Latest / Radio Baloney - The Richie Baloney Show! / Pride Month Shakedown, Ontario Town Fined For Refusing Pride Month

Transcript

Pride Month Shakedown, Ontario Town Fined For Refusing Pride Month · Radio Baloney - The Richie Baloney Show!

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: All right. So Ontario town forced by human rights tribunal
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: to pay LGBTQ group they forgot the plus group ten
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: thousand dollars after not honoring Pride month. Mayor must give
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: five thousand of his own money. The Ontario Human Rights
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: Tribunal is forcing the township of Emo and its mayor
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: to compensate an LGBTQ activist group because elected officials refused
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: to honor Pride Month in twenty twenty. So they've been
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: dragged through this human rights tribunal for years now. Borderland
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Pride asked Emo to proclaim June twenty twenty as Pride
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: Month and fla a rainbow Pride flag for a week,
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: but the mayor and council turned down the request. CBC
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: dus okay. So Borderline Pride has sued this town because
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: the town they asked the town to do a Pride
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: Month in twenty twenty. The town says no, I don't
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: feel like it. The tribunal, whose rulings are legally binding,
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: has determined that the township must pay Borderland Pride ten
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: thousand dollars and Mayor Harold mcquaker has to provide the
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: group with five thousand dollars for his personal finances. So
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: human rights tribunals, what kinds of things do they get
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: up to. Well, here's Mike Ward, who was a Canadian comedian.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: He's a Quebec comedian. He was put in front of
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: a human rights tribunal which lasted years for a joke
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: he made. For telling a joke that was politically incorrect,
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: the complainant was awarded over forty thousand dollars. I think
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: it was forty two thousand dollars. Let's take a quick look. Yeah,
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: forty two thousand dollars to Jeremy Gabriel for a joke.
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Is a comedian who made a joke human rights tribunal.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: You might say, well, how can you be how can
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: you be forced to pay forty two thousand dollars for
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: telling a joke? Well, let's see. In the context of
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: Canadian human rights tribunal courts, the principles of presumption of
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: innocence and rules of evidence do not apply in the
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: same manner as they do in criminal or civil courts.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: This is why I call it a kangaroo court. Rules
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: of evidence. While the Canadian human rights tribunal does not
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: adhere to the strict rules of evidence like those found
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: in criminal or civil courts. It still operates under some
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: prescedural fairness. The tribunal considers evidence presented by both parties,
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: but the standards for admissibility and relevance might be less stringent.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: Might be less stringent compared to other courts. For instance,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: the tribunal might allow hearsay evidence or consider a broader
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: range of evidence to understand the full context of discrimination claims.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: There is general expectation of fairness in the right to
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: present one's case, but this does not equate to the
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: detailed evidentiary rules found in other legal set. What this
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: means is that there's not really rules. It comes down
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: to if it thinks that you've done something politically incorrect
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: that it doesn't agree with ideologically, you're guilty. That's it.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: You're done right. That's what it comes down to. How
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: do we know this? Let me show you something. This
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: approach was highlighted in criticisms regarding the tribunals handling of cases,
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: particularly under Section thirteen of the Canadian Human Rights Act,
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: where there was a noted one hundred percent conviction rate.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: One hundred percent conviction rate, How do you know that
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: it's an ideological it's a Soviet style at kangaroo court.
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: That it's just these are show trials, that this is
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: purely political. How do you know that? Because there's a
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent conviction rate. One hundred percent conviction rate,
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent. Okay, that only happens when things are politicized.
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: That's like the Soviet Union. That's like China. Right, if
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: you've committed some political crime, some politically incorrect crime, one
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: hundred percent conviction rate, How do you know it's all fake?
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: How do you know it's all political? How do you
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: know this? These are just a bunch of commissars enforcing
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: ideological purity. Well, I can show you one hundred percent
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: conviction rate. That's how you know. That's how you know
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: it's all a joke. That's how you know it's utterly corrupt.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: That's how you know that it needs to be abolished.
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: Let's see, So what do we have here? Guide to
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which apparently is
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: not worth the paper that it's written on. Any person
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: charged with an offense has the right the to be
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: presumed innocence until proven guilty. According to law, an affair
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal presumed innocent. Hmm,
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: presumption of innocence does not operate under a strict presumption
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: of innocence. How is this even legal? Like, how does
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: this exist? This is just dysfunction. This is progressive dysfunction.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: This is rigging things right to get your way. This
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: is the leftist way. This is the far leftist authoritarian way.
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: I mean, this has been around. Trudeau didn't create this,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: It's been around since the seventies. But it needs to
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: be abolished. It needs to be gotten rid of. It's
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: just a tool to abuse and oppress dissenters. That's it.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: Why the why do we need to put comedians through?
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: I mean, eventually, this case, this case was overturned by
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of Canada. It had to go up
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: to the highest court in the land. And guess what,
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: you only want it by a margin of five to four.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: Raizer thin. That's how close, that's how close we are
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: to the kind of authoritarianism that Trudeau really wants. Human
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: rights tribunals are an abomination. They should they should go.
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: He didn't do anything wrong. He offended somebody that shouldn't
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: be enough and you have This shouldn't happened in Canada.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: Ontario town forced by Human Rights tribunal to pay LGBTQ
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: group ten thousand dollars after not honoring Pride Month. So
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: they wanted them to, They wanted to force them to
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: do something they didn't want to do, and because they didn't,
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: they called it. The Human Rights tribunal called it discrimination.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: So if you don't do what they want, you're discriminating
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: against them. What do the human rights tribunals need to
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: be abolished? Again? This is I get, this is Soviet
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: this is Soviet union. Doug Judson, who was lawyer and
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: director of the Borderland Pride Board, said the decision is
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: a real triumph for his organization. We didn't pursue this
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: because of the money. We pursued this because we were
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: treated in a discriminatory fashion by a municipal government. And
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: municipalities have obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code not
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: to discriminate in the provision of a service. Well, we
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: know that not just anybody can go up and demand
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: that their Latvian heritage there'll be a Latvian Pride Month, right,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: It's only one group to say that it's discrimination to
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: not have to have people actively celebrating you funded by taxpayers,
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: right who may not consent to any of this right,
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: This is lunacy, the tribunals. The tribunal's decision affirms that
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: this is the important thing we were seeking was validation
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: that as two wes LGBTQ plus a plus people, we're
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: entitled to treatment without discrimination when we try to seek
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: services from our local government. It's discrimination. Not to do
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: what they want to not celebrate them is discrimination now
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: in Ontario, just let that sink in. To further humiliate
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: the mayor and the chief administrative administrative officer of the township,
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: the tribunal ordered both to enroll in complete Oh my god,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: you can't believe this. To further humiliate the mayor and
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: the chief administrative officer of the township, the tribunal ordered
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: both to enroll and complete a human rights one h
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: one indoctrination course from guests who the Ontario Human Rights
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: Commission within the next month. And I guess the lesson
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: is they say jump, you better jump, or else we're
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: going to make it painful for you. And it's not
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: just a penalty. The financially, it's the process is the
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: punishment as well, because you've got to spend money on
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: the process as well. And if you're dealing with a
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: court that has a one hundred percent conviction right every
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: single time, right, you might feel like this is all
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: some sort of cruel farce, I would say. Judson said,
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: the tribunal's decision sends a message to people in rural Ontario.
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: This is happening in rural Ontario that if they refuse
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: to celebrate Pride Month, that they refuse to celebrate Pride
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Month at their own risk. They want you to commit
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: crimes against your own conscience. They want to force you
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: to actively have to betray yourself for them. I hope
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: that it emboldens and strengthens people in the communities like
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: Emo and other places like that across Ontario to know
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: that they have entitlements from their government, big daddy government.
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: You know, you know, this could all be turned against
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: you as well, right, having the government having these kinds
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: of powers to compel people to do things right could go.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: Have you not thought about that maybe it's best to
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: just kind of let people do their own thing. Maybe
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: that works out better. Have you considered that this could
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: backfire in some way, you know, because governments change, societies change, No,
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: of course not. It is utterly baffling that anybody would
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: think it would be a good idea to do this.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: But I guess if you're an ideologue who is who
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: thoroughly presitized by the woke mind virus, or you're just
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: you know, you're just naturally a far leftist, authoritarian totalitarian,
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: I guess I don't know. But what are we to
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: learn from this? So not having taxpayer funded celebrations of
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: you is discrimination in Canada? Now if you're a certain group,
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: that doesn't apply to everybody. Obviously, you have to wonder
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: isn't it discrimination against everybody else? Against the people who
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: didn't want to do this? Isn't it discrimination against them?
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: Because the whole thing just seems kind of incoherent to
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: me when you think about it that way, doesn't it
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: you know what, isn't it discrimination against the people who
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: don't get celebrated. Not just that don't want to do this,
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: or you have their taxpayers spent doing this, but the
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: people who don't get celebrated themselves, the people who don't
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: get a month of celebration forced on everybody else right,
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: isn't it again? The whole thing is kind of incoherent,
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: you know, you just kind of really do have to
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: look at it through the lens of just far leftists totalitarianism.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: What about what about a month for the left handed
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: or gingers? This is just a Soviet union. These lawyers
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: are commissars. How else can you look at this? It's lunacy.
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: The human rights tribunals are woke kangaroo courts, and their
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: purpose is to enforce ideological purity. How could that be
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: any more obvious? Right? Their purpose is to persecute heretics.
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: That's it. I mean, what about religious freedom? How about
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: that right? How about the freedom over your own conscience
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: to not betray your own conscience? That seems like a
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: fairly important one. That seems to be like a right
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: that Western civilization used to understand, for God's sakes. I
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: never had a flag for it, though, Right, that's the problem.
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: I guess there was never a flag for not betraying
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: your own conscience anyway. That's all I'm going to say
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: about that. Please like, share and subscribe. Subscribing really helps
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: me out. I thank you for that. I will see
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: you next time.