Jump to content

dialamah

Members
  • Posts

    6,574
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by dialamah

  1. Then I'd say you support hate speech. And yes, I think hate speech should be proscribed. The government agrees with me, although we may differ on where and what constitutes hate speech. I agree they should be able to say that, and give rational reasons why not. What I don't agree they should be able to promote is the idea that immigrants from certain areas of the world are lazy, inclined to crime, not fit for our society. That, to me, is hate speech. It targets a certain group of people, it lies about those people as a group, and it supports the idea that they immoral, evil and unworthy. I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again: If you deny that words can sway or influence people in certain directions (good or bad), then you have no clue about how and why humans communicate. Sure you can say that. Promoting the idea that such people are delusional, predators, pedophiles, immoral, evil and unacceptable is different, imo. Your opinion differs from the law, and mine. Abusive language directed toward a group creates hatred for that group. I'd agree that there is a fine line between free speech and hate speech, and that the line drawn by one judge may not be shared by other judges. The link I included in another post looked at 7 cases in Canada that helped define the difference between hate speech and free speech. One in particular was about a guy who distributed posters protesting homosexuality. Two of them were fine, per the court's decision, but the other two were not because they promoted hate against homosexuals. None of the pamphlets included threatening language. So your opinion differs from law, but I concede that law is not always right and may need objecting to. However, in this case I think Canada has the right idea - there has to be a limit on speech, not all speech is acceptable.
  2. So you have no idea what you are arguing for. Hate speech needs people to lie for it's success in swaying others to hatred and violence. Even in the privacy between individuals, lies are not tolerated; why should they be tolerated in the public sphere? Anyway, there are limits to hate speech, but it's difficult to prove and so far, courts are willing to give people a lot of leeway. My opinion is that hate speech leads to more violence, but I'm happy to let the courts decide on individual cases.
  3. Since you are so supportive of these people, can you explain why are they protesting at hospitals anyway; they have nothing to do with the immunization policies of the government? That just seems stupid to me.
  4. This'll be the third time I've asked: What would YOU consider hate speech?
  5. You ask good questions, thanks. 1. My opinion: It's not hate speech to say that you hate the KKK, or Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism because of ______. It It is hate speech to say that Muslims are terrorists (based on some extremists), Christians are murderers (based on some extremists), or Jews are out to rule the world and must be eliminated (based on nothing), Chinese Canadians are spies and not to be trusted (because you don't like China). 2. My opinion: It's not hate speech to say you hate abortion. It is hate speech say that people who are pro-choice are baby-killers, have no morals, are murderers. It is ok to say you hate misogyny, it's not ok to say that all men are misogynists, abusers, rapists. It not hate speech to deny the holocaust (however wrong you are); it is hate speech to say that the Nazi's had the right idea, that Jews are a blight on humanity. 3. Am not talking about Islamophobia in particular; was more remembering my neighbor, who targeted anyone who wasn't white; neighbors from Jamaica, South America, India and Greece. At the time, there were no Muslims living here. He brought home to me the problem of racism in Canada, and made me think about the way in which people like him are created - or radicalized. He wasn't born hating brown people; that attitude had to be shown him by the words and beliefs of others - whether his parents, friends or online groups. His behavior was on the verge of becoming violent, rather than just spouting hateful/abusive claims. Words people say influence others, for good or bad. I read a bunch and watched some documentaries on how people are radicalized, and that is how I came to my opinions on this. 4. Just because you (generic, not specifically you) wouldn't do anything, the words you use can empower others. They hear what you say, understand that you guys believe the same things but for some reason you don't or can't act on it - maybe you have a family you don't want to leave if you end up in jail; maybe you are just afraid; maybe you don't understand the true seriousness of the situation. Therefore, it is up to the extremist listening to you to do something. By denying the power of many voices who, (for example), claim that Muslims are barbaric, misogynistic, do not fit into our society, are lazy, refuse to work because they can take advantage of our social supports and should not be let into the country - you are creating hate for Muslims in general. Not terrorists, or extremists - but Muslims who simply want to live their lives, who work, who don't even talk about their religion to others - let alone coerce - who follow all laws, who don't beat their wives, who don't subject their daughters to FGM. Even the claim that immigrants from certain countries do not work hard, can't speak English because they choose not to as a way of rejecting Western society, who have lower education, who create criminals - those things create hate for immigrants. No group is monolithic and "hate speech", by default, must ascribe only the worst traits to whatever group is targeted - Muslim, Jews, immigrants, Christians, homosexuals, LGBTQ. If someone is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the huge variety of beliefs any group has, and focuses only the behavior of the very worst of the, that is hate. Definition of hate speech: abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. On this forum, that definition is regularly met. Criticism of Islam, or Judaism or Christianity is different. I criticize Christianity because of it's inbuilt paternalism, exclusion of others, judgement of anyone who is different; I criticize Judaism and Islam for much the same reasons. But not all Muslims, Christians or Jews are paternalistic, exclusionary or judgmental. Especially in Christianity many adherents fail to follow the worst of Christianity. I don't criticize immigrants, or even immigration policy; others criticize immigration policy without also demonizing immigrants. Some people criticize pro-choice because they believe that there is no point at which an individual isn't human. Other people demonize pro-choice people by calling them baby-killiers, murderers, immoral and by extension evil. Failing to take responsibility for the words you use is simply a cop-out. Just for the record, I don't hold it against people who may, in a moment of emotion, express hateful thoughts, but are overall do not indulge in hateful rhetoric. There are a few on this forum who'll do that (I've been guilty of that myself). In my opinion, hate speech must be consistently expressed by an individual or group, not a one-off situation.
  6. Freedom of speech means that if you criticize government, they don't fine you or imprison you. It also means the Government can't penalize you for anything you say or post, unless it is incitement to violence or hate speech. Private companies, like Global, have no obligation to accept what you, or anyone else, posts on their site. They have the right to reject what you say, just as you have to say it.
  7. Why should hate speech be allowed? It leads to violence, too. In any case, Canada's legal system penalizes hate speech, as well as hate crimes. What would you consider hate speech? Any examples?
  8. Than why am I being criticized for saying that unfettered speech - that which promotes hate and violence (and misinformation) - should be curtailed?
  9. It's great news that there is an effective treatment against Covid. Given that anti-vaxers are so concerned about the side effects of the Covid Vaccine, I wondered about the side effects of Monoclonal antibodies. For those who worry about side effects, Monoclonal antibodies are not risk free - the excerpt below is from a handout given to patients before they're given the monoclonal treatment: ASIRIVIMAB AND IMDEVIMAB? Possible side effects of casirivimab and imdevimab are: • Allergic reactions. Allergic reactions can happen during and after infusion with casirivimab and imdevimab. Tell your healthcare provider or nurse, or get medical help right away if you get any of the following signs and symptoms of allergic reactions: fever, chills, low blood pressure, changes in your heartbeat, shortness of breath, wheezing, swelling of your lips, face, or throat, rash including hives, itching, headache, nausea, vomiting, sweating, muscle aches, dizziness and shivering. The side effects of getting any medicine by vein may include brief pain, bleeding, bruising of the skin, soreness, swelling, and possible infection at the infusion site. These are not all the possible side effects of casirivimab and imdevimab. Not a lot of people have been given casirivimab and imdevimab. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen. Casirivimab and imdevimab are still being studied so it is possible that all of the risks are not known at this time. It is possible that casirivimab and imdevimab could interfere with your body's own ability to fight off a future infection of SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, casirivimab and imdevimab may reduce your body’s immune response to a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. Specific studies have not been conducted to address these possible risks. Talk to your healthcare provider if you have any questions. People have even died from monoclonal antibody therapy, although it's extremely rate - just as dying from a Covid vaccine is extremely rare. And while this therapy can reduce death and hospitalizations, it doesn't prevent them - people can still die from Covid, even if they get this therapy - according to one study, it reduces death by 6 people per 100. The trial found that 24% of the people who received the experimental antibody treatment died, versus 30% in the group that did not. In a press release, RECOVERY trial investigators said this translates to six fewer deaths for every 100 people treated with the experimental drug. Conversely, the chance of dying from Covid after getting the vaccine is far less than 1 in 100. The data, gathered from December 8, 2020, through July 4, 2021, show that of more than 1.2 million adults who received a first dose, fewer than 0.5% reported contracting breakthrough infections two weeks or more after getting the jab. Among those who got both shots, fewer than 0.2% experienced a breakthrough infection a week or more after getting their second shot. It astounds me that people who object to a vaccine because it is already known to have side effects, may have unknown side effects and isn't 100% effective and makes money for "Big Pharma" embrace a treatment that has the same disadvantages, is less effective in preventing deaths and makes "Big Pharma" even more money. Personally, I'm glad we have two effective tools to fight Covid: a vaccine to help prevent the disease and get us away from masks, social distancing and lockdowns, along with a treatment for those who get sick - whether because they cannot be vaccinated or the vaccination failed for them.
  10. So, a KKK rally, hidden in the backwoods of Arkansas, planning the elimination of non-Christians and Liberals is ok with you? Because that's happening. How about a guy - casually swinging a golf club as he grins at a brown family coming to visit their parents/grandparents? Or calling a neighbor a 'terrorist' and feigning shooting a gun at him? Or using his vehicle to push walkers off the road because they happen to be friends with brown neighbors? You ok with that, too? Because it happened in my neighborhood - and it was terrifying for everyone he targeted. Ask yourself - without poisonous speech, how would people get to the point of planning or attempting to kill others, or feeling so entitled by their belief of superiority that terrorizing others is their daily pastime? Anyone who thinks unfettered speech is a good idea does not understand how humans work: speech leads to action. Hateful/violent speech leads to hateful/violent action. And, before you accuse me of wanting to shut down anything I don't agree with - you're wrong. People on this forum and elsewhere say plenty I disagree with and I don't want to shut them down. What I would shut down is the hateful stuff that dehumanizes entire groups of people, speech that emboldens people to shoot doctors outside of abortion clinics, or shoot down Muslims in a Mosque, or kill black worshippers in a Church. And just because most people wouldn't do those sorts of thing doesn't mean what they say or the messages they put out doesn't influence what the fringe element would do.
  11. Where were you? Complaining about masks and lockdowns, as I recall, two things that demonstrably reduced the spread of Covid. Now you complain about vaccines, hmmm. Are you in the pay of those Chinese lab workers who unleashed this virus into the world? Cause you seem absolutely determined that as many people die from it as possible.
  12. How long has Quebec had people of faith wearing religious symbols? Yet only when Muslims became targets of xenophobes did the government decide to pass a law that restricts everyone's freedom to practice their faith. Such a law would never have been considered if not for anti-Muslim sentiment. In that sense, the law targeted Muslims; it's too bad so many others have to also pay a price. Muslims condemn attacks against Christians and Christian churches all the time. I would say that in Muslim countries, Christians are generally treated about as well as Muslims are treated in Western countries. That is, looked down on as foreign, treated with contempt by a certain segment of the population, verbally and physically attacked by others - things like that. BTW, Egypt has two legal systems - one for Muslims and one for Coptic Christians, each in line with their respective faiths. There are a few other Islamic countries that do the same. Egypt also allows holidays for Christian holy days; Coptics get those days off work, but Muslims do not.
  13. 1. I agree, sending them back is nonsense, but I have heard it proposed by extremists. 2. Looks like we agree here, too, more or less. While most of us are born with either male or female characteristics, I don't think people are simply male or female. I think our gender is on a continuum, with hormones determining how male or female we look, think and behave. Hormones are pretty powerful so it doesn't really surprise me that sometimes the hormones we produce do not match the sexual characteristics we were born with. 3. Yeah, extremists on both sides are a problem. Amazing, a leftie and a rightie agreeing.
  14. Pfft. I'm assuming you are heterosexual. Please, go out and be homosexual - give up your heterosexuality, like a smoking habit. Do it just for a month; you don't even have to make it a lifetime commitment.
  15. Well, there was a time when I'd have agreed that even bad ideas should be expressed, so that good ideas can flourish. Problem is, I don't see that happening. People simply get more entrenched in their ideas, good or bad, and as we see become more polarized. Do you think polarization is good for society? The States has very recently had an attempted insurrection due to that kind of polarization. My opinion is that there has to be limits on people being able to say or promote anything they want. Just as people can't deliberately sell poison while claiming it's a cure-all, so speech can't spew poison while claiming it's a boon to society.
  16. It's pretty hard to "subjugate" someone's sexuality. If it were possible, Christians/Muslims and other religions would have had homosexuality stamped out centuries ago. Just as you can't stop yourself from finding the opposite gender sexually attractive whether you act on it or not, so gay people can't stop themselves from finding the same sex sexually attractive, whether they act on it or not. Transsexuals usually know there's something 'different' about them from the time they're 4 or 5. Most kids that age aren't being "subjugated" by anyone but their parents. Kids pick up at a pretty young age what is 'appropriate' for their assumed gender and will try to conform, even if it feels completely wrong for them. Imagine if your child did not fall into these sexual norms; they'd know how strongly you disapprove of people not conforming, so you'd likely lose your kid - and you might not ever know why.
  17. If the Covid virus is the reason you have fluid on your lungs, and that causes lack of oxygen which shuts down your liver, kidneys, brain and heart, it's pretty clear that your heart disease, diabetes, obesity, leukemia, cancer etc killed you. Only young, healthy individuals with no health issues could die of Covid. Luckily, I have hypothyroidism which will prevent me from dying from Covid. On its own, hyperthyroidism won't kill me, unless I stopped taking my meds for some extended period of time, as in years. But it's certainly reassuring to know that if I die while having Covid, it would be my hyperthyroidism that killed me.
  18. What if the claim of victimhood is legit? Consider the law in Quebec, implemented specifically for Muslims (though hidden in the language) forbidding the wearing of religious wear in government facilities? Or the verbal and sometimes physical harassment of Muslims just going about their every day lives? Or the attacks on Muslim places of worship? LGBTQ face similar problems, as do Jews. Why do you insist that these aren't to be acknowledged or changed?
  19. I'm going to guess what the answer will (or would be): 1. Send all Muslims back from whence they came; if born here, send them to their parent's/grandparent's/great grandparent's home land. 2. Forbid LGBTQ from ever pointing out the social (and sometimes systemic) disadvantages under which they live and disallow any effort by them to request any kind of recognition by government or society; disallow any trans-sexual surgery; continue to insist that everyone is either male or female, ignoring historical and current evidence to the contrary. Added for good measure: 3. If anyone should criticize the dominant culture, they must be cancelled immediately.
  20. I grew up in a small, rural and still pretty conservative area - as in they primarily vote conservative and in the last election, voted in another conservative. Yet, on social issues they are mostly left-leaning and we agree more than we disagree; it's really only on fiscal management that I would call them conservative and even then we're not that far apart. Right-leaning people on this forum sound like the people in my hometown, on steroids. The hatred expressed here for 'lefties' isn't found among the conservatives in my family or their community at large; their attitude seems to be that we have different political ideas and while mine are pretty stupid, I'm not an evil person who deserves to be drawn and quartered. My partner often listens to right-wing radio stations and rants about how the world as we know it is being destroyed by things like immigration, Canada's debt, children being forced to change gender and other right-wing complaints though he hasn't gotten to "woke" people yet. Yet, he consistently votes NDP because at heart he believes that people deserve respect and equality, and that government shouldn't be swayed by Big Business lobbyists; he doesn't see either Conservatives or Liberals actually supporting what he believes is important, so he votes NDP because they do promise those things, are untried and might be better than our current choices. The point being that your relatives are not much different than the rest of Canadians - it's you that sees them as being part of the 'enemy'. Partisans on both sides demonize the other. Demonizing means that lies must be told about the other side in order to make them seem more unreasonable than they really are, and insist that the other ideology will destroy our culture and society. Both are equally wrong, imo. (I've also made that mistake, and must remind myself that we're not that different, and that it's wrong to paint all conservatives as unreasonable based on what I see on this forum.)
  21. Nah, I'd rather keep all my brain cells healthy and functioning, thanks.
  22. Also, if people who've had the vaccine die, then it's a vaccine death. Clearly, getting Covid is a much safer option than getting the vaccine when you count properly.
  23. Yet, you support a law in which the mother should die along with her child, just so that an abortion doesn't happen under any circumstances. Your words are hollow.
  24. Anti-vaxers can make the choice to not get a vaccine, if they want to. But there are consequences to that choice - like a higher chance of getting sick, ending up in the hospital, dying, not being able to enter certain places. There are also consequences to abortion, even if the government isn't trying to force their views on women. There are also consequences to birthing a baby; why should government force those consequences on women? My opinion about when a foetus is a baby is irrelevant; viability seems like a reasonable cut-off to me. And in fact It's very rare for a baby past viability to be aborted unless there are serious health issues. The constant refrain heard from anti-abortion people that women just "kill babies even at term" is complete bullshit, used to stir up emotion instead of thought. Lying so they can force both men and women to have children they didn't intend and don't want. Men who don't want children are only too happy to support their child being aborted, even if they publicly denounce abortion. They'll encourage, financially support and even coerce abortion, including by physical abuse. Your "man card" doesn't give you a pass to pretend men have nothing to do with whether or not a woman gets an abortion.
×
×
  • Create New...