The right not to be offended?

JerrySeinfeld · December 6, 2007

Can someone please point to me where in the charter of rights and freedoms it is stated that citizens of this country hav the right not to be offended?

mikedavid00 · December 6, 2007

Can someone please point to me where in the charter of rights and freedoms it is stated that citizens of this country hav the right not to be offended?

It doesn't say that anywhere.

Michael Bluth · December 6, 2007

It doesn't say that anywhere.

Does it say so in the 'pink book'?

DrGreenthumb · December 18, 2007

I don't think anyone has that right.

I don't agree with hate speech legislation either, I think it goes both ways though. For instance I think someone should absolutely have the right to express their belief that some ethnic groups are nothing more than "7th century barbarians", or "sand people". The groups they are refering to do not have the right not to be offended. This also works both ways, so if someone wants to display ignorance and racism by expressing those views than they should also not have the right to not be offended if someone points out that they are a racist, bigot, or whatever for having said views. I'm not mentioning any names, or calling anyone anything, wouldn't want to violate anyone's right not to be offended.

I also think that nobody has the right not to be offended by other people's habits/lifestyle choices in a free society.

So you Conservatives also do not have the right to not be offended by homosexuals, people who smoke cigarettes or pot, cook with curry, or worship allah.

I'm thinking you would prefer that only people with the same beliefs as you should have their right to not be offended protected by law

Michael Bluth · December 18, 2007

So you Conservatives also do not have the right to not be offended by homosexuals, people who smoke cigarettes or pot, cook with curry, or worship allah.
I'm thinking you would prefer that only people with the same beliefs as you should have their right to not be offended protected by law

Very interesting take, albeit not very accurate.

It is far more common for the left to be overly sensitive and offended.

Opposition to SSM was not about being offended, it was about protecting a religious institution.

Conservatives opposed to people who smoke cigarettes? Oppoition to smoking cigarettes in public comes from all sides, and for valid reasons. In your own home, do what you want.

Opposition to pot smoking is about maintaining law and order. I have no problem with people smoking in their homes. But it is against the law for good reasons, the criminal enterprises that profit off trading in pot and other illegal drugs. We also don't know the societal costs of stoned-driving as well.

Cooking with curry? Wow, what a terrible stereotype. Curry is good eating. A little on the fattening side, but good eating none the less. I just noticed a curry stand in a mall here in Edmonton for the first time. Very dangerous for the gut but soooooo good.

People are more than free to worship whoever they want. Just don't try and kill me as a result of your religious beliefs.

guyser · December 18, 2007

Very interesting take, albeit not very accurate.
Opposition to SSM was not about being offended, it was about protecting a religious institution.

...more accurately.."under the guise of protecting a religious institution" , considering what a fine job hetero's have done by pissing on marriage for years.

We also don't know the societal costs of stoned-driving as well.

But we know the costs of drunk driving , and we know how infinitely worse it is , and we have laws to supposedly control it.

Michael Hardner · December 18, 2007

There is nothing new in this. Nobody has indicated that there is, or should be such a right. The arguments that will spring from this have already been made many times.

Perhaps we should frame this debate differently this time around.

Wild Bill · December 18, 2007

Very interesting take, albeit not very accurate.
Opposition to pot smoking is about maintaining law and order. I have no problem with people smoking in their homes. But , the criminal enterprises that profit off trading in pot and other illegal drugs. We also don't know the societal costs of stoned-driving as well.

Seems to me that it is the criminalization that has resulted in the incredible profit! We've been told that marijuana is the largest cash crop in B.C. Don't know how they garner their stats but it makes sense.

There have been dark rumours for years that many Florida politicians are on the take to drug lords to keep things illegal, in order to maintain the ferocious profit margins. That also makes sense.

I'm not a druggie but I am a taxpayer and it has always seemed to me that I'm paying a LOT to finance a charade! Meanwhile, here in Hamilton, ON the morning paper has a report where they found grow ops in FOUR stories of a local apartment building!

Since even the "powers that be" admit they catch less than 5% of what's out there that's a LOT of grow ops! I once worked for an electrical parts shop where we would be selling the same bill of materials for grow op lights 4 and 5 times a week, to different people. It would be very politically incorrect to admit that they were ALL Asians, so I'll leave everyone to their own ponderings.

Stoned drivers I will agree with but when you claim that Prohibition is positive I'm afraid you will never get my support. I sincerely wonder what kind of sheltered life you must be leading. Do you really think pushers vend their wares in schoolyards out of some sense of religious proselytizing? It's been said that bootleggers were jumping out of windows the day AFTER they repealed Prohibition. That to me seems far more logical than "it is against the law for good reasons".

Harper warned us over 15 years ago that if social conservatives were to win control of the Reform party they would doom it to political marginalism. You might want to ponder his words.

Edited December 18, 2007 by Wild Bill

Shakeyhands · December 18, 2007

It is far more common for the left to be overly sensitive and offended.

or is that people on the left are more likely to stand up for those who are marginalized in some way by the rest?

for instance, I am not gay but I fully and unequivocably stand for their right to marry. Am I being oversensitive if someone says that gays are immoral and shouldn't be allowed to "marry" and I disagree with them and say so?

Edited December 18, 2007 by Shakeyhands

August1991 · December 18, 2007

I find intriguing (and encouraging) that the Left is now championing individual rights. It seems to me that this is how the NDP seeks support from younger people nowadays (eg. LGBT rights, marijuana, abortion). The NDP defends the individual's freedom to choose.

Edited December 18, 2007 by August1991

White Doors · December 18, 2007

I find intriguing (and encouraging) that the Left is now championing individual rights. It seems to me that this is how the NDP seeks support from younger people nowadays (eg. LGBT rights, marijuana, abortion). The NDP defends the individual's freedom to choose.

Yes, they are even in favour of being nice to pedophiles. After all, what goes on in the nation's bedrooms isn't the governments business. How progressive is that?

let's de-criminalize pedophilia. poor fella's getting a criminal record and all?

NDP campaign slogan circa 2020?

August, they aren't championing individual rights at all. They are championing small groups of PC people.

Big difference. If they really cared about individual rights they would also be against the gun registry.

Edited December 18, 2007 by White Doors

Black Dog · December 18, 2007

It is far more common for the left to be overly sensitive and offended.

I think for every outrageasm du jour of the left, there's an equal and opposite hissy fit from the right (to the degree to which those labels are valid. Sadly, on this forum, they're both dead as doornails, victims of overuse and underdefinition.)

Also:

md00:

QUOTE(JerrySeinfeld @ Dec 6 2007, 03:34 PM) *
Can someone please point to me where in the charter of rights and freedoms it is stated that citizens of this country hav the right not to be offended?

It doesn't say that anywhere.

O RLY?

Edited December 18, 2007 by Black Dog

DrGreenthumb · December 18, 2007

Get a life. Nobody in the NDP or any other party that I know of is supporting pedophilia, that is a typical social conservative tactic, when you start losing an argument call the other side a pedophile. Today's NDP IS championing individual rights, sorry that bothers you. That includes the rights of individual children not to harmed by pedophiles. Maybe I should say the conservatives want to be nice to pedophiles, because their base is christian fundies, and priests are far more likely statistically than the rest of the population to be pedophiles?

If you equate pot smoking or gay rights with pedophelia then you are the one who has questionable morals and ethics. I think its pretty sick how social conservatives feel that pedophelia is no worse than smoking a reefer and watching saturday night live.

Michael Bluth · December 18, 2007

...more accurately...
"under the guise of protecting a religious institution" , considering what a fine job hetero's have done by pissing on marriage for years.

So you know people's true motivations rather than what they were claiming to be their motivations. That's what you gotta love about the left, when you come up with a coherent and defensible argument out comess *scary* *scary* *scary*/ hidden agenda.

But we know the costs of drunk driving , and we know how infinitely worse it is , and we have laws to supposedly control it.

No attempt to defenddrunk driving. Don't know how it is *infinitely worse* than stoned driving though. Do explain.

On the whole I favaour decriminalization of pot once the stoned driving issue has been dealt with.

Michael Hardner · December 18, 2007

So you know people's true motivations rather than what they were claiming to be their motivations. That's what you gotta love about the left, when you come up with a coherent and defensible argument out comess *scary* *scary* *scary*/ hidden agenda.

Michael,

If you took 'hidden agendas' out of the equation, I imagine 2/3 of the arguments on these boards - right and left - would have no basis.

madmax · December 18, 2007

Get a life. Nobody in the NDP or any other party that I know of is supporting pedophilia, that is a typical social conservative tactic, when you start losing an argument call the other side a pedophile......

Not this again. Remember in 2004 when Stephen Harper made statements similar to Paul Martin being a supporter of Child Porn.

The Conservative Majority vapourized. Harper verified that he was a scary guy. And the election lost.

I hope this isn't a tactic to be used in the future. Just puts voters off.

madmax · December 18, 2007

Michael,
If you took 'hidden agendas' out of the equation, I imagine 2/3 of the arguments on these boards - right and left - would have no basis.

Sure would be quiet :blink:

Michael Bluth · December 18, 2007

Michael,
If you took 'hidden agendas' out of the equation, I imagine 2/3 of the arguments on these boards - right and left - would have no basis

Fair enough, but the left are more guilty of it than the right. On this board, with this Prime Minister. Guess that makes sense with the party in power taking the majority of the hits.

Michael Hardner · December 18, 2007

Fair enough, but the left are more guilty of it than the right. On this board, with this Prime Minister. Guess that makes sense with the party in power taking the majority of the hits.

This major division on this board isn't left/right, but bad debater/good debater.

I'm probably somewhat left-of-centre but I will go after a bad left-wing debater with equal or more zeal.

JerrySeinfeld · December 18, 2007

When I started this post I was thinking more in terms of Allah.

Off the top of my head I can think of Muslims compaining publically about:

Chocolate Swirls on top of ice cream which offend Allah (they were successful in getting it banned, by the way)

Sex blow up dolls named mustafa shag that offend Allah (kind of Ironic - the "blow up" doll part donchta think?)

Soccer jerseys that offend Allah

Opinion columns that offend Muslims

The English Flag no longer flown at prisons because they offend Allah

Danish Cartoons that offend Allah

Documentary films that offend Allah (by the way - the filmmaker was assasinated by a Danish Muslim)

Since when does anyone have the right to immigrate (by choice) into a free society and start demanding that people NOT OFFEND them (or Allah) and then commit atrocious acts of rioting, murder and violence to enforce their demands?

Isn't that a bit presumptuous? Again I will point out: it is obvious that certain Islamic folks (perhaps not all) have studied the nuances of our "tolerance" very well and know how to take advantage of it.

In fact - during the arrests of the boys who plotted to behead our Prime minister, I read that a suggested tactic by radicals who find themselves under arrest is to complain of abuse by police - sure enough that's what we saw and continue to see.

They are very cunning in recognizing what works and doesn' to get what they want in our society.

guyser · December 18, 2007

So you know people's true motivations rather than what they were claiming to be their motivations. That's what you gotta love about the left, when you come up with a coherent and defensible argument out comess *scary* *scary* *scary*/ hidden agenda.

A religious institution? Marriage is not a religious institution .

No attempt to defenddrunk driving. Don't know how it is *infinitely worse* than stoned driving though. Do explain.

Simply cant. There is no test that I am aware of that can measure it roadside.(as of 2006)

The Canadian Addiction Survey reported that of the responses they recd indicating above avergae cannabis use, also coincided with higher than normal alcohol use.

More can be had here.....

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2004/doc_31164.html

Black Dog · December 18, 2007

Fair enough, but the left are more guilty of it than the right.

Proof?

When I started this post I was thinking more in terms of Allah.

You were? No way! How brave of you to sally forth into uncharted territory that way. A real trailblazer, you.

Michael Bluth · December 18, 2007

Proof?

... of the left being more guilty than the right of accusations of hidden agendas.

Evidence, just from the first page of the Federal Politics forum. All have accusations of a hidden agenda against the right. Many of these threads have that as an implied premise of the original post. Proof enough for you?

Does John Baird have an education? Thread

Income supports for Livestock industry Thread

Global Warming Thread

Mulroney's Testimony in Parliament Thread

Tory Connections Lead Thread

Former Progressive Conservatives Thread

Was Brian Mulroney a Crook? Thread