Author
|
Topic: Badges for Christians and Jews In Iran: A lesson in agit-prop
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 19 May 2006 10:46 AM
quote: Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims."This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis." Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments." The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims. Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth. "There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this." Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was "stunned" by the measure. "We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," he said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination." Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year. It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.
http://tinyurl.com/o5mro [ 19 May 2006: Message edited by: josh ] [ 20 May 2006: Message edited by: josh ]
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986
|
posted 19 May 2006 01:34 PM
The above link is from the National Post, so I plugged it into Google News and noted an interesting lack of reputable sources. Then I saw this: quote: But independent reporter Meir Javedanfar, an Israeli Middle East expert who was born and raised in Tehran, says the report is false. "It's absolutely factually incorrect," he told The New 940 Montreal. "Nowhere in the law is there any talk of Jews and Christians having to wear different colours. I've checked it with sources both inside Iran and outside." "The Iranian people would never stand for it. The Iranian government wouldn't be stupid enough to do it."
quote: The National Post cites Iranian expatriots [sic] living in Canada as its primary source on the story.
Of course, I suspect the forthcoming retraction won't be nearly as noticed as the original story. Edited for formatting. [ 19 May 2006: Message edited by: cco ]
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553
|
posted 19 May 2006 04:12 PM
So we have one reporter Meir Javedanfar claiming it is false and another in the NP in an op-ed, Amir Taheri, claiming the story is true. The op-ed writer who I googled seems quite credible I can find nary a word about Meir Javedanfar.Why should we believe a reporter with little background over a credible journalist from Iran?
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 19 May 2006 04:36 PM
More googling reveals that Taheri is a neo-con, who writes for, among other publications, the National Review, and is sponsored by Benador Associates:http://www.benadorassociates.com/ More on Eleana Benador: quote:
Eleana Benador has been instrumental in helping to publicize key neoconservative figures in recent years, with her company Benador Associates serving as a principal neoconservative marketing agency. Writes journalist Jim Lobe: "Meet Eleana Benador, the Peruvian-born publicist for Perle, Woolsey, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and a dozen other prominent neoconservatives whose hawkish opinions proved very hard to avoid for anyone who watched news talk shows or read the op-ed pages of major newspapers over the past 20 months. Also found among her client list are other major war-boosters, including former New York Times executive editor and now New York Daily News columnist, A. M. Rosenthal; Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer; the Council on Foreign Relations' resident imperialist Max Boot; and Victor Davis Hanson, a blood-and-guts classicist and one of Vice President Dick Cheney's favorite dinner guests. Aside from her success in getting her clients distributed all over the television dial at critical moments in the march to war, what is particularly remarkable about Benador is the speed with which she has built what is obviously a thriving business, based on 17- to 18-hour work days, the personal attention she gives to both her clients and her media contacts, and her conviction that what her clients say is true and right. "In general, I do agree with their views," Benador told Inter Press Service during an interview in the plush lobby of what is Washington's only grand hotel in the European style, the Willard. "So when I represent them, I can really convince another person."Another of Benador's big-name clients is Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who fled several years ago to the United States, where he wrote a book claiming that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had a nuclear bomb.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1030 [ 19 May 2006: Message edited by: josh ]
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851
|
posted 19 May 2006 05:33 PM
So far the story has only appeared in the National Post. And note the cover -- badges for Jews is given the most prominence with a huge picture of Nazi German practice below it.Whether there are badges for Christians, Hindus, Baha'i, etc. is secondary to the frontpage emotive Nazi comparison. Either its jumping the gun, or fearmongering propaganda of the worst sort.
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986
|
posted 19 May 2006 05:42 PM
IRAN'S only Jewish MP strongly denied reports in a Canadian newspaper overnight that Iran may force non-Muslims to wear coloured badges in public so they can be identified."This report is a complete fabrication and is totally false," Maurice Motammed said in Tehran. "It is a lie, and the people who invented it wanted to make political gain" by doing so. This should settle it, but somehow I suspect it won't. ETA: Anyone want to bet on whether we'll hear from "Petsy" again? [ 19 May 2006: Message edited by: cco ]
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 19 May 2006 05:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by ohara: I think we can all understand why the story remains believable.
I don't believe it for a minute; this story is an exact parallel with the blood libel. And the above post is like saying "well, we can see why people think jews eat babies, because after all they killed Christ, didn't they." Yeah, that's offensive, but no less offensive than running an unconfirmed story from a source known to be involved in the lobbying effort for a US invasion of Iran, which claims that the Iranian government is making Jews wear yellow stars.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986
|
posted 19 May 2006 06:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by ohara: I think we can all understand why the story remains believable. jews are terribly persecuted in Ian so that a "Jewish"parliamentarian in Iran might deny does not settle it for me. Why has the governemnt of Iran remained silent? Why has the Iranian ambassador refused comment? Im still in a wait and see mode. Seems odd to me that soem here are so quick to defend this racist regime.
I love the scare quotes. Love 'em. Is the implication that the Iranian MP isn't really Jewish (or really a member of the government of Iran)? I think I'm going to fabricate a story about the IDF herding Palestinians into death camps. Then, when I'm called on it being a complete and total lie, I'll defend it citing "believability" based on past IDF treatment of Palestinians. We'll make sure to remember the scare-quoting next time you bring up Arab MKs, too.
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092
|
posted 19 May 2006 07:08 PM
Is this a last kiss-off from the National Pest? If the paper folds, can it still be sued? Is this story open to legal action in any case?Recently, there were claims that Dose, the "hip" free daily, and the National Post were about to be closed. Both claims were strongly denied by Canwest global, but Dose folded soon after. Are they going out with one last propaganda big-lie hurrah? edited to add: go to your local library, cco, and pick up the paper. The bullshit is jumping off the front page. [ 19 May 2006: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986
|
posted 19 May 2006 07:36 PM
Post eats crow quote: Originally posted by ohara: Why has the governemnt of Iran remained silent? Why has the Iranian ambassador refused comment?
quote: Hormoz Ghahremani, a spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa, said in an e-mail to the Post yesterday that, “We wish to categorically reject the news item. “These kinds of slanderous accusations are part of a smear campaign against Iran by vested interests, which needs to be denounced at every step.”
Emphasis mine. You were saying, ohara? Petsy?
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961
|
posted 19 May 2006 09:17 PM
quote: Ali Reza Nourizadeh, an Iranian commentator on political affairs in London, suggested that the requirements for badges or insignia for religious minorities was part of a “secondary motion” introduced in parliament, addressing the changes specific to the attire of people of various religious backgrounds
So there was some grain of truth but clearly not enough for the Post to have run with the story the way it did. However the Iranian President already engaged in Holocaust denioal and made statements to the effect that he wants Israel wiped off the map one can easily understand jewish concerns that this story may be true. Hopwever Rabbi Hier should be taken to task that's for sure for claiming he was able to verify the story.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440
|
posted 19 May 2006 10:01 PM
quote: Originally posted by ohara: However the Iranian President already ... made statements to the effect that he wants Israel wiped off the map...
No, he didn't. He was quoting from a speech Khomeini made decades ago. It was mistranslated and people with agendas jumped on it just as they've jumped on this story. See Juan Cole. quote: The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time. Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.
ETA: You'll have to scroll down a ways. Cole spends the first part of that post spanking Christopher Hitchens. [ 19 May 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961
|
posted 20 May 2006 06:10 AM
Seems to me that too many stories refer to Ahiminijad's comments to accept one version as the truth.BBC Al Jazeera Iranian.com
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 20 May 2006 07:21 AM
Iran denies the neo-con agit-prop story: quote: Iran denied a report that it passed a law that would force non-Muslims in the Islamic Republic to wear colored labels identifying their religion. The Canadian National Post yesterday reported Iran's parliament passed a law last week for a public dress code that would require Jews to wear a yellow strip of cloth on their clothing, Christians a red one, and Zoroastrians blue. Iran is a predominantly Muslim country. ``Such a bill was never introduced in the parliament,'' said Maurice Motammed, Iran's only Jewish deputy who represents Iran's community of 25,000 Jews, on state television today. ``Iranian minorities benefit from the same liberties and social rights as other people.'' A bill to promote ``an Iranian and Islamic style of dress for women'' was passed in Iran's Parliament on May 14. However, it didn't mention religious minorities, Emad Afrough, head of the parliament's cultural committee and one of the main designers of the measure said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency IRNA. The article appeared in several newspapers around the world, drawing criticism from top Canadian and Australian officials. U.S. State department spokesman Sean McCormack said such a decision would be ``despicable'', Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. The report was described by Iran's local state media as a failed ``campaign lead by a Zionist newspaper.''
http://tinyurl.com/qlun2 But as in the run-up to the Iraq war, the neo-cons, with the National Post as a willing participant, have succeeded in this exercise of agit-prop by planting the story in the minds of the average citizen.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 20 May 2006 07:56 AM
Juan Cole on the story: quote: The National Post is owned by Conrad Black and is not a repository of expertise about Iran. it is typical of black psychological operations campaigns that they begin with a plant in an obscure newspaper that is then picked up by the mainstream press. Once the Jerusalem Post picks it up, then reporters can source it there, even though the Post has done no original reporting and has just depended on the National Post article, which is extremely vague in its own sourcing (to "human rights groups").
http://www.juancole.com/
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209
|
posted 20 May 2006 08:51 AM
Not to nitpic but I thought that Black sold his interest in the Post in 2001.As far as Iran goes. I am glad that this story proved to be false. I can only hope the cooler heads around the world win out. I am glad though that I live in a county where i know that I will never have to wear an armband of yellow like family members where forced to do in Nazi times. Canada with all its faults will always be better for minorities than 99% of the nations of the world.
From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468
|
posted 20 May 2006 09:49 AM
I nominate Liberal MP Keith Martin to win the Award for Hysterical Overreaction to a Non-story, based on the questions he asked of Peter MacKay in the House of Commons yesterday: quote: Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, but he must also recognize that this is Hitler's shadow stalking the earth, that this is the same regime in Iran that has denied the Holocaust and has state sponsored persecution of members of the Baha'i faith. Quite frankly, words are not enough. I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if, at the very least, he has called in the Iranian ambassador to Canada to express Canada's disgust over these actions in Iran.
And: quote: Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's response must be focused, clear, strong and unequivocal. I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will he bring the matter up at the United Nations Security Council? If this comes to pass, will he then call for an international ban on the purchase of Iranian oil?
A matter for the Security Council?Glad you've got things in perspective, Mr. Martin. [Edited to add: Hey, 1001 posts! Cool!] [ 20 May 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]
From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 20 May 2006 11:57 AM
Sigh. Warren continues whoring for the post: quote: Sigh. Anti-Post screecher Zerb - you know, the gal whose paper previously achieved journalistic distinction for declaring the Blue Jays "racist" - has popped a head valve over the Chris Wattie Iran story in this week's Post. Qu'elle suprise. Unlike Zerb, whose every waking hour seems to spent in Asper (and sometimes Israel) bashing, I will wait for all the facts to be in on this one. But permit me to say that her comparative silence on Iran's declared intention to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," a little while ago, was noteworthy. (And when Iran says something like that, is requiring Jews to wear identifying bits of cloth such a stretch?)
http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm Shorter Kinsella: If you question neo-con agit-prop, you're an anti-Semite.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 20 May 2006 07:12 PM
This also reminds me of the propaganda cooked up under Bush I and the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US: "Iraqi forces are pulling babies from incubators in Kuwait hospitals and dashing them to the floor".That time it worked and "the west" roared up like righteous bastards to attack Iraq. Or rather Iraqi soldiers and civilians fleeing Kuwait on what became, "the highway of death". Then for additional fun, we (UK, US, Canada, Australia and . . .) roared over Baghdad dropping bombs on civilian infrastructure. Harper is such a doofus. He must be the most minimally travelled PM of any we've had recently. Of course he could believe anything negative about some other, particularly Muslim, country.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 20 May 2006 08:18 PM
quote: Canada with all its faults will always be better for minorities than 99% of the nations of the world. -Miles
It is this kind of chest-beating that leads to complacency and then false pretences. Have you heard about the latest Bill to "overhaul" the Ontario Human rights Commission ? I doubt you have. What I do not doubt is that you are neither an Aborigical, nor a woman, nor a person with disability, nor a member of a visible minority group. Do you know anything about human rights in Canada, Miles? I mean firsthand knowledge as in personal experience, training, research, academia. You know what Miles? You do a disservice to the cause of human rights when you hear/read something said about the subject and without knowing the truth you come out and brag. Since you are the one who stated it FRST, show me that Canada is better than 99% of world countries when tit comes to human rights and then I will show you that this is bullshit only the gullible and the ignorant would believe. [ 21 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961
|
posted 21 May 2006 10:26 AM
Sidra , miles may have been using a bit of hyperbole when he wrote 99%, and I am with you especially when it comes to First Nations and their treatment here in Canada.Yet I wonder if you could tell us which countries you feel are better than Canada so that we might have a yardsick from which to judge.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 21 May 2006 07:11 PM
Ohara,Canada's human rights system does not meet internationally recognized standards: Independence, Accessibility and Pro-action. That puts Canada in the same league as developing undemocratic countries. Canada is the only jurisdiction in the West where human rights commissions are government controled and hamstrung with a "Gatekeeping" mandate. A gatekeeping mandate means that no complaint is to proceed unless the government gives it the green light. Do you know what is the percentage of complaints against governments and their institutions that see the light of a fair hearing ? 0.02%. These complaints that are allowed to proceed to a fair hearing are almost exclusively complaints from white people, mostly middle and upper class citizens: (disability, sexual harassment and same sex issues). Do you know the percentage of complaints both against the government and against private sector that are allowed to be independently heard ? 4%. Notice that the bulk of these "allowed to proceed" complaints are against Mom & Pop businesses (small landlords and store owners) Do you know that in Canada, issues of human rights are the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of human rights commissions. What does that mean? It means that people who feel they have been discriminated against cannot go to court. They must go to human rights commissions.. and have their complaints filtered, by the same government which is respondent to that complaint. Talk about being a party and a judge !! The following quotations are from : "Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel Report, Promoting Equality: A New Vision" (La Forest Report) Canada, 2000. Justice Gerard Laforest is a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. quote: The United Nations Human Rights Committee noted in its concluding observations about Canada's compliance with the requirement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that: "The Committee recommends that the relevant human rights legislation be amended so as to guarantee access to a competent tribunal and to an effective remedy in all cases of discrimination."
quote: ... By forcing all individual complainants to pass through the gatekeeper, there is no opportunity to directly present evidence to a decision-maker with the power to issue an enforceable order. This -Gatekeeping- model creates a system that is paternalistic, disempowering and ultimately discriminatory because the only people in Canada who are forced to go through the system are the ones who are already identified as disadvantaged.
Belgium was not criticized. France was not criticized. Switzerland was not criticized.. as well as a whole lot of Western democracies. Canada was criticized for its oppressive, discriminatory (i.e, at the government's whim as to whose complaint is alloowed to proceed), oppressive and utterly unfair human rights system. "Canada with all its faults will always be better for minorities than 99% of the nations of the world", said Miles. I think not. [ 21 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 21 May 2006 07:36 PM
The discretion which the Human Rights Commission has is relatively defensible.It means that the HRC, or prosecutor, decides which cases go to adjudication. This is quite similar to the Criminal Courts, where the Crown decides whether any indictable offence allegation proceeds (and has a lot of say about summary offences, too). If there is no one doing the "gatekeeper" function, the result is that anyone can make an allegation, and drag anyone else through the courts, claiming discrimination. Of course, the public would have to fund the special courts, parallel to the Criminal system, where these complaints would be litigated. If the Commission is dismantled (as seems to be the proposdal in Ontario), then the gatekeeper function is played by money. If you can afford to go to court, you do. If you can't afford it, the gate is closed.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 21 May 2006 07:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by sidra:
France was not criticized.
That seems remarkable, considering that France is but months past some really ugly race-riots.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 21 May 2006 07:45 PM
Jeff, Defensible ? Apartheid was also deemed defensible. Why, didn't we have a South African High commission in Ottawa during the Apartheid years ? Canada's apartheid is defensible. I guess you can do just that, Jeff. As for your comparison betwen human rights cases and criminal cases: Since the Crown (the complainant/appelant) has a choice, why shouldn't a complainant/appelant in a human rights case also have that choice ? [ 21 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 21 May 2006 08:00 PM
Doesn't a complainant always have the option of bypassing the human rights commission (and it's gatekeepers) and taking their beef straight to court?If that's the case, then what's subject to discretion is a system in which the state bears the costs of investigating and prosecuting a complaint on behalf of the complainant. I can't see that as a tremendous injustice, frankly, unless I'm missing something. Are there restrictions on the grounds on which the commission can decline? I'd support that--cases should only be declined for reasons relating to their substance, not (for instance) because it would embarrass the government or cause damage to some other party. If cases are being turned down for the latter reasons, then I agree, it's unequal. Are they? [ 21 May 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 21 May 2006 08:04 PM
quote: Since the Crown (the complainant/appelant) has a choice, why shouldn't a complainant/appelant in a human rights case also have that choice ?
Because the Crown is not the actual person making the complaint. It is a public body, with statutory authority to make certain decisions. Its analogue is the Human Rights Commission, which prosecutes violations of the Human Rights Code. The actual person making the claim of the human rights violation is analogous to the actual person making the criminal complaint. Neither get to decide whether the case can go forward. Apparently, my ability to think clearly makes me a supporter of apartheid. Either that, or your post was pretty foolish.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 21 May 2006 08:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by sidra:
Do you mean that any country where a riot has taken place should be criticized ? On what grounds ?
Nationwide race riots don't happen by accident, sidra. They're usually an excellent sign that something's grievously amiss in the society in which they occur. Or are you a part of the crew that thinks that the muslim inhabitants of france rioted because they're just bad people, and not because systematic prejudice has kept them as a permanent underclass in french society, and they're fed up? Cuz I know which of these positions I'd describe as 'racist, and it isn't mine.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 21 May 2006 08:05 PM
Back to the actual topic! quote: A draft law being considered by Iran's parliament encourages the wearing of Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity, according to a copy of the bill obtained by The Associated Press on Saturday.The 13-article bill, which received preliminary approval a week ago, does not mention requiring special attire for religious minorities.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/20/ap/world/mainD8HNINC00.shtml
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 21 May 2006 08:10 PM
quote: A draft law being considered by Iran's parliament encourages the wearing of Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity, according to a copy of the bill obtained by The Associated Press on Saturday.
Hard to argue against it, given that Iran is merely following the lead of such repressive states as France, the UK, and Canada (quebec) which have each passed or considered similar legislation restricting clothing for students in publicly-funded schools according to religious grouds.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 21 May 2006 08:39 PM
It's a stupid law, but that's not the point. The point is that a national newspaper in Canada has either deliberately lied, or has virtually no quality control mechanisms whatsoever. Antonia Zerbasias has a good comment on this: http://thestar.blogs.com/azerb/2006/05/the_meme_of_the.html Interestingly, the Post story includes a confirmatory statement about the legislation from "Ali Behroozian".
Does anyone know who he is? Does he exist at all? Googling shows he has no internet existence, other than this story. Checking in the Toronto phonebook, there is an Ali Behroozian, but he isn't answering his phone right now, to let us know if he is the "source" or not, and why his opinions get into the Post so easily.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 21 May 2006 09:04 PM
Well, at least we can see what this Ali Behroozian looks like: http://tinyurl.com/o4q97 The first guy, with salt and pepper hair. He is well known opponent of the Iranian regime and the National Post (CanWest) should have shown diligence. A case for a lawsuit against this shabby "journalism". [ 21 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 21 May 2006 09:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
The point is that a national newspaper in Canada has either deliberately lied, or has virtually no quality control mechanisms whatsoever.
Indded, that's an excellent point. I dunno that it will startle many people who've been paying attention: the Post has been making up news for years. Under Black it was such BS stories as the non-existant 'brain drain', and under the Aspers it's anything negative about Israel's enemies, but the process has been entirely consistent. Why else would either proprietor bother to own that paper? It's a money sump.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 21 May 2006 09:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by sidra: Well, at least we can see what this Ali Behroozian looks like: http://tinyurl.com/o4q97 The first guy, with salt and pepper hair.
What is the vote on the left hand side of the screen? [ 21 May 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 21 May 2006 09:34 PM
quote: See, the thing is I can see how this kind of thing can get inflated, as a combination of bad translations, drunken back room talk and speculation.
That's why I was speaking about qulaity control. If I wanted to purchase drunken, mistranslated speculation, I would. But I don't. I want actual truthful information. I still think we should trace these people to the extent possible. For example, the man identified as an Iranian living in Toronto; does he have a political affiliation? If so, why was that facy suppressed in the article? Why was he presented as just another Iranian exile? There are many other questions which arise. People who want Canadian media to be credible ought to go after the Post on this crap. Wars are started on the basis of this sort of misinformation.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 21 May 2006 09:36 PM
quote: I presume that IranLiberty belongs to one or another of the Iranian exile organizations. Does the website tell us which one?
The site says it belongs to the "Union of the -Iranian- opposition in Canada". By the way, Ali Behroozian is presented in the Persian site as "Writer and Interpreter". Googled: He works as a "job developer" -for newcomers with JobStart, on Dufferin street in Toronto. At least for the year 2004-2005 according to the organization's annual report. [ 21 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209
|
posted 21 May 2006 11:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by sidra:
Have you heard about the latest Bill to "overhaul" the Ontario Human rights Commission ? I doubt you have. What I do not doubt is that you are neither an Aborigical, nor a woman, nor a person with disability, nor a member of a visible minority group. Do you know anything about human rights in Canada, Miles? I mean firsthand knowledge as in personal experience, training, research, academia. [ 21 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
Stow your rightous indignation Sidra. I work with as a volunteer and have done so for over 10 years for a group that works to not only advance disability rights but to do our best to force companies to comply not with fancy legislation yet to be written but with current codes and laws. Current laws that most simply chose to ignore cause of the excuse that it costs too much. We have now sent numerous letters to the AG, the Premier and the leaders of the NDP demanding that this law be not only shelved but never introduced again. The current legislation is crap. The AG lied to the world when he said that my group was consulted and we have demanded not only an apology but a retraction in Hansard. You are right i am a male not aboriginal nor a visable minority although i belong to a minority group that is less than 4% of the Canadian population. So attack me all you want. What the hell have you done lately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ETA and so yes Sidra I think that a person with a disabiltiy is better off in Canada and in Ontario even with all of all faults than 99% of countries in the world. [ 21 May 2006: Message edited by: miles ]
From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 22 May 2006 09:07 AM
quote: So attack me all you want. What the hell have you done lately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Miles
I have always been debunking myths, illusion-peddlers, flag-rolls, feel-good merchants and chest-beaters But seriously, is your question a rhetorical one ? quote: ETA and so yes Sidra I think that a person with a disabiltiy is better off in Canada and in Ontario even with all of all faults than 99% of countries in the world. Miles
Oh, now it is "a person with disability" ! If you only have read what I wrote above -which follows: quote: Do you know what is the percentage of complaints against governments and their institutions that see the light of a fair hearing ? 0.02%. These complaints that are allowed to proceed to a fair hearing are almost exclusively complaints from white people, mostly middle and upper class citizens: (disability, sexual harassment and same sex issues).
Miles, Canada is the only jurisdiction in Western democracies where human rights complaints are not allowed to proceed to a fair hearing without a green light by the government. Yes, even when that same government is respondent to a complaint. Talk about being a respondent to a complaint and a judge on whether it should proceed !
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 22 May 2006 09:45 AM
Jeff wrote: quote: The discretion which the Human Rights Commission has is relatively defensible. It means that the HRC, or prosecutor, decides which cases go to adjudication. This is quite similar to the Criminal Courts, where the Crown decides whether any indictable offence allegation proceeds (and has a lot of say about summary offences, too).
How often does the Crown decide whether any indictable offence allegation AGAINST THE CROWN proceeds, Jeff ? In other words, How often is the Crown a respondent to a criminal allegation AND in the sate time a judge on whether prosecution should take place ? Your analogy is quite frankly, lame. quote: If there is no one doing the "gatekeeper" function, the result is that anyone can make an allegation, and drag anyone else through the courts, claiming discrimination....Of course, the public would have to fund the special courts, parallel to the Criminal system, where these complaints would be litigated.
Amazing enough, almost excusively whites' complaints seem to pass the gate to proceed to a fair hearing. Now, how about Canada abiding with the "internationally recognized standards for human rights institutions" ? Independence, Accessibility and Pro-action. Other Western democracies did it and last I heard they did not go bankrupt.
quote: If the Commission is dismantled (as seems to be the proposdal in Ontario), then the gatekeeper function is played by money. If you can afford to go to court, you do. If you can't afford it, the gate is closed.
In other words, screwed either way, current or proposed systems. I agree. [ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961
|
posted 22 May 2006 11:53 AM
quote: Amazing enough, almost excusively whites' complaints seem to pass the gate to proceed to a fair hearing.
Can you back this statement up with any proof?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 22 May 2006 02:36 PM
Of course I can. Haven't I debunked the myth of Canada's human rights better than 99% of world countries ? Now back to you, Ohara. Could you back up with proof your statement that "jews are terribly persecuted in Iran". Could you demonstrate that they are persecuted because they are Jews and not as Iranian citizens exposed to an oppressive regime like the rest of their fellow citizens ? It would only be fair that you also enlighten others with facts they might not know, rather than just musing with empty rhetoric. quote: I think we can all understand why the story remains believable. jews are terribly persecuted in Ian so that a "Jewish" parliamentarian in Iran might deny does not settle it for me -Ohara
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 22 May 2006 03:36 PM
Reply to S1m0n: quote: Doesn't a complainant always have the option of bypassing the human rights commission (and it's gatekeepers) and taking their beef straight to court?
No such option. quote: If that's the case, then what's subject to discretion is a system in which the state bears the costs of investigating and prosecuting a complaint on behalf of the complainant.
According to the UN, every state must protect its minorities. The UN set some standards for recognition of human rights institutions: Independence, Accessibility, Pro-action, Transparency. Canada meets none of these. quote: I can't see that as a tremendous injustice, frankly, unless I'm missing something.
So you have a government that is respondent to a complaint of discrimination. It is a party in that litigation. That same government sits also as the decider whether that complaint is to be investigated or to proceed to a fair hearing and you can't see that as injustice. As to whether you are missing something, my view is that you are missing a lot and I do not blame you. Am I knowledgeable for instance about "The wolf killing Act" ? No. Why, I am neither a farmer nor living near wolves or have anything to do with wolves.
quote: Are there restrictions on the grounds on which the commission can decline? I'd support that--cases should only be declined for reasons relating to their substance, not (for instance) because it would embarrass the government or cause damage to some other party. If cases are being turned down for the latter reasons, then I agree, it's unequal. Are they?
No, everything is rosy, fair and just, S1m0n. It is just these irrational immigrants and the rest of the riff-raff who complain about our perfect and fair human rights system. The government sits as party in a case and a decider on whether that case should proceed. Now, when a respondent to a complaint is not the government, but a private sector one. Do you think the government would allow a case to proceed and create a precedent that would potentially apply to that government also ? [ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961
|
posted 22 May 2006 04:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by sidra: Of course I can. Haven't I debunked the myth of Canada's human rights better than 99% of world countries ? Now back to you, Ohara. Could you back up with proof your statement that "jews are terribly persecuted in Iran". Could you demonstrate that they are persecuted because they are Jews and not as Iranian citizens exposed to an oppressive regime like the rest of their fellow citizens ?It would only be fair that you also enlighten others with facts they might not know, rather than just musing with empty rhetoric.
So in other words you can't. As I thought.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 22 May 2006 04:30 PM
I did't say I can't, Ohara. Try me ! Simply back up YOUR allegation of "jews prosecuted in Iran".Play fair here, Ohara. By the way, you know what? Following some "chest beating" on his part, I twice invited Keith Norton, the previous Chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission for a debate where I promised to debunk his myths. He simply declined. I sent him a letter to tell him that he is just a coward and a lies peddler. He never replied to the latter. For he knows me. ETA: In my public letters to Keith Norton -in newspapers, my language was more polished, but with the same message that he is a liar. You are a very light weight, Ohara. [ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961
|
posted 22 May 2006 08:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by sidra: I did't say I can't, Ohara. Try me ! Simply back up YOUR allegation of "jews prosecuted in Iran".Play fair here, Ohara. [ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
So you make an allegation and when I ask you to back it up your reply is to ask me to back something I said. That's a good one sidra. I reiterate my point you cannot back up your statement which tends to make many of us believe it is full of the proverbial you know what.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 22 May 2006 08:32 PM
I asked, "Doesn't a complainant always have the option of bypassing the human rights commission (and it's gatekeepers) and taking their beef straight to court?"You answered: quote: Originally posted by sidra: "No such option."
Are you seriously attempting to assert that the only way to launch a challenge under the Charter of Rights and freedoms is through a quasi-judicial human rights tribunal? If so, then you are grievously mistaken. All decisions of any human rights tribunal may be appealed to the courts. Here's one such, in which the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal's refusal to hear a discrimination case was appealed to the courts and overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. Vriend v. Alberta quote: The facts giving rise to the case concern the 1991 dismissal of Delwin Vriend from his employment as a laboratory co-ordinator at King's College. Mr. Vriend made a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, but his complaint was turned away because the legislation does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mr. Vriend then challenged the omission of sexual orientation from all of the rights-conferring provisions of the IRPA, including those that prohibit discrimination in employment, on the grounds that the omission violates his s. 15 right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law. At trial Russell J. ruled in favour of Vriend. However, a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against him, and ordered costs in favour of the Crown.
After defeat at the provincial court level, Mr. Vriend was successful in the SCoC. I am still not clear on the nature of your complaint about Canada's Human Rights Commissions, but it appears to me that your understanding of their operation is faulty. [ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961
|
posted 22 May 2006 08:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by sidra: Worth repeating:
And once again you choose to obfuscate. Miles had you pegged sidra. You are full of it
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 23 May 2006 12:57 AM
quote: Are you seriously attempting to assert that the only way to launch a challenge under the Charter of Rights and freedoms is through a quasi-judicial human rights tribunal? If so, then you are grievously mistaken. All decisions of any human rights tribunal may be appealed to the courts. Here's one such, in which the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal's refusal to hear a discrimination case was appealed to the courts and overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.
What I said, S1M0n, is that any case of human rights, racism, discrimination etc.. has to go through a human rights commission. No DIRECT appeal to court. The Vrend case proves that. Please note that there is a big diffrence between a Charter challenge and a human rights case. To give you an example of a Charter challenge, the municipality of Quebec-City because it has a by-law prohibiting colourful objects on the streets of the old city. The G&M's dispensing boxes wee at the time yellow. The Globe and Mail went directly to court (not to a human rights commission), invoked the Charter and lost. I hope you appreciate the difference. What I said stands: issues of human rights are the exclusive jurisdiction of human rights commissions. Of course the are appeals AFTER the commissions. But when a commission has dismissed a case, which happens (in the case of Ontario) 96% of the time, it will of course not represent a complainant. On your own buddy ! You will appreciate now that most cases of human rights that were successfully appealed are those of the well-heeled and/or supported by unions or other groups/fundres. Not your run of the mill Joe and Jane.
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 23 May 2006 01:15 AM
quote: I am still not clear on the nature of your complaint about Canada's Human Rights Commissions, but it appears to me that your understanding of their operation is faulty. S1m0n
Maybe you are right that my understanding is faulty. But I wish that you have read what I wrote, including the references and quotations and indicated to me WHERE exactly my understanding is faulty. Another point, S1m0n, regarding Charter challenges: human rights commissions' mandate is not to enforce the Charter, but to enforce the codes they are administring. They have, for instance, sextions that may be contrary to the Charter (retirement at age 65). Thus the human rights code will not protect you because there is a section that says discrimination on grounds of age (65) is not unlawful. Should a person want the protection of the Charter, once the commission has decided, they can appeal to the Court, not for the original complaint, but to review the commission's section that does not conform to the Charter. You would say, Why didn't the commission do that (see whether its section is conform with the Charter) in the first place. The answer is that it is not its mandate to worry about Charter issues, but about the Code it is supposed to enforce. That is why human rights commissions sometimes lobby governments to change human rights Codes to align them with the Charter. Again, it is not the mandate of commissions to apply the Charter. Another point. The Charter applies to the state (municipalities, provincial, territorial and federal governments and their institutions). It does not protect you when you are discriminated against by McDonald's, Bombardier or any other private sector entity. Human Rights Code apply to the public (state) and private sectors.. on issues of human rights. Bombardier discriminates aginst you, you do not go to court talking about Charter or equality. You go to a human rights commission. Charter and human rights codes are different things for differents purposes. Courts are generally very reluctant to "second guess" human rights commissions' decisions, because of that "exclusive jurisdiction" thing, as affirmed more than once by the Supreme Court of Canada. Human rights Commissions in Canada are more of political tools than human rights tribunals. Students of human rights will tell you that priorities and natures of human rights to be enforced or not enforced depend on the politics of the government of the day. Human rights commissions in Canada lack independence. And that lack of indepence is one of the causes that the human rights system in Canada does not meet the UN's "internationally recognized standards for human rights institutions" which are basically Independence, Accessibility, Pro-action, Transparency. In fact human rights commissions in Canada meet none of these standards. Maybe my understanding of how human rights commission operate in Canada is faulty. But I am in the good company of the United Nations' Human Rights Committee. If you only could tell us where exactly is our understanding faulty. [ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 23 May 2006 01:57 AM
quote: Originally posted by sidra: To give you an example of a Charter challenge, the municipality of Quebec-City because it has a by-law prohibiting colourful objects on the streets of the old city. The G&M's dispensing boxes wee at the time yellow. The Globe and Mail went directly to court (not to a human rights commission), invoked the Charter and lost.
Yes, this was a charter challenge. What is your point? The Globe (a corporation) has no recourse to the Human Rights comission; it's proper venue is the court system. quote: I hope you appreciate the difference. What I said stands: issues of human rights are the exclusive jurisdiction of human rights commissions. [my emphasis]
In that case, you are clearly mistaken. All decisions of any human rights comission are subject to the overview of the courts, and are appealable to the court system, all the way to the Supreme court if necessary. This is exactly what happened in Vriend. As you know doubt recall, Vriend was a pivotal ruling which changed gay rights across the country. quote: But when a commission has dismissed a case, which happens (in the case of Ontario) 96% of the time, it will of course not represent a complainant. On your own buddy ! You will appreciate now that most cases of human rights that were successfully appealed are those of the well-heeled and/or supported by unions or other groups/fundres. Not your run of the mill Joe and Jane.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said, above: the HRCs are the gatekeepers to no cost government-funded procedures. Being turned down for funding doesn't not mean you have no recourse, merely that you have to fund your own challenge. I can see how that might be a hardship, but I can't see any alternate procedure being more just: if ALL HRC complaints were litigated at government expense and no risk to the plaintiff, then the commission would instantly become a morass of grudges, barratry, and nuisance suits, and this experiment in low-cost access to justice would rapidly be abandoned entirely. I can't think of any way to make free lawsuits work BUT by building in tests for 'frivolousness' and 'likelihood of sucess', and only funding those which pass. ~~ You might well have a valid argument about the specifics of case triage (ie, the particular grounds for dismissal by the commission) but any process which would do without this stage is doomed.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 23 May 2006 02:13 AM
quote: You might well have a valid argument about the specifics of case triage (ie, the particular grounds for dismissal by the commission) but any process which would do without this stage is doomed.
I am not against triage. You did not read what I wrote. In matters of legal aid certificates -paid by the government- there is an INDEPENDENT entity called Ontario Legal Aid plan that does the triage. How about an independent entity for human rights cases rather than the government which in most cases sits as a respondent to a complaint and at the same time decider on whether that complaint can proceed ? Do you find it fair that the government sits as party in a complaint and judge on whether that complaint can proceed ?
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 23 May 2006 02:35 AM
S1m0n,I hope you will feel like answering my questions. 1. Do you think it is fair that the government sits as party in a case AND a decider on whether that case can proceed ? 2. Do you agree that minorities should count on their pockets to assert their right to be equal to you ?
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 23 May 2006 03:20 AM
quote: Originally posted by sidra: S1m0n,I hope you will feel like answering my questions. 1. Do you think it is fair that the government sits as party in a case AND a decider on whether that case can proceed ?
It's worse than that--the government is also the funder of any successful challenge to itself, and given that the judiciary are also a part of the government structure, that's a fourth hat--the government backs the challenges against itself, while at the same time sitting in judgement over itself. You keep talkng about 'the government' as if its some distinct, self-aware unitary entity. It's not: the government is us, acting collectively. quote: 2. Do you agree that minorities should count on their pockets to assert their right to be equal to you ?
So what's your alternate solution? That each human rights tribunal should have the obligation to provide free legal assistance to everyone who asks, against anyone else, with no test of legitimacy or viability? ~~~ Plaintiffs unhappy with how the screen was applied have another avenue: they can always, (as Little Sisters Bookstore is doing) apply to the courts for advance costs in order to fund their challenge. (Little Sisters won at one level and lost on appeal; the case is heading to the SCoC.) That seems like a reasonable accomodation in order to keep the system viable. Arbitrary decisions of the tribunal can be appealed to the courts: as far as I know, a judge could even overturn the tribunal's decision to decline a case, and order them to accept it. ~~ In a perfect world, no one would ever be discriminated against. It's not a perfect world. Given this, what's the best way to attempt to make things equal? You can't give everyone unlimited free court cases, because we both know that there are thousands of people who'd little BUT launch cases, and people with genuine grievances would get lost in the crowd. So any system in which free legal help gets doled out has to have some form of screen, in order to ensure that it is the most deserving cases which get funded. This looks reasonable to me. There is an appeal process to judges which have the power to overturn any ruling to keep the gatekeepers honest.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 23 May 2006 08:06 AM
The Human Rights Commission, of which I actually had to call once regarding a serious issue, told me they could not help me and that, in fact, not only could they not help me, I was told that they would hold the standard in this case to a higher standard then the courts would. I received no help from them, then I found out they had given me false information and they were very, very clear that they would not help me unless I could demonstrate, with direct evidence, that the violation of my rights had occurred. In this case there was no way I could get 'direct evidence' and what they told me amounted to essentially telling a rape victim that they can't help you unless you, the one who wishes to complain, can clearly demonstrate you had been raped - as in, someone else had to see it. And no, this is an actual conversation I had with someone HRC office. They were zero help, showed zero compassion and left me to struggle on my own against a clear violation of my rights.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|