[NancyDrew]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It has more to do with the Human Rights Codes than the Charter. But precedents of any sort change the way laws are interpreted and applied without changing the laws themselves.

Would a decision by a human rights tribunal really carry that much weight to be applied to other cases by way of precedent? If it was an appeal court decision......but a tribunal?

[Lemmy]

Well, appeals court is for fixing errors of law, not setting precedence. I don't know how Human Rights tribunals regard court rulings, but I presume they use precendent in their own hearings for use in future ones.

[NancyDrew]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Well, appeals court is for fixing errors of law, not setting precedence. I don't know how Human Rights tribunals regard court rulings, but I presume they use precendent in their own hearings for use in future ones.

The question then is can a human rights tribunal decision be overturned by the courts?

(BTW TY)

[Lemmy]

I could be wrong, but I'd say yes. We need a more expert legal scholar than I. EyeBrock?

[herbie]

30 years ago:

$1:

"Today, institutions fundamental to the British system of Government are under attack: the public schools, the house of Lords, the Church of England, the holy institution of Marriage, even our magnificent police force are no longer safe from those who would undermine our society, and it's about time we said 'enough is enough' and saw a return to the traditional British values of discipline, obedience, morality and freedom.
What we want is:

Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals
Prostitutes, pansies and punks
Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents
Lesbians and left wing scum
Freedom from the niggers and the Pakis and the unions
Freedom from the Gipsies and the Jews
Freedom from leftwing layabouts and liberals
Freedom from the likes of you..."

And the 2009 twist to the chorus:

$1:

Power in the darkness
Frightening lies from the other side
Power in the darkness
Stand up and fight for your rights

is the uber-right's attempted claim to it!

I don't care if they stuff the HRC up a horse's ass, but if you're suggesting they scrap the actual laws against spreading hate and claiming that it's your fundamental 'freedom' to do so, I won't waste time calling you vulgar names. You're simple the enemy.

[leewgrant]

NancyDrew NancyDrew:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Nigger jokes?

har dee har har

Seriously, the tribunal's decision doesn't change anything in the CCRF. What does the government have to do, if anything?

First of all the Commission - egged on by Mr Warman - will take it to Federal Court. And the government, always willing to hide behind the flimsiest fig leaf, will do nothing, saying it's "before the courts".

[leewgrant]

NancyDrew NancyDrew:

The question then is can a human rights tribunal decision be overturned by the courts?

Yes, most definitely.

[Benn]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It has more to do with the Human Rights Codes than the Charter. But precedents of any sort change the way laws are interpreted and applied without changing the laws themselves.

Unlike courts of law however someone heading an administrative tirbunal (administrative law) does not have to follow precedent though. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Once / if this ruling is appealed it goes to the courts, at which time what the judges and SCC decide, will become precedent.

[Benn]

Warman has to think the SCC will overturn the CHRC ruling if he wants to press it that far. IF they don't then he's out of business. Not pressing it up the line will allow him to fight another day and hope to get a different ruling from a different person at the CHRC.