The right not to be offended?

[Michael Hardner]

Seinfeld,

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.

Now look who's offended...

Nothing sourced, and no supporting links in your post.... hmmm... I can see at least one falsehood here, maybe there are others...

Some of the things you're talking about involve putting pressure on businesses to change their practices. In that case, you need to complain to the businesses for caving in and not following principles if that's how you feel. Don't buy the product if you're as offended as you seem to be.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Seinfeld,

Now look who's offended...

Nothing sourced, and no supporting links in your post.... hmmm... I can see at least one falsehood here, maybe there are others...

Some of the things you're talking about involve putting pressure on businesses to change their practices. In that case, you need to complain to the businesses for caving in and not following principles if that's how you feel. Don't buy the product if you're as offended as you seem to be.

et's first address the core issue - societal acceptence of "tolerance bullies"

[Black Dog]

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

So by "the left" you meant, like, two posters. Okay....

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?

I thought you were looking for accusations of hidden agendas, not implications thereof. If the latter, I'm sure I could dig up an equal number of the same wrt to the left and their hidden agenda to swamp white Christian society with godless brown immigrant hordes. But I don't wanna.

[BubberMiley]

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.

I agree that this is why it is against the law, but I don't think it's a good reason. Although it may be true that our economy would suffer terribly if the black market were to collapse, sustaining organized crime is bad for all of us. The CPC may feel it's necessary to maintain the status quo because they find election financing laws too restrictive, but infringing on people's rights to smoke an innocuous plant just to ensure a tax-free income is just plain wrong.

[BubberMiley]

Sacrament in the Catholic church. With a sacrament being a core and fundamental part of the Catholic church's canon of beliefs.

So work on a reliable roadside test for detecting stoned driving before decriminalization/legalization.

Why? You actually believe the laws are effective at reducing consumption? You obviously didn't attend my junior high.

[BubberMiley]

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.

What is the difference between what you call "incremental conservatism" and a hidden agenda?

[DrGreenthumb]

When it comes to Cannabis you can only get so high, once you have reached this plateau, you can not get more high by smoking more. Its not like alcohol where you continue to get more and more impaired the more you drink, until of course you die from alcohol poisoning. You will be no more "stoned from 10 joints than you would be from 2.

At this plateau studies have have shown the level of impairment even in extreme cases to be only equal the equivelant of a .05 level of alcohol. That is not enough to fail an impairment test. Before we start charging people with driving impaired by Cannabis please provide some actual evidence that cannabis is a significant impairment factor. Alcohol is by any measure far more impairing than cannabis. Alcohol has been PROVEN to impair. I would challenge anyone here to any test of motor skills and hand eye coordination after you drink 3 beers and I'll smoke three gram joints. We could repeat the contest after one more drink and one more joint for each of us respectively until you are lying on the ground in a puddle of your own piss and puke and I am cleaning up your mess. When I'm done, I'll kick some ass on Xbox Live and eat a bag of chips.

We don't keep antihistamines illegal until we cme up with a road side test for those.

That is a very lame excuse for caging human beings.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So by "the left" you meant, like, two posters. Okay....

I thought you were looking for accusations of hidden agendas, not implications thereof. If the latter, I'm sure I could dig up an equal number of the same wrt to the left and their hidden agenda to swamp white Christian society with godless brown immigrant hordes. But I don't wanna.

Nobody accuses the left of an "agenda" as described above. Rather just stupidity dressed up as academic progressivism. ie. Rationalizing anything that represents the "anti-USA".

[Michael Bluth]

What is the difference between what you call "incremental conservatism" and a hidden agenda?

Publicly pronouncing what you will do, then doing it, is not hidden by definition.

Announcing small/incremental changes to the policy direction of the Government is what Harper has done.

See the difference?

[White Doors]

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.

No one said that so stop making things up. I'm also not a social conservative.

If the NDP were really for protecting the individual rights of the children, why did they vote AGAINST the changing of the age of consent?

You don't know or don't care?

[charter.rights]

No one said that so stop making things up. I'm also not a social conservative.

If the NDP were really for protecting the individual rights of the children, why did they vote AGAINST the changing of the age of consent?

You don't know or don't care?

Perhaps the NDP voting against the change is a result of being fed up with the Conservatives always trying to create new laws and regulations to legislate morality. That isn't the role of government IMO.

[Michael Bluth]

Perhaps the NDP voting against the change is a result of being fed up with the Conservatives always trying to create new laws and regulations to legislate morality.

Any vote on a particular piece of legislation should be based on the merits of the legislation itself.

It's not outrageous to legislate an end to 40 year olds being able to have 'consensual sex' with 14 year olds.

'Being fed up' with what the Government is 'always' trying to do isn't the role of ethical and responsible legislators.

[charter.rights]

Any vote on a particular piece of legislation should be based on the merits of the legislation itself.

It's not outrageous to legislate an end to 40 year olds being able to have 'consensual sex' with 14 year olds.

'Being fed up' with what the Government is 'always' trying to do isn't the role of ethical and responsible legislators.

Sure it is. It is the role of the opposition to try to keep the government in check from superfluous legislation. When a government is in a minority position then the citizenry has mandated that they do not entirely trust the governing party. That makes the role of the opposition much more important on critical matters.

The government's role IMO is to protect the the lives of Canadians and to distribute the wealth. Unfortunately the right wing when given some power has always seem this as an opportunity to impose conservative Christian values on citizens. While there may be an argument to be made about 40 year olds with 14 year olds, is is neither an issue of safety or protection of the legal rights of the 14 year olds. It is nothing more than an attempt by the conservatives to legislate something that is morally repugnant.

And before you attempt to argue that the under-14 laws are based on morality let me point out that professionals long ago determined that the majority of 13 year olds and under do not have the mental capacity to understand the implications of having sex, period. The law therefore protects their rights from exploitation.

[Michael Bluth]

Sure it is. It is the role of the opposition to try to keep the government in check from superfluous legislation.

And doing so responsibly is the role of the opposition.

While there may be an argument to be made about 40 year olds with 14 year olds, is is neither an issue of safety or protection of the legal rights of the 14 year olds. It is nothing more than an attempt by the conservatives to legislate something that is morally repugnant.

It is morally repugnant to try and stop 40 year olds from having sex with 14 year olds? Wow, what an interesting set of moral sensibilities you have.

[Wild Bill]

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

Why bother? This idea of establishing some sort of legal limit of intoxication has always seemed a very clumsy instrument, at least to me. You get into arguments about individual tolerances, body weight and most important, a distinction between a legal tort being committed by someone sober or drunk/stoned.

Why not simply deal with negative results? If you cause an accident involving death, injury or damage to someone else then you pay for it, period! Who cares if you were intoxicated? You got YOURSELF intoxicated! We get distracted by whether or not the accused was "capable of intent".

We also have incidents where someone who is LEGALLY intoxicated as opposed to being truly impaired taking the blame for an accident involving a sober but STUPID driver! If you blow over .08 then you usually take the rap, end of story. Is this fair?

Some claim that our present approach is justified for its deterrent effect. I'll let its own success stand as a rebuttal.

[White Doors]

Perhaps the NDP voting against the change is a result of being fed up with the Conservatives always trying to create new laws and regulations to legislate morality. That isn't the role of government IMO.

So you think it should be legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old girl?

Please clarify?

perhaps you would feel better if there were no age of consent rules at all?

[White Doors]

While there may be an argument to be made about 40 year olds with 14 year olds, is is neither an issue of safety or protection of the legal rights of the 14 year olds. It is nothing more than an attempt by the conservatives to legislate something that is morally repugnant.

I see, so it is safe for a 14 year old to cavort with a 40 year old pervert?

You think that would be an equal relationship? No Chances of exploitation going on there eh?

Do you think murder is morally repugnant? The conservatives do and have laws against it. fascists eh?

[charter.rights]

So you think it should be legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old girl?

Please clarify?

perhaps you would feel better if there were no age of consent rules at all?

Not at all. At the age of 14, the courts and professionals have determined there is a cognizant ability to decide to have sex. That is why it is still legal where there are minor differences in age. The law also provides that under 14 they do not have the ability, and therefore must be protected. However, as the differences in age increase the lines become blurred. Can a 19 year old and a 14 year old really experience love and commitment enough to enjoy sexual relations? What about a 20 year old and a 15 year old? While I agree that a 40 year old and a 14 year old is morally repugnant, I believe that it may be an infringement of a woman's right to decide who she may copulate with. Certainly you would agree that the government doe not have a right to tell your wife or girlfriend who she can and cannot have sex with? And so this intrusion must be justified, either by protecting the child in the woman or staying out of her bedroom. Once it is determined that the girl IS really a woman, then we have no say, no matter how immoral a relationship might be.

[charter.rights]

I see, so it is safe for a 14 year old to cavort with a 40 year old pervert?

You think that would be an equal relationship? No Chances of exploitation going on there eh?

Do you think murder is morally repugnant? The conservatives do and have laws against it. fascists eh?

Murder is a mental illness. There are laws against it but they do no good, once the law has been broken. Rather if it was treated as the sickness it really was and made attempts to legislate mandatory help for those that might kill or harm or threaten another, then we might have a better chance at reducing murders before they occurred.

[M.Dancer]

Not at all. At the age of 14, the courts and professionals have determined there is a cognizant ability to decide to have sex. That is why it is still legal where there are minor differences in age. The law also provides that under 14 they do not have the ability, and therefore must be protected.

They have the ability, what they don't have is the smarts. Even if one is 14 and the other is 15, what you have are two immature children having sex.

While I agree that a 40 year old and a 14 year old is morally repugnant, I believe that it may be an infringement of a woman's right to decide who she may copulate with.

Incorrect. A 14 year old is not a woman, or an adult. A 14 year old is a child. Furthermore, if we can infringe on the 40 year olds right to decide who they may copulate with, you can be damn sure we have the right to infinge on a child's non-existant right.

Edited December 19, 2007 by M.Dancer

[White Doors]

Not at all. At the age of 14, the courts and professionals have determined there is a cognizant ability to decide to have sex. That is why it is still legal where there are minor differences in age. The law also provides that under 14 they do not have the ability, and therefore must be protected. However, as the differences in age increase the lines become blurred. Can a 19 year old and a 14 year old really experience love and commitment enough to enjoy sexual relations? What about a 20 year old and a 15 year old? While I agree that a 40 year old and a 14 year old is morally repugnant, I believe that it may be an infringement of a woman's right to decide who she may copulate with. Certainly you would agree that the government doe not have a right to tell your wife or girlfriend who she can and cannot have sex with? And so this intrusion must be justified, either by protecting the child in the woman or staying out of her bedroom. Once it is determined that the girl IS really a woman, then we have no say, no matter how immoral a relationship might be.

A girl of 14 is still a dependant, ergo, they have no say. that's the point of the legislation.

sorry if it was over your head there. They don't have the 'right' to make that decision.

[White Doors]

Murder is a mental illness. There are laws against it but they do no good, once the law has been broken. Rather if it was treated as the sickness it really was and made attempts to legislate mandatory help for those that might kill or harm or threaten another, then we might have a better chance at reducing murders before they occurred.

I see, so all murderers are really sick. They are the victims here?

It's society's fault that we didn't treat them nice enough and they went and killed someone.

tsk tsk on society I suppose.

You really don't have much of a grasp on the human animal, do you?

[Michael Bluth]

You really don't have much of a grasp on the human animal, do you?

Perhaps it's too much time grasping his own animal. tee hee hee

[guyser]

A girl of 14 is still a dependant, ergo, they have no say. that's the point of the legislation.

sorry if it was over your head there. They don't have the 'right' to make that decision.

She is a dependant right up to age 21 (if in school). SO?

The legislation should follow the facts. Girls have sex at avg age of 14.5 , boys 14.1 Do we really want to charge these kids w a crime , a crime that most of us committed when we were young?

[charter.rights]

A girl of 14 is still a dependant, ergo, they have no say. that's the point of the legislation.

sorry if it was over your head there. They don't have the 'right' to make that decision.

You might want to check the law if you have any children.

At the age of 14, children are legally independent from their parents. In any legal actions against them they are entitled to their own legal representation and are not obligated to comply with their parents' wishes.

And yes at 14 they have the right to make that decision. Neither the courts nor their parents have a right to interfere.

Sorry that is over YOUR head.