Previous  1  2

She should consider herself lucky that it wasn't the Federal Gov't that she spoke out against or she'd likely be facing a Breach of Trust charge instead of professional misconduct with a 14 year prison sentence as the possible boobie prize.

Give the huge fine, I wonder how many times she was warned before her employer had enough and decided the only way to stop her public complaining was to make it to costly to continue?

   

According to the report, the matter should have been settled through mediation, but it wasn't.

   

Still, makes you wonder who's fault that was.
I also wonder what the hell the union did to support her?

   

Sure we do, although it is a few more limitations than it does in the US (such as hate speech).

People can say whatever they want, but sometimes employers, professional organizations or other groups disagree and punish them for speaking their mind.

You know, just like what happened to conservatives Milo Yiannioplois and Tomi Lahren so recently when they were punished by American conservative organizations for their 'free speech'.

   

I doubt this would have ended any better in the US.

And your complaint now about "government not coming in to help" is especially comical coming from an anri-government type like you.

Her recourse will likely be through the appeals process of that organization and/or the civil courts

   

That decision constitutes criminal extortion. Attacking someone who reported misconduct by a medical professional upon a patient? Manitoba has a whistle-blower law to protect those who report. I don't know if Saskatchewan does, but this action violates that law. They are also protecting whoever mistreated the patient, making the board guilty of aiding and abetting after the fact, and harbouring a fugitive. The board is acting as bullies. Charge the entire board with criminal offences; not just civil, but criminal. Said criminal charges removes them from the board. Removing the entire board for this action can be deemed to invalidate their decision.

   

There are a few differences between the two countries, and how the citizens of the two countries view the issue. It is very rare to see people "fined" for speech in the U.S. Two exceptions that come to mind are court, and sports. If someone gets mouthy in a court of law the judge can find them in contempt of court and fine them, maybe even imprison them. Professional athletes get "fined" for speech on a regular basis. In NASCAR after someone has been spun out into a wall, the press is always there to stick a mike in the victems face. One curse word will result in a substanstial fine from NASCAR. I think it is hypocritical as hell. NASCAR depends on these flareups and fights to help boost their ratings, than they act all sanctimonious about the language and the violence that owners are high fiving each other over in the back room. In other sports athletes are routinly fined for questioning the officiating of the game, and the use of profanity. Other than those two examples, it is very rare to see someone "fined" for their speech in the states. I have seen sportscasters and talking heads suspended and fired for their speech. The difference is that these suspensions and firings do not necessarily result in a hit to the pocketbook. If someone is suspended or fired, they are free to freelance with anyone they see fit. Other networks love to scoop them up just to rub it in to the other network that let the talking head go. Just like when Fox News scooped up Juan Williams from NPR. Professional organizations in the states does have some control over their members, its true. However their punishment usually comes in the form of license suspensions, not fines. Those suspensions are almost always as a result of an "action" not "speech" A lawyer is embezzling from his clients, his law license is suspended. He can start another (non-law) job the next day if he wishes. He does not have to be out $26,000 like in this case. A fine is a fine. Its a debt to be paid. One cannot walk away from it. Changing jobs does not make it go away. They could put a lien on your home. They can garnish wages and tax returns. Where does this "professional organization" get off being judge, jury, and executioner?

Companies have fired people for their speech on social media in the States. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't. You brought up Milo. I would like to point out that Milo resigned, he was not fired. Had he been fired (like Tomi Lahren) he would have some legal recourse. Tomi announced today that she is filing a lawsuit. I read somewhere that lawsuits in the U.S. have a 95% settlement rate. Meaning the odds are greatly in your favor to file a lawsuit. I have no doubt that in a few months we will be reading in the press about how Tomi received an undisclosed amount in a settlement. She will score a big payday for wrongful dismissal, and she will move on to a better paying gig at another network in the meantime. She will come out ahead in the long run. A person that has a legal debt hanging over their head will never come out ahead. They have to pay to fight it. Their credit is ruined if they don't pay, and even if they win they only get the fine reduced or removed. They never move to the plus side of things. They can pay more in legal fees than the fine was worth.

I have a real problem with people being fined for speech, even hate speech. It seems very anti-American to me. Let the courts of public opinion settle these matters. If a celebrity is saying things that I disagree with (and there are many of them) than I am free to stop buying their product, listening to or watching their shows, etc. Way too many people think that they have the right to NOT be offended. The op story is total bullshit. Someone pointed out some major flaws in the system. Problems that need to be addressed, not swept under the rug. Instead of addressing the problems, the whistleblower is keelhauled by some overbearing bureaucracy that spend way more time protecting their image than fixing problems. This story makes it painfully obvious why we need whistle blower protection laws on the books.

   

Companies and organizations have rules that you must follow as part of your employment. You're welcome to resign from your job if you don't like them.

   

Very detailed and well stated.

I think if you have been on this site for some time and really listened closely, you will understand my thesis regarding Canada: we are NOT like the U.S. In fact, we are the antithesis of America.

This last statement being so strongly stated and accurate that I would suggest as I have before that in fact we can hardly be considered an ally if at all.

When Reagan and Mulroney were running their respective countries, it was the closest America and Canada came to being like minded. We are a shell of that nation, and as much as America has changed, Canada has changed far more. Rule of Law, Due Process, principle and character are not in abundance here, not is courage to stand on premises and worthwhile ideals.

Consider the article I posted here about a month ago regarding a man who had lived here from the time he was 8 months old and was suffering from psychological problems. Not only did we deport him to a country he doesn't know,to the Netherlands, a place in which he cannot speak the language, but this response had support from many on this forum. Here is the article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4012844

This, based on the fact he had committed some crimes...it's as if some don't believe the Canadian system (and his plight in life) didn't impact what he became, what he engaged in. Can you imagine the outrage if America had done something similar to someone who had been in America for 58+ years? Rightfully, people would be astonished.

Canada has lost it's way in so many ways, the above example is just one of many. Decades of abuse by the apparatus and lack of accountability through and through had brought us here. From politicians to police agencies and their bosses. You wouldn't believe how broad these abuses are or just how unAmerican we are. I feel the charade is over, and I don't think it's just the Americans that are getting the message.

   

You kind of said exactly what I did, which was that free speech exists in both countries, but sometimes there are consequences for your free speech.

And I do agree with both the need for whistle blower protection laws and that far too people think their right not to be offended supersedes other right to free speech, because it does not,

   

Previous  1  2