Utopia Talk / Politics / It's now illegal to NOT celebrate pride

Rugian Member	Sun Dec 22 05:07:56 Ontario Human Rights Tribunal fines Emo Township for refusing Pride proclamation ---- The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has found the township of Emo will have to pay damages after refusing to proclaim Pride Month back in 2020. Borderland Pride requested Emo to declare June as Pride Month and display a rainbow flag for one week but the township refused, resulting in a years-long process in which the tribunal ruled against the township. The tribunal ruled Borderland Pride will be awarded $15,000, with $10,000 coming from the township itself and the other $5,000 coming from Emo mayor Harold McQuaker. Doug Judson is a lawyer in Fort Frances and one of the directors on the board of Borderland Pride, and said they're elated to have finally brought it to a close and is a significant victory for the organization. "We didn't pursue this because of the money. We pursued this because we were treated in a discriminatory fashion by a municipal government, and municipalities have obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code not to discriminate in the provision of a service," said Judson. "The tribunal's decision affirms that. That is the important thing we were seeking here was validation that as 2SLGBTQA plus people, we're entitled to treatment without discrimination when we try to seek services from our local government." In addition to the compensation, the tribunal also ordered McQuaker and the Chief Administrative Officer of the municipality to complete a "Human Rights 101" training course offered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission within 30 days. Judson said one of the messages it sends to other townships and municipalities is that Pride needs to be in the smallest and most remote communities just as it is in larger cities, and in some of the places "where it can be really hard to help people understand why it's so important" "I hope that it emboldens and strengthens people in communities like Emo and other places like that across Ontario to know that they have entitlements from their government," said Judson. Going forward, Judson said he would like to see the relationship between Borderland Pride and the township of Emo be more positive, with the municipality being a more active supporter of their programming. "Having a place like Emo as part of Pride and having leadership figures take part in Pride, it lends a lot of support to the movement. It validates and legitimizes that the message is important for the entire community, and so we hope that that is the case moving forward." http://www...g-pride-proclamation-1.7390134
jergul large member	Sun Dec 22 05:55:27 Sounds like the Mayor violated administrative process. He said no directly to something that should have been voted on in town council or some such. Want to be my theory is a better match with reality than your thread title ruggy?
jergul large member	Sun Dec 22 06:10:37 There mayor was stupid and said something he should not have. It was put to a vote and his vote decided the outcome. Relevant passages of the ruling. "[51] However, Mayor McQuaker’s remark during the May 12 council meeting that there was no flag for the “other side of the coin … for straight people” was on its face dismissive of Borderland Pride’s flag request and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the importance to Borderland Pride and other members of the LGBTQ2 community of the Pride flag. I find this remark was demeaning and disparaging of the LGBTQ2 community of which Borderland Pride is a member and therefore constituted discrimination under the Code. [52] Moreover, I infer from the close proximity of Mayor McQuaker’s discriminatory remark about the LGBTQ2 community to the vote on Borderland Pride’s proclamation request that Borderland Pride’s protected characteristics were at least a factor in his nay vote and therefore it too constituted discrimination under the Code. [53] Having found that Mayor McQuaker’s nay vote was discriminatory, I must therefore find that council’s vote to defeat the resolution proclaiming Pride Month in the language submitted also constituted discrimination under the Code. [54] Accordingly, I find that the applicant Borderland Pride has established on a balance of probabilities that the Township denied its 2020 proclamation request at least in part because of Borderland Pride’s protected characteristics, contrary the Code. [55] I am however unable to find, based on the evidence presented, that the nay votes of Mr. Boven and Mr. Toles constituted discrimination under the Code. Both councillors expressed non-discriminatory reasons for their nay votes. Both wanted to delay the vote until a flags and proclamations policy was in place and Mr. Boven attempted to move to do so. Furthermore, following the vote on Borderland Pride’s requests, Mr. Toles proposed proclaiming Pride Month in similar language to the 2019 proclamation that was unanimously passed. No evidence was presented that these actions were taken for discriminatory reasons and I find that they were not." http://www...aa24d5b60c4a26adc25120d44755c2
Victim Member	Sun Dec 22 08:00:35 "township of Emo"
Rugian Member	Sun Dec 22 10:34:28 Yeah, the only people who are stupid are the ones who think that the "other side of the coin" comment was discrimatory. I knew some leftist would bring that up like it was proof of anything lol.
Rugian Member	Sun Dec 22 10:38:31 Should a small rural village be forced to commemorate LGBTist degeneracy in perpetuity jergul? That is the only question.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 22 10:48:20 They are not even forced to do it now. The town and mayor were fined for having a discriminatory reason for voting against the measures. The two other people voting against did so for legimate reasons and were not fined or censored. As per the snippout I provided.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Dec 22 11:25:07 Seems like something tredeaus canada would do.
Rugian Member	Sun Dec 22 11:47:43 "The town and mayor were fined for having a discriminatory reason for voting against the measures." Based on nothing.
Forwyn Member	Sun Dec 22 11:52:49 Adjudicator: Karen Dawson Remove women and sebguls from politics.
Rugian Member	Sun Dec 22 12:08:27 In fact, worse than nothing. By singling out faggotry as uniquely worthy of celebration, they essentially carved out a special elite status for gays based on past grievances. Hence even an objectively equal policy ("we don't celebrate sexual orientation of any type, straight OR gay") gets found to be discrimination, because gays have some imaginary right to be celebrated under the law in a way that normal people don't. As a result, the mayor has to pay a large fine and attend a reeducation class to purge him of wrongthink. Meanwhile, every rural village in Canada is on notice - you WILL celebrate Pride, or we will find a reason to sue you. Madness.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 22 12:49:57 Ruggy You really are unable to understand the ruling? I am sad and disappointed.
Rugian Member	Sun Dec 22 15:42:01 jergul My understanding is that 1) the tribunal heavily leaned on the mayor's “other side of the coin … for straight people” comment to establish that he was engaging in discrimination, despite the fact that it is literally a statement disavowing any sort of favoritism or disfavoritism, because gays are deserving of special treatment under the law 2) the mayor's comment should have precluded him from voting no on the resolution 3) because the no vote on the resolution passed, the town engaged in discrimination against gays 4) the litigant in this case clearly thinks that the result is a springboard for forcing pride in villages across the country, saying, quote, "one of the messages it sends to other townships and municipalities is that Pride needs to be in the smallest and most remote communities just as it is in larger cities, and in some of the places "where it can be really hard to help people understand why it's so important"" That's my understanding. I would like you to explain yours in your own words, as you clearly have a different understanding of this whole debacle.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 23 00:29:46 Ruggy A debacle certainly. The arbitrator did account for that when noting that the people involved are not professional politicians or administrators. Some groups in Canada have protected status. Generally based on systematic repression and racism historically. The ruling first established that the plaintiff belonged to such a group. The mayor's bias should have precluded him from voting at all. He could have recused himself too. The plaintiff is of course happy with the outcome and hyped it. But factually, all that happened was the mayor voting no for the wrong reason. His vote determined the outcome, so the ruling penalized the city for the outcome too. As it stands, the ruling merely points out that the decision was in violation of code and handed out two fines. It did not retroactively force the town to put up a flag in june. I have lived in many smaller settlements. Yes, gays definitely need support and protection. Even today, though it was worse before.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 23 00:31:17 I get that you dont like the law. Fair enough. But it is clear the mayor did not think a protected group needed protection. Bad call on his part.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: