Political Correctness

[jbg]

You're too young to remember the October crisis.....and probably not well read enough to know about Duplessis.....

Even I know about both the October FLQ crisis and Duplesse and I'm neither well-read nor knowledgeable about Canadian politics.

[DrGreenthumb]

You're too young to remember the October crisis.....and probably not well read enough to know about Duplessis.....

That has NOTHING at all to do with the CPC's lack of libertarianism. The CPC is hopelessly authoritarian, teetering on the edge of fascism. Trying to suggest that there is anything Libertarian about them is dishonest.

Anybody who would even suggest that the CPC is libertarian has no idea what the word means. No libertarian would advocate giving the state the power to imprison people over what foods they eat, or medicines they use.

There is not a libertarian in the world that would support 6 month mandaTORY minimum sentences for growing a single pot plant. Jail for gardening? real libertarian core you have there pfffft.

[M.Dancer]

The CPC is hopelessly authoritarian, teetering on the edge of fascism.

Don't try and pass off the most authoritarian government Canada has ever had as libertarian. That is just stupid.

Like I said, you're probably too young to remember the october crisis and not well read enough to know about Duplessis.

So go on and keeping making assinine remarks that only show how vacant and ridiculous your positions are.

[Rue]

Getting back to the original topic, I think a lot of this PC debate of course was triggered by the Charter of Rights. The wording in s.15 describing Equality rights was drafted deliberately and to differentiate Canadian constitutional rights from American ones. Read s.15. In the states, in their constitution, you are guaranteed freedom of speech as the paramount and overiding right over all other rights. The US politically is a melting pot where all cultures are expected to assimilate and place being American first and what-ever else they are second and that includes all languages other then English.

In Canada we did not do that either in 1867 or when the Charter was invoked. What our legusislators did before and after the Charter was to guarantee freedom of speech, but also guarantee the right be free from discrimination because of gender, race, culture-ethnicity, religion, or disability. The wording used in s.15 is supposed to protect all these groups in the event freedom of speech is used to discriminate against them-so its a bit different then in the US where its not set out that way. In the US the emphasis on America first is why they did not give as much wording or attention to placing the right to be in the groups I mentioned above at a same level of importance as freedom of speech.

And so in Canada, this approach necessarily generates legal conflicts that generate human rights complaints and legal cases questioning whether certain statements or actions violate s.15.

So we balance one's right to say what we want with the rights of all these groups to be free of unfair treatment or harassment and so, this politically correct debate arises.

Some feel the courts have become too intrusive in deciding what we can and can not see and feel that should only the role of legislators not Judges and as many of you feel, shouldn't even be the concern of legislators.

Others feel and quite strongly, that they have the right under s.15, to challenge any comment, remark, behaviour they feel discriminates, etc.

We have a criminal code, but its hate sections really are not intended to enforce s.15 and are more designed to prevent words that serve as an accessory to commiting a crime, i.e., the words can be directly linked to enabling the crime. Its very contextual. You can call someone a dirty.....and it might be done by a comedian doing a stand up routine-no problem. Say it in a crowd which then triggers violence, then it may be a crime in that it could be shown to have caused the riots. Of course to prove its a crime you have to show beyond doubt the person who uttered it intended to cause a riot or violence.

In civil law, to show words that are politically incorrect damage you and therefore you are entitled to receive compensation, you have to show on the balance of probabilities your injury directly resulted from the words. It comes out indirectly in unfair dismissal law suits, or legal battles over accommodation of disability or perceived disability at work, or actions of intolerance at work or restrictions to services others enjoy.

What many of you are concerned about are two things-what appears to be too much reliance on human rights complaints to dispute things said and/or the righteousness of the complainers.

In regards to the first, all I can say personally is I don't think its the words, I think its the context they are used in that determines whether they are criminal or anything else. Me personally I would prefer to err on the side that protects freedom of speech and where-ever possible debate any allegedely offensive comments openly.

I think it is far more beneficial and constructive to challenge offensive comments in candid debate then placing someone in jail for being offensive otherwise we all end up in jail. Its a slippery slope.

In Canada we have had two decisions R. v. Keegstra and the Zundel fiasco which are the only two blatant cases where politically offensive comments were not protected and contained. In keegstra's case he was not presenting personal opinions privately, he was bring them to a school and teaching them to students contrary to his school's curriculum. It was a specific case.

In the Zundel case there were also two things that made it like the Keegstra case exceptional. First of all he was not a Canadian citizen and that is a crucial distinction. He was arguing he should be protected by a state while at the same time insulting that state's citizens. But put that aside. It was not just his words. It was the fact that he went so far with his words to call all Jews liars and use words that clearly encouraged people to hate them which then led to his followers physically attacking Jews, blacks, Muslims, gays, on the street and vandalizing property. There was a link between the words and criminal acts. As well his followers sold drugs to finance their activities which was another link to crime.

As well he left messages on an answering machine and through the web which automatically involve federal legislation as to what can be broadcast. If the contents of those broadcasts is considered to incite hatred or interefere with s.15 rights, outside the criminal law, and human rights complaint process or the civil process for any person actually assaulted or who had their property damaged, there were federal broadcast regulations that were violated. The link to crimes and federal broadcast regulation violations led to his deportation not the actual words. It was how the words were used not the words themselves.

Another person could still say exactly what Zundel said but not run into the trouble Zundel did if they choose not to use the web site or telephone to broadcast certain words and choose not to use words that suggest to people they go out and hurt people. It is a fine line.

In the case of David Akinahew, I think they jumped the gun. Yes he said hateful words to the press, but he did not accumulate the kind of behaviour Zundel had over a prolonged period of time that could be shown to have incited crimes, nor did he teach what he said at a school.

What was also crucial was that the aboriginal community immediately denounced what he said and took proactive measures to meet with Jewish leaders publically. As far as I am concerned they did the best thing, have the community as a whole deal with the issue and condone the words. He was also stripped of his Order of Canada and lambasted by his peers.

Putting him in jail will not change what he said nor rehabilitate him. If anything it will make a martyr and victim out of him and enforce his views not discourage them.

I think we have to be careful not to make martyrs out of hate mongers and turn them into victims.

In his case it does not belong in court. If it could be shown his comments caused beatings of other crimes against Jews, then maybe if the Crown felt there was a sufficient link in cause and effect between the words and crimes. That was not the case here.

Sometimes to protect freedom of speech we have to let people say hateful things because if we over-react, that same process we use to over-react can be used to shut up good people as well.

I say freedom of speech should be curtailed in only exceptional circumstances, i.e., violent pornography, child pronography, or words that can directly be shown to calling on people to commit a crime.

To me human rights complaints were contemplated to challenge restricted access to government or other services, not shutting people up, and they are now used as a political tool to try shut people up which may not be what they were intended for.

[Brain Candy]

Oleg! Oleg! You can come back down now!

Im starting to see Oleg as a mad prophet living on top of a mountain, periodically descending to spread the holy word while us normals are trying to decipher what he actually means.

I say freedom of speech should be curtailed in only exceptional circumstances, i.e., violent pornography, child pronography, or words that can directly be shown to calling on people to commit a crime.

This would be better, leaves much less room for interpretation and no room for an angry rant being interpreted as hate.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Brain Candy

[Argus]

Gee with a name like DrGreenthumb, who would have guessed that I came here specifically for that purpose.

Don't try and pass off the most authoritarian government Canada has ever had as libertarian. That is just stupid.

Not nearly as stupid as calling it "the most authoritarian government Canada has ever had" when your knowledge of history clearly doesn't include much more than the discovery of the marihuana plant.

[August1991]

Not nearly as stupid as calling it "the most authoritarian government Canada has ever had" when your knowledge of history clearly doesn't include much more than the discovery of the marihuana plant.

An Internet forum amounts to a sophisticated form of washroom graffiti. Apparently, it attracts its share of one trick ponies, manic depressives and schizophrenics.

Anyhoo. I found this post recently and this seems a good thread to provide a link.

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely. Every time we fall in love, fight with our spouse, get upset about the influx of immigrants into our country, or go to church, we are, in part, behaving as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature—human nature.

This means two things. First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago. Second, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are shared, to a large extent, by all men or women, despite seemingly large cultural differences.

Human behavior is a product both of our innate human nature and of our individual experience and environment. In this article, however, we emphasize biological influences on human behavior, because most social scientists explain human behavior as if evolution stops at the neck and as if our behavior is a product almost entirely of environment and socialization. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways. Our preference for sweets and fats is an evolved psychological mechanism. We do not consciously choose to like sweets and fats; they just taste good to us.

The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.

Edited April 11, 2008 by August1991

[Argus]

That has NOTHING at all to do with the CPC's lack of libertarianism. The CPC is hopelessly authoritarian, teetering on the edge of fascism.

You're not entirely sane, are you.

[Brain Candy]

That has NOTHING at all to do with the CPC's lack of libertarianism. The CPC is hopelessly authoritarian, teetering on the edge of fascism.

90% of the time, comparing a group or idea to fascism or nazism means absolutely nothing. But it does provide slogans that make a the group or idea much less appealing at face value.

-The "Islamofascist" regimes must be stomped out now!

-Conservatives invaded Iraq, nazis invaded countries, they are clearly nazis!

-Liberals want more government, fascists had large government, liberals are fascists! Also National Socialists have SOCIALIST right in there name! I mean come on!

-Hitler was a vegetarian, etc.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Brain Candy

[Kitchener]

I found this post recently and this seems a good thread to provide a link.

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Thanks, that's an interesting article. It's more interesting for its venue, Psychology Today, which is not typically an arena for conservative rants.

It's unclear to me just what notion of political correctness the authors are working with, however, just as it's unclear with virtually everyone who complains about PC in my experience. Quite apart from the truly silly evolutionary psychology employed in some of the article's points, the authors seem to assume that it's an article of PC faith that no men like blond bombshells, or that polygyny isn't widespread. I don't recall seeing or hearing such claims in my life, but maybe I just haven't ever encountered the True PC-ers^TM.

What thoughtful people might have a problem with is Miller and Kanazawa's sloppy use of the idea of humans' natural inclinations, as if reflections on the socio-sexual behaviour of other primates tells us what's "natural" for humans. One thing that humans naturally do, one might observe, is form societies with rules, and one of the key things these rules tend to govern is marital and familial structure. It is far from obvious that any one set of such rules or structures should be regarded as more natural than any other -- be they polygamous or monogamous.

Anyhow... it's interesting and I'm glad you posted it. For my part, based on the thousands of complaints about political correctness that I've encountered (including those on this thread), I doubt that "PC" has a general usage consistent with any meaning much more precise than "stuff the complainer thinks is stupid".

[Canadian Blue]

That has NOTHING at all to do with the CPC's lack of libertarianism. The CPC is hopelessly authoritarian, teetering on the edge of fascism. Trying to suggest that there is anything Libertarian about them is dishonest.

I'm not sure, but I believe cannabis was illegal before the CPC came to power. Either way their's more to life than getting high off reefer, just because I can't snort cocaine off a prostitutes ass does not necessarily mean I am living in a fascist state.

[jbg]

I'm not sure, but I believe cannabis was illegal before the CPC came to power. Either way their's more to life than getting high off reefer, just because I can't snort cocaine off a prostitutes ass does not necessarily mean I am living in a fascist state.

Give that poster credit. At least that post didn't refer (directly) to cannabis or other now-illegal substances.

[Brain Candy]

The problem with reefer laws is most people who want to smoke it allready do, and there are a ton of them.. Why not fully legalize so we can at least tax it and try to enforce a minimum age? Right now it is about as useful as a sodomy law.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm not sure, but I believe cannabis was illegal before the CPC came to power. Either way their's more to life than getting high off reefer, just because I can't snort cocaine off a prostitutes ass does not necessarily mean I am living in a fascist state.

The chances of seeing the inside of a jail cell for personal possession or a small personal supply grow room were pretty slim under the Liberals, things have been pretty good for the past 15-20 years. It is the Conservatives who want to punish us "sinners" by passsing a law that requies a minimum 6 months in prison for growin a single cannabis plant. Don't even try to compare the Liberals with our current paternalistic authoritarian gov't.

I really have no desire to snort coke off a hookers ass but really don't see how its any of my business if someone else wants to.

it is authoritarian and fascist to cage people for growing a natural medicine. Cannabis is more effective medicine for a lot of ailments than most pharmaceuticals. pharma companies can sell synthetic cannabis legally so why all the fuss about people using a far less potent natural herb that works better?

[Qwerty]

Free speech is only for those who agree with the leftist ideals of the media and the minority protesters.

[Canadian Blue]

The chances of seeing the inside of a jail cell for personal possession or a small personal supply grow room were pretty slim under the Liberals, things have been pretty good for the past 15-20 years. It is the Conservatives who want to punish us "sinners" by passsing a law that requies a minimum 6 months in prison for growin a single cannabis plant. Don't even try to compare the Liberals with our current paternalistic authoritarian gov't.

I have a simple solution, don't grow a cannabis plant.

it is authoritarian and fascist to cage people for growing a natural medicine.

Most people that smoke it don't smoke it for medicinal purposes. It's usually college kids who want to get high while talking about Harper and Bush are the spawn of satan.

pharma companies can sell synthetic cannabis legally so why all the fuss about people using a far less potent natural herb that works better?

Outside of High Times magazine who says it works better. As well I think you don't know a thing about fascism, more or less because you've been priviledged to live in a liberal democracy your entire life and don't know any better.