The concrete end of Canada's Human Rights Commission is, strictly and unwaveringly, the placating and rewarding of grievance-mongers. Not people who are in a real and objective sense having their rights taken away; but people who deliberately look to silence their social opponents and make good on their own grievances; grievances that they hunt for in the open public realm like pigs sniff out truffles. They first imagine what these grievances shall look like; they then go out and place themselves in any sort of scenario amongst their fellow men and produce those aggrieved feelings within themselves, adjusting here and there to fit the particular scenario. Next step, the CHRC. If you're not a Christian white male, chances are your case will get heard; and if your case gets heard, it will win. It will win because the actual proceeding "trial" is nothing but sheer bunkum; it's just for show - and especially to make those who work for the CHRC look professional.
This should come as no surprise. It is an industry that deals out punishment that is totally partisan; nothing more. It is maddeningly unjust, from the bottom up. It is the persecution of the free exercise of religion or even religiously derived sentiments; the persecution of political affiliations that freely adhere to those religious exercises and the resulting moral virtues and their espousal in the public realm; the persecution of any questioning or criticizing of the Muslim religion. And it is the persecution of certain folk who dare say anything negative about the human rights commissions.
The common thread through it all is, broadly, the suppression of free speech - down to the lowest common denominator.
Take the very recent case in Cornwall, Ontario. At the Canada Post Office in Cornwall there has been a sort of unwritten tradition - or just call it normal human interaction and fellowship - whereby mail carriers, just before departing for their routes, would say to their fellow workers, "Merci Seigneur pour la belle journee". The other workers would respond with the same blessing. Translated the phrase runs, "Thank you Lord for the beautiful day".
A wonderful and cheering thing to say before one leaves for his mail route; something that humanizes the workplace atmosphere. And something that turns humorous on rainy days. The mail carriers have been saying it there for more than 25 years.
Enter Grievance-Monger. An employee whose name is not being released filed an internal human rights complaint this past December. Voila: employees are told the next month that to say the above-mentioned words was "injecting religion into the workplace". If any carrier at that office says them, they'll face suspension.
Basically, the men in the top, the top officials of the local Canadian Union of Postal Workers supported the Grievance-Monger. The majority of the actual carriers, the ones who do the mail carrying, basically thought the union's decision horse shit.
"Canada Post area manager Cavelle Lane confirmed that the phrase ban was implemented about one month ago, but noted there was more to the decision than meets the eye, citing human rights issues she could not discuss without a breach of privacy.
After checking with supervisors, another Canada Post spokesperson, Martine Lepine, said the matter was handled internally and Canada Post wouldn't comment on the details of the decision.
"An investigation was conducted, and a decision was made, which involves management and the union," Lepine said, adding that the decision is not a Canada Post-wide policy.
Murphy Jr. said the reason for the phrase ban stems from management using "kid gloves" with an employee who has a personality conflict with others in the office.
"The office walks on egg shells around him," he said. "Management is afraid of him and their jobs are on the line."" From this article.
Management is afraid of him? What? The Grievance-Monger has a "personality conflict" with others? You mean he's got issues; you mean that you can legitimately say to this man: if you don't straighten up and stop making a pig sty of the workplace we will fire you, and cite your hazardous nature to other workers and poisoning of the workplace as a just reason.
Oh, but there's more here than meets the eye. What is that supposed to mean? It means: stop prodding and investigating and shedding light on this unjust subject for you will expose our fraudulent and corrupt behaviour and cowardice, and to this end we cite the word, "privacy".
What sorts of people are these who think that, as answers for the actions they have taken, we are to accept those answers as real objective reasons? The only thing real and objective here is the officials on top saying to the workers below that they must no longer say what they've been saying casually for more than 25 years or else they will get suspended. And to that end the carriers are supposed to accept some prattle about walking on egg shells as a viable reason?
Are these people possessed?
H/T for article: Spirit Daily