HRCs or Ts? Divorce? Pesky Questions?

That Pesky Misinformation: May I point out that using the term Human Rights Commission to refer to both the Commission and the Tribunal is a commonly used verbal shortcut. We refer to the government, not to "an authoritative body comprised of judicial, legislative, and administrative branches", and we know very well that judges have different functions from MPs. The HRC people are trying to make a big deal about the distinction but the truth is that no one else cares. We have issues with the whole pack of them and telling us that we should use different names for different sections is a completely irrelevant aside to the free speech crowd. We object to the Tribunal antics almost as much as we object to the Commission ones. Besides, unless I am mistaken in some provinces there is no distinction between the two. Just to confuse everyone some more.

In other news, Ezra responds. Btw, I have a question if anyone wants to take a shot at answering. Lynch says that the media were excluded to protect the privacy and safety of commission witnesses but that was okay because a transcript was made and the respondent was present and not bared from talking to the media. What I would like to know is if the transcript was going to be given to the public? Because that would seem to defeat the purpose of excluding the media unless names were blanked out of the transcript. If the transcript was not public then we would have only the respondent's word for what happened. Hardly reliable evidence. So either there was no need to exclude the media or this would have happened under a media blackout. Besides, free speechers are hardly mafia members. Were the witnesses afraid of drive-by shootings or nasty press? Would this have occurred in a real court? I doubt it.

The wages of sin is death saith the Good Book. It is true that if McNair had not been involved in sin he would not be dead. It is equally true and extremely significant that the media would never minimize the murder of a woman because she was in adultery with an unstable boyfriend. I have to diverge from some of the anti-misandry group on a few points here. I don't believe in pure sameness, at least on a social level. A man who doesn't support his family is in a very questionable moral position. A woman who chooses to stay at home and depend on her husband for support is generally in a morally safe if not superior position. Men should be extra careful to treat women with respect and care as the weaker vessel even if she doesn't deserve it. On the flip side a woman should respect and obey her husband as the head of the house even if he doesn't deserve it. Society has remembered that it is a terrible thing when a man falls short of his duty. What they have forgotten is that it is also a terrible thing when women fall short of theirs. All that said, when it comes to things like murder, all men are equal before the law whether they be male or female. We should also place the same stigma on women who are involved in adultery as men who are involved in adultery. Maybe McNair was not in a morally pure position, but he didn't deserve to be murdered in that fashion. After all, is the press being hypocritical Or do they really support the death penalty for adultery?

I am a homeschooler. I know I graduated a few years ago but I am, and always will, be a homeschooler. Most people are quite accepting of homeschooling now and are more likely to respond with "Oh I knew someone..." or "I've heard homeschoolers do very well..." However for the occasional questioner (is that legal, where do you get your curriculum?), here is The Bitter Homeschooler's Wish List. By the way, just a little protocol education from an unsocialized homeschooler. Don't ever, ever, ask a homeschooled child or graduate how homeschoolers can be socialized. Please realize what you are saying about us if you are talking to us and can't tell if we were socialized. Thankfully most people get that but if anyone was wondering...

Related to the last one. If you meet a big family (say over 5 kids) do not ask them if they know what causes that. They don't like it. It is very embarrassing. You are asking very intimate questions and if you are a complete stranger they met in the cereal isle of the grocery store they don't want to discuss the quality of our sex ed with you. Someday, someone is going to do what my Mom has always wanted to do and say "No, could you please tell me how it happens?" Or as this site suggests "Yes, don't you?" Growing up in a big family is cool. Yes you do get questions. I think that we have personally gotten most of the questions at the above site (Just to clarify I haven't read all the answers given so don't blame me for anything you don't like). Yes you get looks. With a vivid imagination and a considerable amount of chutzpah you can always pretend to be a movie star and give a celebrity wave to more obvious starers. Not being gifted, or cursed, with quite that amount of chutzpah I usually try the ignore routine, which works. I'll bet the other method would be more fun though.

The curse of autonomy and liberalism is that no one really understands the full ramifications of something until they have been through it. Yes you can know in your mind that divorce is hard but you may not realize what that means until you live it. That is why traditions and social mores are so vitally important. Maybe we can't rationally explain to a 15 year old why they should save sex for marriage in a way that they would fully believe and appreciate. Maybe we can't persuade a couple going through a hard time that divorce is worse than trying to stick it out. Maybe we can't make someone going through pain and depression understand that life is better than suicide. Maybe we can't. That is why we have traditions, customs, and laws. So people in tough and very emotional situations where they are not thinking clearly don't have to reinvent the wheel. So that their default position is the one most likely to bring them happiness in the long run even if they don't understand why at the time. We have made everything about choice, but we have forgotten to tell people that some choices should not be made.

I understand what stare decisis means when it says that lower courts can't overturn higher courts. That has got to be valid otherwise we would have no stability in our legal system. However when people say that courts of the same level (in other words the Supreme Court about the Supreme Court) can't (or shouldn't) overturn precedent you have to suspect that there is a bias going on. The Supreme Court can, and has, overturned it's own judgments. If it didn't there would be no significant change in law since the founding of America. Roe is only settled law until the Supreme Court declares murdering children in the womb unconstitutional. Then we will have a new precedent.