MrsLion and I are in the process of downsizing, which involves looking at prospective new housing.
We (well, our agent) always call for permission, (so far) we always visit when the residents are out, and we always take off our shoes.
Simple. Good. Manners.
Here’s the counter hysteria for those interested in another perspective:
Empty nest…how is it?
Liberating, yet lonely.
We are three or four weeks away from filling ours, and I imagine it will be the exact opposite for us.
I surely hope your court decides this case on the merits while specifically rejecting the religious argument.
As I’ve pointed out already, the complaint itself was brought on the grounds of religious accommodation. It’s a religious issue so you cannot separate religion from the complaint or the ruling. These people felt their landlord violated their religious rights in their own home.
Yes, when I speak of deciding the case on its merits I mean to say the judge should tell the landlord “you have to be civil and courteous because there is a body of common law we are heirs to.” To the tenants he should say, “fuck you and the footwork you seek to do as agents of jihad…I will award damages in the amount of one week’s rent on your apartment…and you’re lucky I didn’t throw your case out of my courtroom for such bullshit.”
Or, if he wanted to REALLY make the point he should just throw the case out, period. And tell them it’s not a religious issue at all.
She. The judge was a woman in this case.
So the tenants are agents of jihad? They strike me as devoutly religious people who want to practice their religious beliefs in the peace of their own home and someone was coming in and disrupting their peaceful practice. How is any of this their fault?
I don’t want to channel CC LaSchmuck here on this forum, but in their choice to make it a religious matter rather than a civil one they are acting as agents of jihad. There is a civil remedy available to them already. If there were not, then their case might have merit as a religious liberty case.
What “civil remedy” is available to them?
The ones in long settled common law, about which I have already posted at length above.
There’s nothing in Canadian civil or common law that requires a landlord to remove his shoes when showing an apartment or give 5 minutes notice of showing up to show a place. There is, however, such provisions for religious accommodation in the Human Rights code, which is where it was pursued.
That seems preposterous and I doubt it’s so without a more authoritative claim of its being so.
Particularly since we are all heirs (from British common law) to the Castle doctrine.
Not familiar with it but I just looked it up. It’s about discrimination, and I’m not seeing discrimination in the facts you cited.
Seems prospertous or not, there’s no provisions in law outside of rights to religious freedom that cover the particulars of this case. You are free to dig through laws to find provisions for shoe removal and a 5 minute warning for head covering.
You will, however, find tenancy law on giving notice to a tenant when showing a place but that was not the issue here.
The Human Rights Act extends beyond discrimination.
Look, sister…you asked for a discussion under the heading Philosophy of Law. I’ve given you several answers based on my understanding of both Roman and Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which I’ve previously understood to be the philosophical underpinnings of both modern Canadian and modern US jurisprudence.
I’ve stated my opinion that there is a common law basis for granting the tenants a civil remedy under the principle of Equity or tort law, because they have a bundle of basic rights as tenants not to have anyone walk around in their leased premises in street shoes if they don’t feel like permitting it. And I’ve admitted that they may be in the wrong court to pursue this remedy.
I’ve further stated that the human rights code seems to be an overlay that should not take precedence over rights already recognized elsewhere.
And further, that if they do obtain a remedy in human rights court on the basis of religious discrimination then you guys are in for a rough ride due to creeping sharia.
Those are my opinions and you mustn’t continue to complain because I’m not seeing the issues in the way you’d evidently like me to.
And, I don’t believe your contention that there are no provisions in law outside of the one you mention.
Sorry, but to quote Luther…here I stand, I can do no other. Thanks for the discussion.
Oh dearest Peaches, you are talking a good game but you are ultimately saying sweet fuck all. I’m outright telling you, from an informed legal perspective, that there is no civil law or remedy for shoe removal. I am familiar with the Tenancy Act which this would fall under and there is no provision for the incidences, nor would there be any damages. If you don’t believe me, feel free to give it a read.
I appreciate you arguing a case against the merits of religious accommodation but I’m wondering if you have something that’s based on an actuality rather than legal invention. If you feel there is applicable tort law, dig it up and post it. I’ll definitely entertain it.
I am also going to challenge your opinions. If you do not wish to have said opinions challenged or questioned, I think you might be better suited for discussions other than this one.
In order to “challenge” my opinion you’re in the position of needing to prove a negative claim that I’ve challenged as preposterous, Do you not understand Equity? Or the function of appellate courts in remedying stupid legislation?
Do you not understand that if you want to claim there is a law that applies outside the Human Rights Act that you need to provide that law? It’s not on me to prove something that doesn’t exist.
And yes, I am familiar with court structure.
What you haven’t done is shown what the “stupid legislation” is. All you have done is said there is remedy elsewhere without showing where.
If you’re a student of law, including its history and philosophy, and cannot for yourself dig up the Magna Carta and understand its relevance to all current Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, then I guess I AM in the wrong discussion.
G’day then.