Hey Biffster! Next time you quote Canadian law on these boards, have the courtesy to get it right!

[Northern_Piper]

Over in the convoluted thread about the Red Hen Restaurant denying service to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Biffster bounced around with all sorts of reasons why it was wrong.

Shortly before tomndebb imposed closure, the Biffster came up with this gem:

Where I come from, we have a charter of rights and freedoms that protects individuals against discrimination. I used to look up to Bill Cosby when I was a kid. I still have some respect for what he used to stand for, even though he’s a shell of man now. I would probably serve him because that’s the way I roll. I don’t know who Milo and Richard are.

First off, Biffster, quoting Canadian law isn’t really of much value in a discussion about something that happened in the US, other than sending some sort of signal of moral smugness.

But second, if you’re going to quote Canadian constitutional law, at least have the decency to get it right. The Charter applies to governments. It gives rights to citizens, which governments have to respect. See s. 32:

@Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Application of Charter

Application of Charter

**32. **(1) This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

Nothing in there about applying to restaraurants, restaurant owners, staff of a restaurant, or anyone else who was involved in the denial of service.

Whether that denial was a good thing or not is debatable, but please get your law right, in the interests of fighting ignorance.

[Bryan_Ekers]

In fairness, we Canadians are experiencing a record smugness surplus.

[3trew]

@Bryan_Ekers

In fairness, we Canadians are experiencing a record smugness surplus.

Which, when you think about our normal levels of smugness, is very impressive.

[Northern_Piper]

lt’s all Trump’s fault, of course. Thanks to him, the levels of Canadian smugness production have sky-rocketed; the problem is getting rid of the stuff. Even so, we’ve got a huge smugness-trade surplus, because the Yanks, poor things, have nothing to be smug about.

[penultima_thule]

You’ve also got bugger-all market for the stuff, even when in pristine condition.

You know of any western democracy that’s in a smugness-trade deficit at the moment?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

So is all Canadian law that pertains to private conduct statutory? Or is there anything in the CORF which applies to private conduct?

[Buck_Godot]

I’m not so much sure that the US suffers from a smugness deficit but rather severe smugness inequality, as 90% of our smugenss reserves have been personally consumed by our president.

[Doctor_Jackson]

Tariffs on Canadian smugness!!!

[Northern_Piper]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So is all Canadian law that pertains to private conduct statutory? Or is there anything in the CORF which applies to private conduct?

Yes, private conduct is governed by the human rights acts, federal and provincial, depending on which has jurisdiction over the actions of the individual in question. Normally, that’s the provincial human rights act. The federal human rights act is of pretty limited jurisdiction. (“Planes, trains, and inter-provincial automobiles”)

Charter of Rights doesn’t apply at all to private conduct. It gives rights to individuals, who can then enforce them against the governments, federal provincial and municipal.