off. After all, it's a hot summer day, and it's way hot, so you figure it's your right why not?

In my world, someone would ask "Do you mind covering up a little bit?" and the response is "Sorry, but I can't, it's far too hot for my baby if I do". With the understandng we sympathise with the mother, and even feel a little bad for asking. If someone goes overboard and starts berating her about it, and she is highly disturbed by it, then ya, maybe you do need some sensitivity training. Of course that's a fantasy would with common courtesy and common sense.

In your world (and unfortunately our world) all we need in the same situation is for some old lady to say "You know young lady, in my day we didn't allow ourselves to be seen like that" and the women will respond "Well in MY day we will see you at the human rights tribunal" and before you know it there's a suit against the driver for not controlling the situation and the bus company for allowing it to happen to boot.

In both your and the women on the buses situation though you didn't go nuclear it was only to your discretion and satisfaction that all the people you felt are responsible had payed their dues that you decided to not go forward with a tribunal. Some people would call that settling out of court, but frankly it looks like extortion to me. You might feel that doing these things might compel people to not hold these discriminatory beleifs but for every convert your going to get someone digging in, refusing to change their beleifs, and loosing respect for the court system. Especially one that already has a history of being used as a tool to damage another person (our friend at SFU) with little to no evidience that in the end turned out to be false far after the accusee was wrung thouragly and hung out to drive. A milion well written paragraphs about the oversight and beauty of the system will not unnuclear a nuclear ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case with my partner was not extortion - consider it a needed lesson for both the ex-employee (who learned that there are consequences for her actions) and the employer who hopefully learned to make better hiring decisions and/or provide proper training to staff.

The gift card was simply another species of compensatory damages - just like the bus passes given to the woman from the Victoria bus incident. It is a recognized civil remedy as were the apologies. Getting this bigot fired was more for my personal satisfaction than anything else. And I take issue with the quote "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord". I prefer to claim ownership of it myself.

As one of my former law partners once observed - "I would never want to tick you off. You are like a pit bull, you never stop until the other person is on the ground broken and bleeding. And then you continue the attack." As counsel it was a good reputation to have since I was always taken seriously.

I always operate under the principle - Do not get mad... get even and make the **** pay.

Employers are generally responsible for their employees - even the idiots - it is known as vicarious liability. One would hope that the trouble and expense of training current staff would cause the company to change its orientation and training - a good thing IMHO.

Threatening legal action if a matter is not settled is not extortion - if it was debt collection agents would be overflowing the prison system. Perhaps not a bad thing? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem. In effect, your basically granted the power of judge jury and executioner. The threat of the human rights tribunal is enough to make them cower in fear and give in to your demands. That's not democracy in practice, that's facism in practice.

This wasn't about changing attitudes, it was about feeding egos. Think about for a second, your pretty boastful about the whole thing aren't you? Perhaps they should call it the petty vengeance tribunal.

Comments about covering up are indeed discimination under the (overzelous) law.If you want to use the informal poll here, they are also a widely held public opinion, and unless someone has scoured this thread or the link on the BC government (fun reading we all usually enjoy but easy to miss something) there's a very good chance they wouldn't even know this was verboten speach.

What are the odds that sooner or later some vengeful Rachel Mardstenesque women is going to use this as a way to gain vengeance, fame, make a political point, or who knows what personal motive sooner or later.

Incidentily, you might disagree, but a quick dictionary search gives....

World English Dictionary extortion (ɪkˈstɔːʃən) dictionary_questionbutton_default.gifn the act of securing money, favours, etc by intimidation or violence; blackmail

Unless you think that threating legal action isn't intimidating I think it's fair to call a spade a spade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, not fascism - just the Rule of Law. Extortion is illegal - what I did is quite legal. Just using the legal tools that are available to secure the desired result.

The courts and tribunals are part and parcel of our system - rather than beat each other to death with swords to settle disputes we have established independent arbiters. One of the functions in our system is for the law and the courts to act as a deterrent - I simply deterred as is my right. Another function is to channel vengeance into socially acceptable forms.

The fundamental purpose of courts and tribunals is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

* to denounce unlawful conduct;

* the deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

* to provide compensation for harm done to victims or the community; and,

* to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done.

Perhaps if the woman had not committed a discriminatory act then there was no need to be fearful? The solution? Do not discriminate where the law reaches. Has she learnt her lesson? One would hope so. If not then the lesson can be repeated as necessary. The company certainly will have learned its lesson one would think.

So there are consequences for one's unlawful actions. And sometimes the question "Do you have clue who you are dealing with?" really does mean something. And it most certainly does in my case.

Simply because the system could be abused by a Rachel Marsden is no reason to toss out the baby with the nursing mother.

BTW Marsden was convicted in Vancouver of harassing radio personality Michael Morgan in 2004. According to the statement of facts in the case, Marsden and Morgan met in 2001; soon after, he called the police when Marsden sent a teddy bear and flowers to his home. Marsden was warned to stay away from Morgan. But according to court documents, contact resumed and the two began a consensual sexual relationship several months later. When Marsden traveled to the U.S. in 2002, Morgan began dating another woman. According to the court summary of events, this didn't go over well with Marsden, and she began calling and e-mailing him repeatedly, also contacting his new girlfriend, his sister, his son and his business partner, and waiting for him outside his apartment. Police investigated at Morgan's house, where they listened to several phone messages from Marsden described in court documents as "vindictive and threatening." Morgan turned over 38 e-mails sent by Marsden between Sept. 20 and Oct. 10, 2002. According to the court, Marsden also rigged Morgan's computer to send her blind copies of every e-mail he sent to anyone.

In May 2004, Marsden pleaded guilty to the criminal harassment charges. Judge J.W. Kitchen of the criminal division of the Provincial Court of British Columbia sentenced Marsden to conditional discharge and one year of probation.

http://thetyee.ca/Me...04/05/RMarsden/

Teaching people to stand up for and assert their lawful rights is something to be proud of IMHO. Too often people do not know their rights nor how to assert them. If my cautionary tale helps then my work here is done.

0512-0709-1715-3227.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the love of Jehovah, Allah and Baby Jesus...Ron..., would you please stop with your asinine arguments and obstinate desire to argue everything that Wetcoaster says...jeez...the guy has taken you out back behind the shed and legally, factually, logically, definitionally, put you and your arguments out of your misery with his 12 guage knowledge, intellect and experience. It's painfully clear to everyone he has. Let it go...

Use that 'common sense' you've been highly touting and learn to let things go. There's a time and a length to that, where playing devil's advocate is sometimes constructive and needed, but Ron, that time's over and long gone....let it go...it's embarassing watching you flounder about against Wetcoaster. Everytime he lays waste to your comments with reason, logic and legal fact, you re-tune the band and start playing a revised version of the same crapty song....enough please...

Wetcoaster has you boxed in on every angle you're arguing...i mean you took this thread from common sense cover up of breastfeeding women to fascism and legal extortion and god know where else....shut it down...and spend less time engineering riduculous arguments and spend a bit more time fine tuning those desgins and schematics that your company seems to be having to pay out settlements for, it might be beneficial to your company and be one less thing you'll come and belly ache to us about....god willing.

Obstinantely Asinine....stop being one of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps we need a word for "legal extortion". It's defined as paying up rather than face the time, humility, and costs of going to court under threat of going to court.

We're quite used to it here in the engineering proffession. Any time there's a threat of a court case between an owner/contractor/the public about anything, no matter how much due diligence engineering put in, and how absolutely nothing we could have changed could have prevented it, we still end up on the hook for 10-20% of the settlement just because the lawyers know that it's cheaper for us to settle rather than go to court and it helps fil the pot to make the settlement happen. Were just a money supply. Neat eh?

That's where I get my "legal extortion" from. Sure it's legal, but it's still extortion. Not under the law, but under the dictionairy and common sense.

And why not do it? After all, there's very little risk in things going wrong. Did Rachel every have to pay back the $12k? Issue an apology? Get charged (for her lies and the subsequent damage in that case)? Pay for damages for the public raking through the coals? Those are a lot more harmful than any comment that can be uttered.

Which by the way, given your history of being a cop and lawyer, you have probably already heard every possible demeaning thing that has been invented and even more than that, so I don't think you suffered emotional distress from one comment from the idiot in the store, but rather used it to be the self apointed sword of political correctness. You might be content with it, but it's still facism to me.

Now, I agree the human rights tribunal can have it's uses. I was reading yesterday about how some recent African migrants might have been treated signficantly worse while doing some tree planting. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but if it is true than they have a legitimate gripe.

However, that doesn't mean it's not wide open for personal gain and abuse. That needs to be fixed. Atomic bombs dropped over a few stupid words is a punishment that doesn't fit the crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legal extortion is an oxymoron. It is not in my dictionary, legal, common sense or otherwise.

Yes, I have been verbally abused, spat on, assaulted, etc. - all a part of the job.

However I do not in my personal capacity, and more to the point my partner does not, have to put up with racist bigots in the setting in which the incident occurred. Hopefully the public nature of the manner in which this bigot was slapped down will have a salutary effect on her future behaviour and hopefully it will have an effect on the company and other employees. I consider the punishment meted out to be commensurate with the offence. I take such things very seriously. YMMV

Rachel Marsden is an anomaly and the system ultimately worked for Mr. Donnelly albeit with significant pain and discomfort. Such is life. It was also open to Mr. Donnelly to sue Marsden for the damage that she caused - since she spoke of the details publicly in the media there is no qualified privilege that might attach to court or tribunal pleadings.

The oft-quoted phrase although said in relation to criminal law has application to such a situation:

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. - The English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s

When you can design a legal or quasi-legal system that is 100% fool proof and incapable of mistakes, you should patent it as you will make a fortune. Until then we must use the best tools we have at hand.

And as to the underlying sentiment of so what, not my rights or not really all that important - I commend the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller to you:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up."

The rights and freedoms enumerated in the Human Rights Code (and the Charter) are important - they are IMHO fundamental and worthy not only of protection but also strict enforcement. They are not a function of "being politically correct". Parliament, the provincial legislature the courts and tribunals charged with their protection think so as well. If you do not that is you prerogative as it is to try to change the laws should you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oxymoron or not it's real. If you don't think that happens I don't know what to say. Any time a lawyer says "You have a case but it's cheaper to settle" then it happened. It's "your right, pay up anyways". This will be another way to do just that. If you can't see that threat of court results in settlements REGARDLESS of the legitimacey of the case then I don't know what to say. It happens all the time. It's effectively pleading guilty because pleading innocent is more costly. It happens all the time.

You will note I call the person that was being an idiot an idiot. I just don't think the punishment fits the crime.

I know the legal system isn't perfect. That's why I critisise it.

A mild shift towards free speach isn't giving up on having rights and freedoms, that's a strawman that gets old.

You going atomic on the store does't preserve our rights and freedoms either. All it does is make someone loose a job (maybe learn a lesson, probably not), make the company loose some money and time, and make you feel important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the love of Jehovah, Allah and Baby Jesus...Ron..., would you please stop with your asinine arguments and obstinate desire to argue everything that Wetcoaster says...jeez...the guy has taken you out back behind the shed and legally, factually, logically, definitionally, put you and your arguments out of your misery with his 12 guage knowledge, intellect and experience. It's painfully clear to everyone he has. Let it go...

Use that 'common sense' you've been highly touting and learn to let things go. There's a time and a length to that, where playing devil's advocate is sometimes constructive and needed, but Ron, that time's over and long gone....let it go...it's embarassing watching you flounder about against Wetcoaster. Everytime he lays waste to your comments with reason, logic and legal fact, you re-tune the band and start playing a revised version of the same crapty song....enough please...

Wetcoaster has you boxed in on every angle you're arguing...i mean you took this thread from common sense cover up of breastfeeding women to fascism and legal extortion and god know where else....shut it down...and spend less time engineering riduculous arguments and spend a bit more time fine tuning those desgins and schematics that your company seems to be having to pay out settlements for, it might be beneficial to your company and be one less thing you'll come and belly ache to us about....god willing.

Obstinantely Asinine....stop being one of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I am learning all kinds of things about law free of charge. If I have to look bad to do so that's fine. My life doesn't revolve around your opinion.

I don't know if you don't have a soul either, but you are aware that right and wrong don't always mesh with legal/illegal. The answer to everything isn't "that's legal, here's why" or "that's illegal, here's why".

In case your wondering, the whole reason I have been arguing all these things is due to the ease of getting into the kangaroo court as a result. I find the potential for abuse to be disgusting.

In good news, I have a good idea on what's verboten now. Sometimes I wonder what's going to be next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ bat crap crazy? lmao, look in the mirror. Bleeding hearts, politically correct...oh my, what you people will do to bend over to every little thing.

Look at the poll, a majority in this forum thinks there needs to be at least some sort of discretion.

There are many, many laws and "rights" I don't agree with...not that I would break them as an idiotic violent protester would do, but it certainly doesn't make it right.

Regardless, I couldn't care less about the issue but for principle's sake something is quite wrong with the whole idea of being able to throw in the whole discrimination/HR book if women have been told otherwise...

My final word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ bat crap crazy? lmao, look in the mirror. Bleeding hearts, politically correct...oh my, what you people will do to bend over to every little thing.

Look at the poll, a majority in this forum thinks there needs to be at least some sort of discretion.

There are many, many laws and "rights" I don't agree with...not that I would break them as an idiotic violent protester would do, but it certainly doesn't make it right.

Regardless, I couldn't care less about the issue but for principle's sake something is quite wrong with the whole idea of being able to throw in the whole discrimination/HR book if women have been told otherwise...

My final word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...