|
Welcome to the Looter Party (L/P) | |
UNIVERSITY QUOTAS
Information showing the quotas in the universities are invalid.
These thieves are stealing jobs (i.e. money) from decent
hardworking men, whites and especially white men (and their wives
and children). Do not be nice to them. They affect people’s
lives and do not care.
And the Canadian Human Rights Commissioners are involved. They
have to be cleaned out. They are advocates trying to steal;
thieves. They are also grossly incompetent and do not care.
As explained on the Home Page there are corruption (Section 119
of the criminal code) and election cheating "CORRUPT
PRACTICE", "BRIBERY" issues here.
The Penalties include removed and barred from office, fines, 5 years jail, deregister the party and compensate victims.
I get angry at these thieves. Stealing from people, and
the Canadian people (looting the government for votes from gimme
“we want quotas” morons).
With the Canadian Human Rights Commission they are deliberately
ignoring the sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA)
that says they cannot do what they are doing. The sections are
54.1 and 40.1:
Section 54.1 says a Tribunal cannot order quotas or
“goals”. They are obviously trying to fool people
calling “GOALS” by another name “TARGETS”.
They do not fool me.
In the CHRC Annual Report 1997: "a potential
complainant may not use the extensive data on representation,
hirings, promotion and termination submitted by employers as the
basis of filing a complaint of discrimination." And,
"Not only does the new Act expressly prohibit a tribunal
from requiring or ordering quotas". I remember reading that
the Commission was involved with some special interest group
(Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, 1996 Commission Annual Report, page
80) who was trying to use representation to make a complaint.
Again, Section 54.1 says no GOALS (again trying to fool people by
calling them “targets”), no quotas or preferences. They
are ordering quotas which they cannot do. Section 54.1 says a
Tribunal (above the Commission and court level) cannot order
quotas, nor can anyone, including judges. Even when there is
proven discrimination, they cannot do what you are doing.
CHRA Section 54.1:
(2) Where a Tribunal finds that a complaint against an employer is substantiated, it may NOT make an order pursuant to subparagraph 53(2)(a)(i) requiring the employer to adopt a special program, plan or arrangement containing
(a) positive policies and practices designed TO ENSURE that members of designated groups ACHIEVE INCREASED REPRESENTATION in the employer’s workforce; or
(b) goals and timetables for achieving that increased representation.
This means no quotas or preferences.
Also, their actions are all based on UNDERREPRESENTED.
Proportionality, which is laughable, simpleton level.
Section 40.1.
(2) No complaint may be dealt with by the Commission pursuant to section 40 where
(a) the complaint is made against an employer alleging that the employer has engaged in a discriminatory practice set out in section 7 or paragraph 10(a); and
(b) the complaint is based solely on statistical information that purports to show that members of one or more designated groups are UNDERREPRESENTED in the employer’s workforce.
Capital letters by me.
This means numbers do not matter and are NOT proof of
discrimination. No complaint means not proof of discrimination.
This also means they cannot take any action based on
UNDERREPRESENTED. Simple, what, women hockey players in NHL,
police, fire, military, etc.? They are using numbers
“UNDERREPRESENTED” to discriminate against white men
and steal jobs.
They are forcing proportionality (percentage of population)
quotas, which is laughable, ridiculous and dangerous. People that
push proportionality ("underrepresented" or white men
overrepresented or disparities) are simpletons to be laughed at.
I call them Dividiots (new word, short for diversity idiots).
They have not thought of knowledge, skills, different interests,
aptitude, pre-requisites, proficiency (especially grade school),
graduation rates (difficult courses), language and reading,
writing and speaking clearly in English (or French), low
education standards in other countries, strength/stamina (police,
fire, military), experience, age, more women work part-time,
women take easy courses in university (women’s studies),
women's sports is significantly lower skilled than men's,
Olympics (they have women's sports because women cannot compete
against the men), women work less hours (men work 8-10 more hours
per week), women hockey players in NHL etc.
To explain further, although many cannot understand this, saying
over-representation of white men is saying white men are
overrepresented, which is also saying non-white men are
underrepresented, which is saying one or more designated groups
are underrepresented, which again is not a valid complaint and
not a valid basis for actions (Section 40.1).
Therefore, the actions are INVALID and illegal.
How do they not know this? People that have simple common sense
and basic thinking skills know this.
I pointed the UNDERREPRESENTED and NO QUOTAS points out to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission many times. Again, they are
deliberately ignoring these.
A conspiracy.
Also, the US Supreme Court Harvard case shut this all down (see ludicrous categories, imprecise, overbroad, arbitrary, undefined, underinclusive , incoherent, irrational, stereotyping, laughable all groups “think-alike”, unrealistic proportionality).
Also, from an Ontario Human Rights Commission Ethics webpage “Commissioners and staff shall act in a manner that complies with the provision of the Criminal Code and the Rules of Conduct for Public Servants which make it an offence for government officials to demand, accept, or offer to accept for themselves or any other person any advantage or benefit, whether direct or indirect, for any act or omission which is connected with or related to the business of government.” Years ago, when I pointed this out they deleted the text.
Again, these people are thieves, stealing jobs from
decent, hardworking men, whites and especially white men (and
their wives and children). Do not be nice to them. A bunch of
women’s studies simpletons and feminist administrators
trying to steal jobs from men. And, corrupt, thieving
politicians. And, they are stealing millions of dollars from the
Canadian people.
I have a lot more information. Below are emails I sent to the
Canadian Human Right Commissioners. No reply. They are ignoring
the points. This shows a deliberate conspiracy to steal jobs
(offices, places).
Do not be fooled by the thieves.
Also, Diversity statements infringe the Ontario Human Rights Code
Sections 9, 13 and especially 23(2) “a written or oral
inquiry is made of an applicant that directly or indirectly
classifies or indicates qualifications”.
These diversity people do not understand the complex areas. They
are actually simpletons who do not think beyond representative
numbers. They are compromising standards which is serious. High
standards make the western world a better and safer place to
live. In serious areas this is a danger to people’s lives
and safety.
Infringement prohibited
9 No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.
Announced intention to discriminate
13 (1) A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I.
Employment
23 (1) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where an invitation to apply for employment or an advertisement in connection with employment is published or displayed that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Application for employment
(2) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where a form of application for employment is used or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sent the Commissioners on the Canadian Human Rights Commission the following emails:
EMAIL AND FOLLOW-UP EMAILS:
From: Barry Ceminchuk <barryceminchuk@yahoo.com>
To: "complaint.plainte@chrc-ccdp.gc.ca"
<complaint.plainte@chrc-ccdp.gc.ca>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 at 01:23:37 PM MDT
Subject: Fw: TO ALL CHRC COMMISSIONERS, FIX YOUR INVALID ACTIONS,
IMMEDIATELY.
I sent the following and have not received an acknowledgement or
a reply, so I am sending it again.
As I said:
49. And again, FIX YOUR INVALID ACTIONS, IMMEDIATELY. YOU ARE
COSTING DECENT, HARDWORKING CANADIANS JOBS AND OPPORTUNITIES.
AND, YOU ARE STEALING FROM MEN, WHITES AND WHITE MEN (AND THEIR
WIVES AND CHILDREN).
Smarten up. You are thieves stealing from decent hard working
Canadian white men and their wives and children.
Barry Ceminchuk
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Barry Ceminchuk <barryceminchuk@yahoo.com>
To: "complaint.plainte@chrc-ccdp.gc.ca"
<complaint.plainte@chrc-ccdp.gc.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 at 12:26:52 PM MDT
Subject: TO ALL CHRC COMMISSIONERS, FIX YOUR INVALID ACTIONS,
IMMEDIATELY.
To: All Commissioners, Canadian Human Rights Commission,
Please pass this to ALL COMMISSIONERS.
1. What are you “steal jobs from white men” and
“quotas for women” incompetent people doing? Smarten up
and stop your stealing from decent hard working people. You are
stealing jobs, which is money, from men, whites and especially
white men (and their wives and children).
2. I read an article that mentioned university Research quotas.
This is INVALID.
3. These violate CHRA Sections 54.1, 40(3.1), 40.1, NO QUOTAS, NO
REVERSED DISCRIMINATION, Point 21 of the Court Order, merit, the
GUIDE, and other points. These are explained below.
4. You are supposed to know that Section 54.1 says a Tribunal
cannot order quotas or “goals”. You are obviously
trying to fool people calling “GOALS” by another name
“TARGETS”. You do not fool me.
5. Section 54.1 says no GOALS (again trying to fool people by
calling them “targets”), no quotas or preferences. You
are ordering quotas which you cannot do. Again, Section 54.1 says
a Tribunal (above the Commission and court level) cannot order
quotas, nor can anyone, including judges. Even when there is
proven discrimination, they cannot do what they are doing. And,
certainly not civil servants. And certainly not based on
”UNDERREPRESENTED”.
6. You are also supposed to know about CHRA Section:
40. Complaints
Limitation
(3.1) No complaint may be initiated under subsection (3) as a result of information obtained by the Commission in the course of the administration of the Employment Equity Act.
This is what you are doing. You explicitly cannot do
this.
7. You are supposed to know NO QUOTAS. How do you not know this?
Quotas mean preferences and passing over better people and
putting lower standard and not the best people in jobs. Is this
too complicated for you or are you just thieves trying to steal
jobs from men, whites and especially white men (and their wives
and children)?
8. You are also supposed to know NO REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.
Again, how do you not know this?
9. Point 21 of the Court Order says “the goals of equity and
excellence are not mutually exclusive, and that equity ensures
that the largest pool of qualified candidates is accessed without
affecting the integrity of the selection process for the
program.”. You are violating this. It clearly says you are
not to affect the selection process. You are affecting the
selection process by restricting the pool of qualified candidates
and by restricting jobs and barring white men. You are also
passing over better candidates. FIX THIS.
10. You are also supposed to know government hiring is to be
based on merit (the best regardless of race/sex).
11. You are also supposed to know that the protected groups are
“race” and “sex”. These are the grounds. This
requires the intellectual ability to understand the concepts and
logic involved.
12. You should be denouncing QUOTAS and preferences and barring
white men from jobs. If you properly understood rights you would
be stopping these. Do you not understand the principles or are
you thieves trying to steal jobs from whites, men and especially
white men (and their wives and children)? At the least, you are
incompetent and these points are too complicated for you.
13. You should be embarrassed and ashamed that you are thieves
stealing from people.
14. This seriously affects careers and you do not care. Some of
you are obviously selfish, gimme, butt-in-line, inconsiderate of
others, thieves and some are not thinking of consequences. At the
least, you should be embarrassed that you are sociopathic
thieves. Stop this immediately.
15. The article also mentioned this was ordered by the Liberal
Party. Which members of Parliament are pushing this?
16. This also looks like some kind of planned attempt to push
quotas using an old complaint. Who is involved with this scheme?
17. You also have to be told, bluntly, THAT WHITE MEN HAVE RIGHTS
AND DO NOT STEAL JOBS FROM WHITE MEN (AND THEIR WIVES AND
CHILDREN).
18. FIX YOUR INVALID ACTIONS, IMMEDIATELY. YOU ARE COSTING
DECENT, HARDWORKING CANADIANS JOBS AND OPPORTUNITIES. AND, YOU
ARE STEALING FROM MEN, WHITES AND WHITE MEN (AND THEIR WIVES AND
CHILDREN). And, you should be denouncing quotas, preferences and
reverse discrimination.
19. You are also supposed to know that proportionality quotas are
laughable and simple-minded. Like “Look like Canada”.
20. There are interest groups, advocates in the civil service,
etc. trying to force proportionality quotas across every
occupation and across the country. This is laughable and
dangerous. People that push proportionality
("underrepresented" or white men overrepresented) are
simpletons to be laughed at. They have not thought of knowledge,
skills, experience, age, language, different interests, aptitude,
pre-requisites, proficiency (especially grade school), graduation
rates (difficult courses), low education standards in other
countries, strength/stamina (police, fire, military), more women
work part-time, women work less hours (men work more hours per
week), women's sports is significantly lower skilled than men's,
Olympics (they have women's sports because women cannot compete
against the men), women hockey players in the NHL etc.
21. Also, "It rests upon the "completely
unrealistic" assumption that minorities will choose a
particular trade in lockstep proportion to their representation
in the population." (City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.
488 U.S. 469, 507), "completely unrealistic" is a
polite phrase for simpleton, absurd, laughable.
22. You are also supposed to know that
“underrepresented” does not matter (skewed is normal)
and that CHRA Section 40.1 says “No complaint may be dealt
with by the Commission . . . one or more designated groups are
UNDERREPRESENTED”). Section 40.1 means that disparities or
so-called systemic racism or anything based on numbers are not
valid complaints.
23. You are using “underrepresented” to steal jobs from
people. “No complaint” means you are not to do anything
about it, NO ACTION. Anyone that can think knows skewed is
normal. This is like saying white men are overrepresented, which
is really saying non-white men are underrepresented. Again,
Section 40.1 says this is not a valid complaint (“No
complaint may be dealt with by the Commission . . . designated
groups are UNDERREPRESENTED”). Therefore any actions are
INVALID.
24. And, Section 40 (3.1) specifically says the Commission cannot
do anything with numbers or again “underrepresented”.
25. With “goals”, CHRC Annual Report 1991, page 49:
"The first thing that needs to be said is that there are
still many people with qualms about legislating fairness in
employment at all, who continue to raise the spectres of racial
quotas or reverse discrimination. As we shall see below, it is
indeed hard not to be beguiled by numbers and percentages into
the belief that a management goal of ten percent might as well be
a ten percent quota. But in fact it is not. The object of
employment equity is what it says: offering all qualified
candidates a fair and equal opportunity to obtain work."
NOTE: ** the spectre of racial quotas or reverse discrimination
** I am raising these spectres. Again, you are trying to call
“goals” “targets” You do not fool me.
26. Also, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) document
GUIDE TO SCREENING AND SELECTION IN EMPLOYMENT heading SPECIAL
PROGRAMS AND EMPLOYMENT EQUITY says “However, in the event
of a complaint, the employer must be able to show that the data
collected have not been used to discriminate, either in the
hiring process or later when deciding promotion
opportunities.”. The “data collected” is
representative numbers. THIS EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY CANNOT USE
UNDERREPRESENTED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN, WHITES AND WHITE
MEN. This also means they are not to discriminate against anyone
and SPECIAL PROGRAMS ARE NOT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANYONE. This
also means they should not block reverse discrimination
complaints.
27. The Canadian Human Rights Commission ignores their own
document that says they cannot do what they are doing. This is
like the point in the CHRC Annual Report 1994, page 19: "No
doubt even these explanatory definitions will fail to placate
those who see nothing in employment equity but a conspiracy to
deny jobs to white able bodied males with superior
qualifications." This is what you are doing, denying jobs to
white men and others. And superior qualified white men.
28. And CHRA Section 12.
29. And, the GUIDE document also says on page 4, under heading
“The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA)”, “The
Canadian Human Rights Act entitles all individuals to equal
employment opportunities without regard to race or … sex
...” Section 2 of the CHRA says the same, “to the
principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal
with other individuals” which is a principle that is to be
applied to all sections of the Act. This means
“INDIVIDUALS” and without regard. They are
discriminating against whites, men and white men.
30. Also, in the CHRC Annual Report 1997: "a potential
complainant may not use the extensive data on representation,
hirings, promotion and termination submitted by employers as the
basis of filing a complaint of discrimination." And,
"Not only does the new Act expressly prohibit a tribunal
from requiring or ordering quotas". I remember reading that
the Commission was involved with some special interest group
(Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, 1996 Commission Annual Report, page
80) who was trying to use representation to make a complaint.
31. The Federal Court has said hiring is to be based on merit.
This is in the Commission's own documentation (A.G. of Canada v.
Greaves). Also Krawitz v A.G. 199 NR (National Reporter) 165, no
unfair advantage. And that merit is “Sacred Ground”.
Changing merit is jail. I have a letter from Henry Pau, Director,
Employment Equity, Canadian Human Rights Commission, dated August
11, 1995, quoting the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights
Commission, Max Yalden, that says: "apply the merit
principle in its strictest sense. The best-qualified people
should get the jobs, regardless of their race, sex or
disability." How do you not know this?
32. You are also supposed to protect the integrity of the
selection process. Which means take the best regardless of race
and sex. And, you are also restricting the pool of qualified
candidates by restricting jobs and barring white men.
33. Stop this immediately. Correct your incompetence. You are
costing decent hard working white men (and their wives and
children) jobs and opportunities. Smarten up. You are affecting
decent hard working people. You are thieves. And, learn
consideration for others.
34. You are supposed to protect the rights of all Canadians, not
just you and your women “steal from the men” pals. You
are also supposed to protect the civil service from thieves and
special interest groups trying to steal government jobs. You are
incompetent at the least, thieves stealing jobs (i.e. money) from
men, whites and especially white men (and their wives and
children).
35. You are also not to be pawns for politicians and a political
party to funnel government jobs to feminist and ethnic groups
trying to steal government jobs for themselves. And, for a
political party trying to funnel government jobs for votes,
support and kickbacks. This is CORRUPTION. Criminal Code Section
119. Jail.
36. You are part of the women stealing jobs from men crowd.
Silly, gimme, gimme, butt-in-line, selfish inconsiderate of
others, thieves. You affect people. You should also apologize to
the men, whites and especially white men (and their wives and
children) you have affected. And compensate your victims.
OTHER
37. Having read the information on some of your webpages, it is
obvious that you are just advocates trying to steal government
offices from white men. You show no thought or consideration for
white men. WHITE MEN HAVE RIGHTS AND YOU ARE NOT TO STEAL JOBS
FROM THEM (AND THEIR WIVES AND CHILDREN). How do not know this?
38. You do not seem to be smart enough to understand the concepts
and principles involved.
39. And again, if you properly understood rights you would be
denouncing and stopping quotas, preferences and reverse
discrimination.
40. And, say what it is really going on. Obviously this just a
bunch of women trying to get special treatment for themselves and
steal jobs from men.
41. You also have to be reminded of CHRA Section 40(3.1) which
says the Commission cannot initiate complaints based on
underrepresented, like Section 40.1 says this is not a valid
complaint (“No complaint may be dealt with by the Commission
. . . designated groups are UNDERREPRESENTED”).
42. Therefore any actions are invalid.
WHO IS INVOLVED?
43. Again, the article mentions this was coming from politicians.
Tell me which members of Parliament and politicians are pushing
for this? I want names.
44. Also, tell me which feminist and race ethnic groups and
individuals are pushing for this?
45. Also, tell me which “equality (or equity) seeking
groups” you are conspiring with?
CONCLUSION
46. I have more information.
47. You should ALL resign in shame and embarrassment that you are
so incompetent and that you are thieves stealing jobs from men,
whites and especially white men (and their wives and children).
48. You are advocates trying to steal jobs from men, whites and
especially white men (and their wives and children). You are
supposed to know all people have rights. You are not properly
handling rights.
49. And again, FIX YOUR INVALID ACTIONS, IMMEDIATELY. YOU ARE
COSTING DECENT, HARDWORKING CANADIANS JOBS AND OPPORTUNITIES.
AND, YOU ARE STEALING FROM MEN, WHITES AND WHITE MEN (AND THEIR
WIVES AND CHILDREN).
50. And again, you should be denouncing quotas, preferences and
reverse discrimination.
Barry Ceminchuk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW-UP EMAILS:
Fw: TO ALL CHRC COMMISSIONERS, FIX YOUR INVALID ACTIONS,
IMMEDIATELY.
Nov 24, 2024 at 11:16 PM
Barry Ceminchuk <barryceminchuk@yahoo.com>
To: COMPLAINT / PLAINTE (CHRC/CCDP)
<complaint.plainte@chrc-ccdp.gc.ca>
AGAIN, ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR GET SOMEONE SMART ENOUGH TO
UNDERSTAND AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
You work for the people of Canada. Smarten Up.
You should be embarrassed and ashamed that you are so incompetent
and that you are thieves. This requires an IQ above moron to
understand.
You should resign immediately and apologize to the white men you
have affected and cost jobs. And, their wives and children.
Again, I want names with my questions. There are serious issues
here.
ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR GET SOMEONE SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND AND
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
Smarten up.
Barry Ceminchuk
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Barry Ceminchuk <barryceminchuk@yahoo.com>
To: "complaint.plainte@chrc-ccdp.gc.ca"
<complaint.plainte@chrc-ccdp.gc.ca>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 at 12:38:38 AM MDT
Subject: Fw: TO ALL CHRC COMMISSIONERS, FIX YOUR INVALID ACTIONS,
IMMEDIATELY.
I have repeatedly sent the following email before and you have
not answered my questions of:
WHO IS INVOLVED?
43. Again, the article mentions this was coming from politicians.
Tell me which members of Parliament and politicians are pushing
for this? I want names.
[I want the names of the members of Parliament that are pushing
for this.]
44. Also, tell me which feminist and race ethnic groups and
individuals are pushing for this?
45. Also, tell me which “equality (or equity) seeking
groups” you are conspiring with?
If this is too complicated for you find someone smart enough to
understand the questions.
There is an obvious issue here with the intellectual ability of
the people in the Commission.
The points I make in my document are correct and I am convinced
you are not smart enough to understand them.
Again, you are also supposed to know NO QUOTAS, NO REVERSE
DISCRIMINATION.
Reverse discrimination means less favourable treatment based
(substantially or partially) on a prohibited ground of
discrimination (i.e. gender, race) that results in a “denial
of employment” (a phrase defined in Gravel v Air Canada 91
CLLC 16,388 at 16,393. Also see a "loss of opportunity to
compete for a position" on the same page. Also, deterred.
If you do not understand this you do not know common terms in the
industry and are grossly incompetent.
There obviously has to be a big shake up with the Canadian Human
Rights Commission; clearing out advocates and thieves and getting
people with sufficient intelligence to understand the concepts
involved with rights.
You people are out of control and obviously want to steal jobs
from white men. You seem to think that any moron can steal jobs
and block white men from jobs.
And, learn consideration for others. You have no consideration
for white men.
This is Canada. You are also supposed to know to keep
your hands off government offices (Corruption and Influencing
offices, and election rigging), and you do not steal jobs from
white men. This is not some third world thieving simpleton
country.
The phrase “Equity-deserving groups” is also a farce.
This really means steal jobs (i.e. money) from decent, hard
working, Canadian born, straight white men (and their wives and
children). You are thieves and trying to hide it with your code
phrase. You do not fool me. Say what you are really doing.
This phrase also implies that some people deserve to steal jobs.
This is ridiculous. No one deserves to steal jobs. Again, this is
Canada not some third world simpleton land. You do not steal from
people.
You should be embarrassed and ashamed that you are so incompetent
and that you are thieves. This requires an IQ above moron to
understand.
You should resign immediately and apologize to the white men you
have affected and cost jobs. And, their wives and children.
Again, I want names with my questions. There are serious issues
here.
ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR GET SOMEONE SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND AND
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
Smarten up.
Barry Ceminchuk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please contact me by email only; I do not want to be hassled by political operatives, goodguys@looterparty.com.
Click here to go to the Looter Party Home Page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further show this is really a cabal of thieves trying to twist rights to steal from people:
From the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA):
12. It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or
(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate
if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11 or in section 14.
Section 39. Definition of discriminatory practice
39. For the purposes of this Part, a discriminatory practice means any practice that is a discriminatory practice within the meaning of sections 5 to 14.1.
Also, from Myths webpage:
”ensures and emphasizes that hiring and promotion standards are not lowered in order to recruit employees from designated groups”.
“not about putting someone in a job solely because he or she is a member of a designated group”.The link is below but this is being redirected to a general webpage. Obviously they are trying to hide this because they do not like it. Deliberate deceit by civil servants.:
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/equality/employment_equity/tools/guidelines/gdln2.shtml (no longer at link).
I have an Alberta Human Rights Commission document that says under heading EMPLOYMENT EQUITY “Employment equity does not mean that there are “hiring quotas” or that “unqualified people” are given jobs. It also does not mean that some people are given “unfair advantages” which is sometimes called reverse discrimination.”
CHARTER
Employment Equity, the Charter being twisted, and preferences and
obviously any act with preferences are unconstitutional:
In the House of Commons Debates, for October 5, 1995 page 15308, Mr. Rey D, Pagtakhan, right column, 5th paragraph:
"Hence the addition of paragraph 2 to section 15 [discussing the Charter]. ... It gives parliament the authority to enact laws aimed at achieving equality, not preference, not superiority, in employment for the disadvantaged groups, laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny."
Mr. Pagtakhan was the Chairman of the Standing
Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
There are two points here:
A. He says the Act is because of the Charter. Section 31 of the Charter says “Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.” Therefore, as they say it is because of the Charter, and the Charter does not add legislative authority, the Employment Equity Act is unconstitutional.
B. Notice he says the Charter is supposed to be "not preference, not superiority". Therefore, preferences and the Employment Equity Act being twisted for preferences, and any other act or section or regulation, is unconstitutional. Again, preferences are unconstitutional.
If they try anything with the Charter,
“not preference, not superiority" applies to the whole
Charter (limit). They are just trying to use some legal trick to
steal jobs from decent hard working men, whites and white men and
rig elections. Do not fall for their tricks. Again, a conspiracy
to rig elections and steal offices (serious crimes). They have
been doing this for years. And, again NOT PREFERENCE. There are
limits. Also, watch for the crooked civil servants and judges
they put in there that try to twist this. I have more information
here.
From the document Employment Equity: A Commitment To Merit,
Report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status
of Disabled Persons, by Dr. Rey D. Pagtakhan, M.P., Chair, June
1995, page 7, "Positive public perceptions are critical to
the success of any government policy and the Committee believes
that concerns pertaining to reverse discrimination, quotas and
preferential treatment must be alleviated to the fullest extent
possible. Indeed such actions as job advertisements that appear
to discourage applications from non-designated group members must
be prohibited. Even though this type of employment practice
violates the Canadian Human Rights Act, it still creates
misconceptions about the nature of employment equity, and it also
serves to destroy the credibility of such initiatives.".
This means no reverse discrimination, no quotas, no preferential
treatment, and no restrictive jobs and no advertisements that
even appear to discourage applications from non-designated group
members (i.e. white men). Which also means no barring white men
from jobs. This shows limits. They try to ignore limits to steal
from people.
Notice “Indeed such actions as job advertisements that
appear to discourage applications from non-designated group
members must be prohibited. Even though this type of employment
practice violates the Canadian Human Rights Act”. This shows
restrictive jobs that bar white men violate the Human Rights Act.
I am convinced the Human Rights Commissions (federal and
provincial) are deliberately trying to ignore this. They should
know this. They are trying to steal jobs from white men and have
to be cleaned out. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL
PEOPLE. They are advocates and do not consider the victims. They
are part of this scheme.
Again, the GUIDE document mentioned previously, says on page 4,
under heading “The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA)”,
“The Canadian Human Rights Act entitles all individuals to
equal employment opportunities without regard to race or …
sex ...”. Section 2 of the CHRA says the same, “to the
principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal
with other individuals” which is a principle that is to be
applied to all sections of the Act. This means
“INDIVIDUALS” and without regard. They are
discriminating against whites, men and white men.
This is like in the US, people tried twisting "Affirmative Action" into preferences:
Article:
Labor Law: Affirmative action and employers
July 7, 2013
By Karen Michael (an attorney specializing in practical work law
solutions) US.
Excerpts:
“affirmative action does not mean preferences or quotas. Period.”
“(2) In all employment decisions, the [employer] must make selections in a nondiscriminatory manner. Placement goals do not provide the [employer] with a justification to extend a preference to any individual, select an individual, or adversely affect an individual's employment status, on the basis of that person's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
“(3) Placement goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they intended to achieve proportional representation or equal results.”
“Always remember -- discrimination of any form is discrimination – in favor of or against any one group.”
(pay wall)
http://www.timesdispatch.com/workitrichmond/learning-center/labor-law-affirmative-action-and-employers/article_cbbbd8cc-e586-11e2-b34e-001a4bcf6878.html
-------------------------------------
This shows people have been twisting “affirmative
action”. It is supposed to be take the best regardless of
race or sex and affirmative action does not mean preferences or
quotas. Some try the trick of changing the name of
“goals” to “targets”. It is comical that some
people fall for this trick. They also try the trick of calling
them Diversity or Equity hires.
Also, Lieutenant Colonel Raymond SAUNDERS v. Thomas E. WHITE,
Secretary of the Army 191 FS.2d @ 124-126 discussing hard quotas,
soft quotas or goals, "This undeniably establishes a
preference of one race or gender over another, and therefore is
unconstitutional" @ page 126.
US Federal Civil Rights law, 42 USC (United States Code), Section 1987 also points to the criminal code sections for corruption and election cheating. Jail.
Do not be fooled by the thieves. You should be angry at the thieves stealing from decent, hardworking people.
Click here to go to the Looter Party Home Page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
END