Re: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: Arrested, ALL charges dismissed, career ruined WAS: You did, didn't you,
Lo nope duncan its greed bottom line what does it cost me.
Dov
dov@neonleatherjesu
On Jan 9, 2008, at 8:01 PM, Duncan O'Neil wrote:
> "Personal greed" is not an issue here. It is one person's job
> adversely impact that of another.
>
> Dov <dov@neonleatherjesu
> on people rights period.
>
> If we treat rights based on financial need Ie. the cost to the
> employer / cooperation is more important than the rights of the
> individual then we have no rights at all and why are we even bothering
> having this discussion or this list.
> All I have heard in this discussion is not on my shoulders! not my
> burden! not my pocket!.
> Well instead of decrying how much a burden having rights are propose
> solutions because quite frankly youve all failed at civil rights 101
>
> The entire point of rights is that they are burdensome they have to be
> borne by everyone across the board and NOT! nitpicked away due to
> convenience and personal greed.
> Speaking as an American constitution starts with "We the people" not
> "we the people and small business owners and corporations" and details
> our civil liberties and protections not corporate rights.
>
> If people on this list cant get there heads around that concept then
> there is absolutely no reason for this list or any type of activism
> for anyone gay straight SM or otherwise.
> People take a look at why your even bothering to be involved in
> activism of this or any type.
>
> Neoconservative, Reagan republicans, libertarians and morons need not
> apply
>
> Dov
> dov@neonleatherjesu
>
> On Jan 9, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Malcolm Weir wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cadenas_sd
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:59 PM
> >
> > > > Your problem is that you don't understand the difference
> > > >between the
> > > > Canadian (and Australian and UK and most other places)
> litigation
> > > > system and the US one.
> > >
> > > a) This has nothing to do with the topic AT ALL.
> >
> > Don't be silly. It's (part of) the root of the problem. If you could
> > be
> > bothered to try suggest a solution that protects BOTH the employer
> > and the
> > employee, in particular from things like hostile workplace lawsuits,
> > your
> > position might gain some traction -- although you'd still be stuck
> > with
> > trying to justify any adverse publicity and loss of business from
> > retaining
> > the employee...
> >
> > > b) This is a canard that corporatist ideologues keep
> > > spreading. The reality is that such awards are exceedingly
> > > rare, even in cases that involve extreme wrongdoing and
> > > physical injuries. The first, and still one of the main,
> > > cases in this area was the Ford Pinto, where people actually
> > > died because the car's design was dangerous, AND Ford knew about
> it.
> >
> > Sorry, dude. The fact that the Canadian litigation landscape is
> > radically
> > different from ours is no "canard", it's the essence of the reason
> > why you
> > can't IN ALL FAIRNESS TO EVERYONE simply adopt the BC statute. Of
> > course,
> > you've demonstrated that you don't really care about _fairness_ to
> the
> > employer, only the employee...
> >
> > [ Snip ]
> >
> > > Simple: most other countries (I don't know about Canada)
> > > impose multimillion dollar fines for comparable wrongdoing.
> > > The US simply chose to allow the injured individual to assess
> > > this fine. Financially for the company, there is not much
> > difference.
> >
> > LOL! If you think there's "not much difference" between fines
> > assessed by a
> > judge and jury awards, you need to get out more.
> >
> > > The claim that such lawsuits are a major issue is just a
> > > canard by corporatists who want to escape any accountability
> > > for their actions.
> >
> > To paraphrase, it's an issue you can't or won't address, so you'll
> > pretend
> > that it doesn't exist!
> >
> > For the fourth (I think) time, suggest a solution that would protect
> > the
> > interests of the employee and the employer!
> >
> > Malc.
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Post message: BDSM-LegalIssues@onelist.com
Subscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: BDSM-LegalIssues-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/BDSM-LegalIssues
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
posted by Annja Sue at
9:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home