Scotty

Is democracy always a good thing? What if 90% of the group are made up of killers rapists and cretins? Is it still a good thing?

Speaking for myself, I boycott Apple. It's interesting that I never really considered the origin of their products as part of the reasons. I simply detested their big brother attitude of controlling what you can see, hear and do with the products you buy.

And yet, many people seem to have no difficulty whatsoever in doing so. Spare me. I've known people who have worked at Wal-Mart, so my familiarity is not strictly through documentaries and on-line information about their predatory behaviour and crappy products. They are a miserable place to work, and only the desperate do so for long. It is their good fortune that there are many desperate people. But then again, they've helped make them desperate by eliminating so much of the competition and forcing much of what's left into the same sorts of cutthroat behaviour towards employees they themselves engage in.

Do they murder people for body parts? Do they use slave labour (illegally) to make the products they send abroad?

Do human right commissioners often feel the urge to call people names?

I report people for the pure and simple reason that if I don't I know I will wind up responding in kind -- and then getting suspended, as I did last time. So if I can't do it, then you can't do it is my basic philosophy.

Everything he did, aside from the official languages act, which has itself accomplished nothing of substance, has been done at around the same time in every other western nation save the US. Trudeau simply adopted what everyone else was adopting. If Trudeau hadn't done it someone else would have. Neverthless, I'm not suggesting Trudeau was completely bereft of influence. All I'm saying is that he didn't create a nation like John A Macodonald did. As for Harper. I voted for the man and likely will again. But he's accomplished nothing thus far of lasting significance. It doesn't help that his majority coincides with a long, deep, worldwide recession, which severely limits his options, of course.

Trump is hardly one to make fun of anyone else's hair...

Oh please. As if you or your party have the slightest respect for the Unite Nations and anything it says or does or wants or wishes. You're simply being quarrelsome for the sake of being quarrelsome.

Do we rely on blondes to defend themselves, or must the government undertake some sort of blonde is beautiful campaign on behalf of whatever group some lunatic is attacking? And what happens if it's not as effective and blondes are being attacked in the streets? No, I have reluctantly come to accept the need for hate speech laws so long as they are tightly defined and used only against the most dangerous people who just won't keep their bile inside themselves. By the way, I'm not necessarily against governmetn action. What the gov. could is release PSAs or encourage schools to invite speakers to raise awareness about equality. It does that already. But one can't deny the danger of demagoguery designed to inflict actual damage on identifiable groups. Hurt feelings don't count, of course, or at least, shouldn't. Be as offensive as you like and I will be offensive right back at you. That oughtn't to be an issue.

The patter? Wth is patter? Define further, if you please. Harper has thus far accomplished little more than to run the boat fairly competently through rough waters. Trudeau didn't even accomplish that much.

Boy I'm going to go out and party tonight and get so drunk I can barely stand! Sometimes I have a hard time getting home then, but heck, I've driven that highway so often I can do it in my sleep, so I'm not too worried! That's trolling. Bound to draw in all kinds of outraged postings condemning drinking and driving, threats to call the police, personal insults about my parents, etc. etc. If I really want to continue I can argue the point, say that drinking and driving laws are useless, etc. etc., just to see how many people want to yell and get all worked up at me. It's not any kind of serious effort at discussion. It's just an attempt to get people worked up.

No. Not nuff said. We judge PMs on accomplishments, not their perceived morality. There was a lot of corruption everywhere in those days, and who cares if he drank? The fact is the man built this country, not to mention the railroad which became a national symbol and which helped expand the frontiers and tie that country together. What has Harper done anyway that compares to that? What did Trudeau accomplish other than quadrupling the federal budget, initiating a massive debt we are still labouring under, and bring in some social safety networks which were going to be brought in regardless of who was in power?

True enough. However, suppose we have an extremely influential, charismatic person who is making thunderous speeches about the evil of, say, blonde people. And suppose that his followers, often of a low intellect and sophistication, have, on numerous occasions, attacked and harmed blondes. He himself has made no physical attacks on anyone, nor can he be connected with any prior knowledge of his followers attacks. He merely makes speeches. Do you suggest he should be permitted to go on making his speeches while the rabble which laps up his nonsense like ultimate truths act violently against blonde people? Should he be permitted to go on inspiring violence and hatred against blondes?

Any laws which hinder freedom of speech need, of necessity, to be extremely tightly defined and be of demonstrable urgency. That is not the case with the human rights legislation, though it could be arguably so with hate speech.

How about punishable by taking away people's houses?

I think any poster who thinks the term visible minority is racist loses credibility to talk about racism. That's particularly so when that poster is a zealous advocate for a party in his own nation which is undeniably racist.

No it's not. And your ridiculous obsession with the term adds no value to this or any other discussion.

The fact Harper and Trudeau both got 18 votes while Sir John A Macdonald got 2 speaks to the lack of historical education and the youthfulness of this site's users. They know nothing of politics which happened before television.

I think the subject has been enlarged to whether freedom of speech is more or less important than prohibiting someone to speak dangerous opinions aloud.

I would think otherwise. Individuals are easier to target. And a face on the 'enemy' often incites more violence. If you point at an individual and label him as dangerous, and ramp up the hyperbole, there's more chance some idiot will act on it than if you're ranting against some group or other.

There are a number of differences. For one thing, if you cannot afford legal representation the state pays for it in a court. You have no such help at the HRTs. Another important part is that the Crown examines the case first. In the case of HRTs the decision to prosecute is made by a poorly trained hireling who is in all likelihood already biased, and then is heard before a tribunal or adjudicator who might well be biased, as well - and just as poorly trained in matters of law. Thus the HRTs can be used by anyone to launch spurious attacks on those they disagree with, as was the case here.

It could. But what you're actually supporting here is the suppression of ideas you find distasteful or dangerous. Societies have a long history of suppressing such ideas, either because they were blasphemous, or, in more modern cases, because they were considered dangerous to the public good. There was a case I recall of a rabble rouser who was put on trial for his anti-democratic views once. He had dangerous ideas. Two of his followers/students had twice briefly overthrown the government and instituted reigns of terror in which thousands had died. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. His name was Socrates.

Okay, why don't you tell us what 'constitutional right' you think you're protecting by interfering with people's freedom of speech.

I thought at first you were being ironic, but you're serious, aren't you?