Subject:	Fwd: Human rights vs personal preferences
From:		"HollaBack Canada"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: F J <*********@hotmail.com>
Subject: Human rights vs personal preferences

I just saw the article in the Toronto Star, and really wondered what
this world is coming to. It's pretty clear girls and women think they
can wear any sexy, revealing - even inviting - clothing and still
think they have a right to walk down the street as if they are fully
covered up.

First, basic common sense: if you do not want to be seen as a sexual
OBJECT, don't dress that way. You can be stylish without flashing your
nipples or crutch. Among the trillions of available cuts of clothing
there are many styles that allow you to dress loosely and freely yet
not look like nymphomaniac sluts out on the make.

And that goes for day and night wear. Don't imagine for even a
fraction of a second you will ever be able to impose, suggest,
reccommend or expect a "code of conduct" for how men will look,
glance, gaze, stare at or ogle you, sideways or otherwise, as you
strut your stuff on the sidewalk - or anywhere else. Men will be men -
at all levels - and certainly no blogspot is going to change that.

Second, walk the walk: if you want to talk and behave like midless
tramps you must expect to be treated as such. Were those school girls
heading purposefully from school to where ever they were due next -
and wearing appropriate clothing - they probably would not have been
harassed. And I can't believe that those retarded schoolboys would
have displayed such disrespect if the girls were appropriately dressed
and did not already have some kind of loose or brainless reputation at
school.

Remember, from experience judges and lawyers know there are always
three sides to every story... one party, the other party, and what
really happened.

Third, I don't care WHAT your opinion is, the fact is that as a
section of the Human Rights code covers one basic right: Part 1: Every
person has the right to say and do anything they wish... plus Part II:
...as long as that speech and those actions do not impose on other
peoples rights (many retarded people either don't remember, prefer to
forget, or never knew about Part II).

You cannot arbitrarily say that sometimes others should make remarks
about your appearance (only flattering, of course) and sometimes they
are not allowed to (only not flattering, of course). IF it is
appropriate for someone to remark on how pretty you look, THEN it is
equally appropriate for them to remark on your fat backside - if that
is what they see. It's all or nothing.

Your personal preference is irrelevant - human rights and the law
applies to everybody, all the time, not just when you or anyone else
feels it is appropriate (or not).

Fourth, get a life, for heaven's sake. We all have lives to live and
the right to our opinions, and the fact is that in every group of
people there is a complete moron who causes trouble of some kind. No
amount of lawmaking, social reshaping, publicity or religious
instruction is going to change that fact. You females rant on about
everyone having to make allowances, yet when it comes to your own
petty peeves you'd think someone was standing on your chest in spiked
shoes. Give up the selfishness, the fashionable ME FIRST attitude,
take off the silly suit, and come back down to earth where the rest of
us live.

My wife works with abused women... I agree that some women are
harassed, and I agree that some women are abused. But as far as this
blogspot goes, get serious and stop being bleeding hearts. Most of
what I have read so far on your web site is not cause for concern, and
I suspect is just filler until you can get some more "relevant"
stories.

It must have been a slow news day.... national newspaper material this ain't.

I. G.