A B.C. man has filed a human-rights complaint alleging religious discrimination after a TV personality flew a plane pulling a "Jesus sucks" banner over Toronto.
Skoreyko, who viewed the stunt online, said in an online form filed with the B.C. human rights tribunal that "my Christian beliefs and upbringing were publicly ridiculed."
I guess the next time I hear anyone say, or see a sign that says "Jesus Saves!", I can file a human rights complaint as well (as it ridicules my atheist beliefs).
Ya we have a worker in the back named Jesus (Hey'zus) and he was pretty pissed at the sign too. I think that my fellow employee has a better case than Skoreyko.
__________________
If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.
Hm, there is a bit of difference though, don't you think, between a positive statement of belief, and explicitly being derogative toward someone else's belief.
"Jesus Saves" vs. "Jesus Sucks"
"Follow the Middle Way to find Nirvana" vs. "Up your bum, Buddha!"
"Free thinkers: Question God's Existence" versus "Atheist or Anal Asshole? Who knows!"
Toronto - A five-year-old child has filed a human rights complaint against his eight-year-old brother for stating "Santa Claus doesn't exist, and the Easter Bunny is fake too!".
And I'm not really sure how making a derogatory statement about somebody's religion falls under a human rights issue. Maybe somebody can explain that one to me.
I don't think the banner with said statement is a valid concern to file a human rights complaint over, but I do believe that it is at best in poor taste and unnecessary. Why was the banner flown over Toronto in the first place? If it's sole purpose was to insult others' religion, then there is no way to defend the action in any positive degree.
__________________ ACMT Mac mini (Mid 2011) 2.7 GHz i7, 8GB RAM, Crucial M4 256GB SSD + 500GB + 1TB FW800 OWC Mercury Elite Pro mini iPhone 4S • iPod nano 8GB • Sound System Audio Engine A2 • Display UltraSharp U2412M 24"
Why was the banner flown over Toronto in the first place? If it's sole purpose was to insult others' religion, then there is no way to defend the action in any positive degree.
Correct - the challenge was to offend as many people as possible.
I hear the next challenge, sponsored by the US Government, is to fly over moutainous parts of Pakistan but with a slightly different banner to help find a certain man on FBI's wanted list, last seen sporting a grey beard, AK47 and plans of New York City.
Edit - and yes, I can't see the connection between the distasteful banner and a Human Rights complaint. Could it be seen to be offensive and challenged under a different law? By the fact that the person was viewing it online, does it make him partially responsible, as he had to seek out the activity that offended him?
__________________
____________________________
An orchard full of Apple products.
Linear Mode
