TreeBeard

You say you’re not for banning speech, but then you say this: What cases would you consider banning speech?

Courts used to make judgments in favour of denying women the right to vote, or own property too. Luckily, the courts progress with time. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/persons-case-plain-language-summary#:~:text=included female persons.-,Supreme Court Decision,in 1928 as in 1867. On 24 April 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that women were not “persons” under section 24 of the BNA Act. The decision was based on the premise that the BNA Act had to be read the same way in 1928 as in 1867. The justices said that the BNA Actwould have specifically referred to women if it had meant for them to be included. Courts reflect the society that they’re in. And society has progressed to allow many more freedoms to individuals of all groups than in the past. Your exact same arguments against were used against women’s rights, and those of visible minorities in the past. Luckily for us, people like you lost.

@blackbird called you a closet Romanticist, or whatever. So, I thought it might be better if they just asked you, rather than assume.

Movies are speech. Would you put blasphemous Youtube videos in the same category as the movies you want to ban? What about tv shows? How about blasphemous books? Ban those? This may be the funniest attempt at an argument that I’ve ever read. Thanks for the laugh! I almost spit out my coffee when I read that! Only against Jesus? What should be the punishment for making a blasphemous movie in Canada?

Why don’t you ask @Michael Hardner which denomination he is? I doubt he’s worried about keeping it a secret.

LOL You want to blasphemy laws, so are you really one to criticize anyone? It’s funny you would need to go so far back to find a criticism. I would have picked support for the Nazi regime and the hiding of pedophile priests as more contemporary criticisms. It’s banned in Utah schools now too! LOL

Shouldn’t it be obvious? It’s not to his electoral advantage. He can read polls.

Utah has banned a book from schools due to violence, vulgarity, incest, bestiality…. Terrible themes to expose vulnerable children to. The book is called “the bible”. https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kxx94/bibles-banned-from-utah-schools-after-parent-demanded-its-removal In 2022, Utah passed a law banning books with “pornographic or indecent” content, and defined those terms loosely and vaguely, which restricted access to many titles that contain age-appropriate themes addressing characters’ gender, sexuality, and race. Young adult fiction authors including Judy Blume, Maia Kobabe, Jodi Picoult, and Sarah J. Maas were among those restricted from school libraries in the Alpine School District in Utah, the state’s largest district. In March, a parent in Utah wrote to the Davis School District, demanding that the Bible should be taken off shelves based on the new law. “Incest, onanism, bestiality, prostitution, genital mutilation, fellatio, dildos, rape, and even infanticide,” they wrote, accurately and non-exhaustively. “Get this PORN out of our schools... If the books that have been banned so far are any indication for way lesser offenses, [the Bible] should be a slam dunk.”

No one is arguing that “social services” isn’t doing that. But that has zero to do with the topic of colonialist government and churches removing children from homes many, many years ago. They literally took indigenous children away from their homes by force, well before “social services” was ever a thing. https://learning.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/pathways/residential-schools-reconciliation/ “Together with Christian churches (Roman Catholic and Anglican) the Canadian government worked to create these schools as an attempt to educate and ‘civilize’ the Indigenous peoples of Canada. They wanted Indigenous children to accept European culture and ways of being. By the 1930s there were 80 residential schools across Canada. These schools took Indigenous children aged 5 to 16 from their homes and communities and separated them from their culture. Speaking First Nations’ languages was against the rules and the schools often had poor living conditions. Many children were underfed. Many became ill.” You can’t go forward without acknowledging the wrongs of the past and reconciling with those who suffered at the hands of the government at the time.

That is a wonderful suggestion for all these “white homeland” promoters…. Off to Russia with you!

Very lucky only to get 8 years. This isn’t the USofA…. in Canada, the defence has to be commensurate with the level of threat. His life wasn’t in danger, so he didn’t need to kill the guy. I don’t see anything different about this recent story than several others going back decades.

Yes, that’s the slippery slope fallacy. “If we allow gays to get married, next people will be marrying dogs”. That was the argument a decade ago. Did you use that argument back then? Just curious. Now, it’s the same sort of thing, but with the next vilified people asking to be treated with a modicum of respect.

Trying to scare people with slippery slope fallacy. Won’t work on the young people. Probably works on old conservatives though.

What a bizarre analogy. If you think someone can demand to be called “us, the presidents” and everyone then has to do this by law, you’re sadly mistaken and clearly have some sort of cognitive dissonance that makes you believe crazy “woke” conspiracies.

Gender and gender roles have always been made up. Call your employees that and you’ll owe them lots of money. Clearly, there are standards that employers must follow, regardless of how much you want to share your bigoted views about what you really think about them.

That’s revisionist history. They took perfectly happy kids away from their parents too. Just for being indigenous.

Because God f’ed up on his first try and it made him sad. God made man…. messed it up… and he was sad! 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Who is allowing her to run her own business?

They earned a “tip” by performing a service. It’s clearly income, not a birthday present.

And they’re doing great, right?

It’s only bad because you don’t like the direction.

Vancouver? Kamloops, Prince Rupert, Fernie and Tofino too.

You don’t think people should pay their taxes?

If you didn’t choose to be straight, why would you think gay people chose to be gay?

I think it’s a swell idea that employers must not harass their employees. If that means not calling black people the ‘n’ word or needing to refer to someone by how they identify, that really isn’t asking very much at all. You need to add in a bunch of superfluous nonsense to even make your argument. Snowflakes changing their pronouns constantly and needing psychiatric care are issues you made up, not an issue that there is any evidence of in this particular SCC case.