Wild Bill Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Not allowing people to start lynch mobs is worse than lynch mobs? I beg to differ. Starting lynch mobs? Yeah, right. That's what you were talking about! I re-read your post. I think you are stretching it a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Telling me what I can and cannot say is absolutely limiting my freedom of expression. But by you telling me that you are limiting my freedom of expression ! You should know I can tell you to shut up and it does nothing to limit your freedom of expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 And is that acceptable? Touche ! ya got me there! No it isnt, but it would be if the anger is there because of it (and I highly doubt it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachary Young Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 "You should know I can tell you to shut up and it does nothing to limit your freedom of expression. " I agree. On the other hand, the government giving out fines, and telling people if you do not stop saying things you will go to jail absolutely DOES threaten my freedom of expression. The 'free' in 'free expression' means 'free from government interference'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Ah!...so there really are victimized and disadvantaged groups. Or, to be precise: there's one. That's certainly not what I was implying. I oppose all forms of preferential treatment (affirmative action, quotas, etc) in order to somehow rectify some perceived "systemic discrimination". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 We get it bob, you're an angry white guy who got beat. Probably by a disabled criminal woman no doubt. I'd be angry too! More like embarassed but thats just me. The point is that no arbitrarily-defined group in Canada deserves any special treatment over others with respect to employment/welfare advantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 "You should know I can tell you to shut up and it does nothing to limit your freedom of expression. " I agree. On the other hand, the government giving out fines, and telling people if you do not stop saying things you will go to jail absolutely DOES threaten my freedom of expression. The 'free' in 'free expression' means 'free from government interference'. Well the govt does no such thing. If you make an expression that is likely to reult in tangible harm to someone, you will be held accountable. You calling my mother a ****head or somesuch is not what this is about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 The point is that no arbitrarily-defined group in Canada deserves any special treatment over others with respect to employment/welfare advantages. For the most part, but sadly we have employers who would and have, shunned entire groups of people due to colour religion or creed. Thus we have what we have. DO we do away with the "creed colour sex religion" part of firing or hiring too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachary Young Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 "Well the govt does no such thing." The CHRC does nothing but this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 "Well the govt does no such thing." The CHRC does nothing but this. No they dont. And I am not a fan either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 That's certainly not what I was implying. Closer to stating outright, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) If you make an expression that is likely to reult in tangible harm to someone, you will be held accountable. The likelihood of harm is no longer a benchmark. The blind individual with a seeing-eye dog who took an allergic bed-and-breakfast owner in front of a human rights tribunal faced no tangible harm. Ditto the heckling lesbian who took to the HRT a comedian who heckled back; the medical marijuana smoker who took to the HRT a bar owner who didn't want a patron smoking weed on his premises; the pre-op transsexual who took to the HRT an all-female gym owner who didn't think his patrons would be comfortable with a penis in the locker room; etc., etc. [sp] Edited September 16, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 The government should not be allowed to censor unpopular speech. Hate speech and inciting violence is not "unpopular" speech. They're dangerous speech that threatens the safety and security of an entire social group, which in turn threatens society as a whole due to the interrelated nature of those groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Our all too often claimed privilege does not excuse over punishing us.Explain to me who "us" is and how "us" is being punished because I'm not sure I understand your premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 The likelihood of harm is no longer a benchmark. No longer?Or no longer just one of the benchmarks considering your other references. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 The likelihood of harm is no longer a benchmark. The blind individual with a seeing-eye dog who took an allergic bed-and-breakfast owner in front of a human rights tribunal faced no tangible harm. The harm is that a seeing-eye dog is an accessibility tool. It's really unfortunate that the owner is allergic and I don't know that I agree with this particular case (due to the personal nature of B&Bs), but if a hotel didn't allow a customer to bring their seeing eye dog, this absolutely should go before the CHRC. The problem with the B&B is that they're required to follow the same rules as hotels in most jurisdictions. In other words, if you're allergic to dogs, you're in the wrong business because you cannot provide full accessibility. Just like you would not be given a license to operate a new B&B if you couldn't provide ramps for wheelchairs and whatnot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachary Young Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 If a business doesn't want to let anyone set foot on their property, that is their right. The idea that someone must be forced by the government to let someone else into their home is absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachary Young Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Hate speech should be allowed as should "inciting violence". It is EXACTLY unpopular opinions that need protecting. There should be no limitations on free speech. Ultimately it comes down to property rights. If someone doesn't want you saying something in their home, or on their business, they have a right to kick you out. But the government should never say that you cannot say x, because it's offensive or for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 For the most part, but sadly we have employers who would and have, shunned entire groups of people due to colour religion or creed. Thus we have what we have. DO we do away with the "creed colour sex religion" part of firing or hiring too? Sure, there are plenty of minority-owned businesses who hire their own over others. What do you propose we do about them? The reality is that in today's Canada, there is no obstacle of discrimination faced by any group that needs additional protections above and beyond the CCRF. Affirmative action and quota policies are racist and must be removed in all circumstances (for public employment, schools, and everything else). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Hate speech should be allowed as should "inciting violence". It is EXACTLY unpopular opinions that need protecting. There should be no limitations on free speech. Ultimately it comes down to property rights. If someone doesn't want you saying something in their home, or on their business, they have a right to kick you out. But the government should never say that you cannot say x, because it's offensive or for whatever reason. "Hate speech" is such a politicized term that is has now become meaningless. My attacks on the inferiority of Islamic/Arabic culture and its barbarism will regularly be decried by the rats on the left as hate speech. I am regularly described as a Nazi and as genocidal in this forum, as an example. In other words, criticizing sick practises that are primarily (or exclusively) associated with a particular group is now "hate speech", with the truth of the statement not being relevant. "Hate speech" is just a bullshit term used by the government in order to engage in thought control. It's Orwellian to the core. Incitement to violence is something else, however. Calling on others to be violent towards members of some identifiable group, in my view, certainly borders on the crime of uttering threats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) The harm is that a seeing-eye dog is an accessibility tool. It's really unfortunate that the owner is allergic and I don't know that I agree with this particular case (due to the personal nature of B&Bs), but if a hotel didn't allow a customer to bring their seeing eye dog, this absolutely should go before the CHRC. The problem with the B&B is that they're required to follow the same rules as hotels in most jurisdictions. In other words, if you're allergic to dogs, you're in the wrong business because you cannot provide full accessibility. Just like you would not be given a license to operate a new B&B if you couldn't provide ramps for wheelchairs and whatnot. You don't see the irony in a person who wants to operate a bed-and-breakfast being barred from doing so because his disability prevents him from accommodating people with a disability? Why doesn't the blind potential patron dispense with the dog and employ a non-allergenic cane, out of consideration for those who are allergic to dogs? (Or use a seeing-eye horse, as, bizarrely enough, has been done for a blind Muslim, who, for religious reasons, refuses to use a dog.) It just goes on and on... Regardless, there's also the question of what's meant by "harm". Is it being tormented - either physically or mentally - as I assumed you guyser meant when you he said it? Or, is it being inconvenienced by having to find another accommodation where the owner isn't allergic to dogs, or has enough staff that can be around dogs so as to never be near it? ------ Apologies for the mix up. [correct] Edited September 17, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 If a business doesn't want to let anyone set foot on their property, that is their right. The idea that someone must be forced by the government to let someone else into their home is absurd. I agree completely. But it's different when it comes to public hiring practises. In other words, the public service should not reward, or conversely punish, any person(s) for belonging (or not belonging) to a particular group. For example, I shouldn't be awarded some special bonus points because I am Jewish when applying for a public position over another applicant who is a "ordinary white male". As far as private businesses go, private businesses should be able to deny service to whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. Unfortunately, this isn't the case in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Hate speech should be allowed as should "inciting violence".... the government should never say that you cannot say x, because it's offensive or for whatever reason. Inciting violence goes well beyond being offensive. It is downright dangerous. As I said, there's never, in a society, been absolute freedom of speech. Even in the US (which I raise only because you did as an example for Canada to follow), it is illegal to utter threats against the president, punnishable by up to five years incarceration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 The harm is that a seeing-eye dog is an accessibility tool. It's really unfortunate that the owner is allergic and I don't know that I agree with this particular case (due to the personal nature of B&Bs), but if a hotel didn't allow a customer to bring their seeing eye dog, this absolutely should go before the CHRC. The problem with the B&B is that they're required to follow the same rules as hotels in most jurisdictions. In other words, if you're allergic to dogs, you're in the wrong business because you cannot provide full accessibility. Just like you would not be given a license to operate a new B&B if you couldn't provide ramps for wheelchairs and whatnot. Any private business should be permitted to deny service to anyone for whatever reasons they choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) The harm is that a seeing-eye dog is an accessibility tool. It's really unfortunate that the owner is allergic and I don't know that I agree with this particular case (due to the personal nature of B&Bs), but if a hotel didn't allow a customer to bring their seeing eye dog, this absolutely should go before the CHRC. The problem here is the Law of Unintended Consequences. We do write them fairly well, however, once in awhile they get it wrong. The B&B owner is allergic, but should have done something to help out. (maybe he did., I dont know, but there are ways to handle it differently) The law people wanted on the books re face coverings. No one thought...oops, motorcycle riders, skiers,halloween comstumes all can or have faces covered. And one I was involved with this past summer. Ran Bingo game for the Parks and Rec at my cottage. Been going on for over 50 years, primarliry for the kids and mom and dads. Teens bail when they hit 16 obviously. All monies go back to Parks and Rec to fund stuff, canoe teaching, new swim buoys etc etc. Admission, 50 cents, special cards 25 cents. Kids love, parents love it sine Junior is amused for 3 hours and it costs dad $3. Clean fun entertainement. The OPP showed up and asked me for the gambling licence. What are you talking about. The recd a complaint about underage kids gambling. We were shut down for the rest of the season after that nights game. Pretty silly, but unintended consequences came into play. Edited September 16, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.