Atheists are UnCanadian

[-1=e^ipi]

There have been two recent Canadian MPs who have made comments regarding the so called 'charter of rights and freedoms' and Canadian values by Canadian MPs that have me a bit concerned.

First was by Chong (who is a Christian Conservative). On twitter he has said, "This was an attack on real Canadian values enshrined in the Charter." He has also made similar comments in debates indicating that the Charter essentially defines Canadian values (although he has made additional comments indicating that supporting an entirely public health care system is a Canadian value).

 

Second was by Omar Alghabra (Muslim Liberal), who tweeted:

 

Both have a clear message. Canadian values = Charter. The implication is pretty clear. Those that do not agree with our charter are unCanadian.
 

There are many problems with this, but the one I wanted to highlight in this thread is the preamble to the Charter:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God."

 

So if the charter defines Canadian values, and the charter contains recognition of the supremacy (and implicitly existence) of God, then recognition of the supremacy of God is a Canadian value. And given that atheists do not recognize the supremacy of god, they do not agree with this Canadian value and are therefore unCanadian.

 

So what message does that send (from Chong and Alghabra)? That atheists don't belong here? That atheists are unwelcome? Because it clearly sends the message that atheists are unCanadian.

 

We already have so many violations of secularism in Canada, from God in our national anthem (cross in the French version), to God in the preamble, to Catholic School Systems like in Ontario, to the crucifix in the Quebec national assembly, to funding of mosques using infrastructure spending, to funding of religious Champlains. Yet now we are adding this kind of rhetoric from theist MPs from our two largest parties? In addition we have M103, which condemns islamophobia, a term which arguably includes the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre (where atheists like Stephane Charbonnier where killed for drawing cartoons), or the actions of Bill Maher (also an atheist). And also given that Alexandre Bissonette liked Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens on facebook, there is a good change that he is an atheist, and thus there is the potential for the LPC to push an anti-islamophobia motion that targets atheists in a form of a backlash against the actions of Bissonette.

 

Thoughts?

Edited February 18, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[?Impact]

While I do think that to a large part the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does reflect our values, that does not mean it is perfect and I agree 100% with it. As you point out the "supremacy of God" is certainly one controversial part of the Charter for many Canadians. Unlike the second amendment folks in the US, with their own very corrupted logic, I believe that the Canadian Constitution must be a living document and evolve as we as a society evolve. If Canada is to continue as a nation over the long term, then the "supremacy of God" will disappear from our Charter. It will take both true leadership combined with the right timing in societal evolution to tackle that. We recognize that the Charter is part of the Constitution Act, and we as a nation understand that that the Constitution is amendable as it clearly provides for. It will of course take real leadership to tackle changes.

So no, I do not condemn Chong & Alghabra for referencing the Charter as an expression of Canadian values. While not perfect, it does a descent job of reflecting our values and I have yet to see anything better. Yes, you and I might draw up something that we agree with but until we get broad agreement and support for something then it is of little value. Let's remember that Stephane Charbonnier is a victim, not a hero. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is possible to disagree with the cartoon Charbonnier drew and at the same time condemning those who took his life. Just because you have the right to express an opinion, does not mean you should express that opinion and that everyone must agree with it. I should have the right to walk up to a black man and call him a n***er, does that mean it is acceptable that I do that? If that man gets angry and lashes out at me violently, then he should be arrested and charged with a crime but does that automatically make me a hero?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

While I do think that to a large part the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does reflect our values, that does not mean it is perfect and I agree 100% with it. As you point out the "supremacy of God" is certainly one controversial part of the Charter for many Canadians. Unlike the second amendment folks in the US, with their own very corrupted logic, I believe that the Canadian Constitution must be a living document and evolve as we as a society evolve. If Canada is to continue as a nation over the long term, then the "supremacy of God" will disappear from our Charter. It will take both true leadership combined with the right timing in societal evolution to tackle that. We recognize that the Charter is part of the Constitution Act, and we as a nation understand that that the Constitution is amendable as it clearly provides for. It will of course take real leadership to tackle changes.

So no, I do not condemn Chong & Alghabra for referencing the Charter as an expression of Canadian values. While not perfect, it does a descent job of reflecting our values and I have yet to see anything better. Yes, you and I might draw up something that we agree with but until we get broad agreement and support for something then it is of little value. Let's remember that Stephane Charbonnier is a victim, not a hero. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is possible to disagree with the cartoon Charbonnier drew and at the same time condemning those who took his life. Just because you have the right to express an opinion, does not mean you should express that opinion and that everyone must agree with it. I should have the right to walk up to a black man and call him a n***er, does that mean it is acceptable that I do that? If that man gets angry and lashes out at me violently, then he should be arrested and charged with a crime but does that automatically make me a hero?

Two wrongs do not make a right, but in your example, there was only one wrong.  There is nothing wrong with exercising one's freedom of expression.

To compare criticism of Islam to walking up to a black man and calling him a n***er is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on here.  Not as ridiculous as comparing drawing a cartoon to killing a cartoonist, though.  You're on a roll.

Religion should be afforded no protection, by the law, from criticism, no matter how offensive.  Actually, no-one at all, regardless of belief or lack thereof, should be afforded protection, by the law,  from being offended.

 

[?Impact]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There is nothing wrong with exercising one's freedom of expression.

Calling a black man a n***er is exercising one's freedom of expression, and yes there is something wrong with it. Drawing a cartoon that is offensive is also exercising one's freedom of expression, and yes there is something wrong with it as well. Neither of them however are crimes, but violence is a crime.

Where exactly did I say religion should be afforded protection by the law from criticism? Stop making up things and saying I said them.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Calling a black man a n***er is exercising one's freedom of expression, and yes there is something wrong with it. Drawing a cartoon that is offensive is also exercising one's freedom of expression, and yes there is something wrong with it as well. Neither of them however are crimes, but violence is a crime.

Where exactly did I say religion should be afforded protection by the law from criticism? Stop making up things and saying I said them.

I didn't say you said that religion should be afforded protection by the law from criticism.  Stop making up things and saying I said them.  

Drawing a cartoon of Muhammad might be wrong to you.  It isn't to me.  Calling a black man a n***er is wrong to both of us, but not to some others.  Denying the Holocaust is wrong to me, but not to a lot of people.  Regardless, all should be protected under the law.  When I talk of freedom of expression I'm talking about an individual's right to express themselves without censure by the law. There is nothing wrong with that, regardless of one's personal feelings towards the views expressed.  That there is something wrong with the view being expressed is irrelevant.  I always figured that was the whole point.

Censure by others, within the confines of the law, is simply their right too.

Edited February 18, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[?Impact]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Drawing a cartoon of Muhammad might be wrong to you.  It isn't to me.

You are aware that it is offensive to others, in fact highly offensive. That is what makes it wrong. Yes it is freedom of expression, but that does not make it right. There are many things that are protected by law that are not right, and others where laws were created or imagined in order to stop them. Dress codes are against freedom of expression, and in some cases laws have been created to enforce them. I have no problem with nudity, it is natural, it is freedom of expression. I accept however that there are people offended by it, and I do not walk down the street in the summer without any clothes on. What makes it wrong is that it causes offense to some/many people, in fact people who have had sway to create what I consider completely bad laws. I accept that I cannot change civilization overnight.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

You are aware that it is offensive to others, in fact highly offensive. That is what makes it wrong. Yes it is freedom of expression, but that does not make it right. There are many things that are protected by law that are not right, and others where laws were created or imagined in order to stop them. Dress codes are against freedom of expression, and in some cases laws have been created to enforce them. I have no problem with nudity, it is natural, it is freedom of expression. I accept however that there are people offended by it, and I do not walk down the street in the summer without any clothes on. What makes it wrong is that it causes offense to some/many people, in fact people who have had sway to create what I consider completely bad laws. I accept that I cannot change civilization overnight.

We're not trying to change civilization overnight, we're arguing on the internet.  I know my opinion here isn't going to make a difference.

I don't care what people find highly offensive.  It's tough.  Be offended.  Write a letter to the editor. 

I'm an equal opportunity offense defender.  I found myself defending the right of Muslims to protest at the homecoming British soldiers in Wootton Basset, England the other day. 

Edited February 18, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[-1=e^ipi]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Let's remember that Stephane Charbonnier is a victim, not a hero. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Not a hero? Wrongs?

 

He is a hero. When people like Stephane draw offensive things, they are indirectly protecting our freedom because they are helping to protect the freedom of speech of the most offensive forms of speech by performing the most offensive forms of speech.

 

As for wrongs, there is nothing wrong about drawing cartoons, or challenging medieval religious superstitions. Given that religion is a terrible plague on society, I'd argue that what Stephane did was extremely moral and just.

[?Impact]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Be offended.  Write a letter to the editor. 

Exactly, one has to respond to being offended in a non-criminal manner. That doesn't make being offensive right. We need to exercise judgement and find appropriate ways to criticize that which we disagree with. I disagreed with Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. I however choose to express that disagreement in forums like this one, or by writing letters to my Parliamentary representatives. I did not stand on the bridges crossing the 401 (highway of heroes) as the 150+ dead bodies of soldiers were returned home with a big sign saying "F*ck you murdering scum, you got what you deserved". I should have the freedom of expression to do so, but it is not right. I have the decency to understand that the soldiers are following orders, the knowledge to understand that many of them may not have even lifted a weapon, and finally the respect for the families that lost a loved one.

[-1=e^ipi]

55 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Drawing a cartoon that is offensive is also exercising one's freedom of expression, and yes there is something wrong with it as well.

So apparently doing anything offensive is wrong.

 

Some religious people find gay marriage offensive. I guess gay marriage is wrong. I'll let all my gay friends know. Thanks for this information.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

He is a hero. When people like Stephane draw offensive things, they are indirectly protecting our freedom because they are helping to protect the freedom of speech of the most offensive forms of speech by performing the most offensive forms of speech.

Complete and utter nonsense. They are not protecting, or even championing the protection freedom of speech. They are abusing that freedom in order to be offensive.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Some religious people find gay marriage offensive. I guess gay marriage is wrong.

Yes, you have the right to find gay marriage wrong. In fact you have the freedom to express that opinion. If you choose to express it in an offensive manner, say interrupting a gay marriage ceremony, then you are wrong. Take your protest to the street, write your Congressman, etc. Those are all valid expressions of your freedom of speech.

[-1=e^ipi]

Apparently being offensive is abusing freedom. What kind of warped view of the world is this?

 

The fact is, there are some theists offended by the mere existence of atheists. Does that mean that the only way to not abuse freedom is to kill myself? Same can be said about gay people, which groups like ISIS find offensive.

[?Impact]

Warped is being intentionally offensive just to provoke a reaction. On the Internet we call it trolling, and consider it wrong. Abusing your freedom of expression only hurts others who exercise their freedom properly. That does not make one a hero, but exactly the opposite.

[-1=e^ipi]

If you think Charlie Hebdo is just about provoking a reaction, you horribly misunderstand it.

[Wilber]

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, you have the right to find gay marriage wrong. In fact you have the freedom to express that opinion. If you choose to express it in an offensive manner, say interrupting a gay marriage ceremony, then you are wrong. Take your protest to the street, write your Congressman, etc. Those are all valid expressions of your freedom of speech.

So how is that different from calling a black person the N word or drawing a cartoon? It is not illegal (nor should it be) to express an opinion regardless of how offensive it is. It is illegal to advocate or commit violence against someone. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Exactly, one has to respond to being offended in a non-criminal manner. That doesn't make being offensive right. We need to exercise judgement and find appropriate ways to criticize that which we disagree with. I disagreed with Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. I however choose to express that disagreement in forums like this one, or by writing letters to my Parliamentary representatives. I did not stand on the bridges crossing the 401 (highway of heroes) as the 150+ dead bodies of soldiers were returned home with a big sign saying "F*ck you murdering scum, you got what you deserved". I should have the freedom of expression to do so, but it is not right. I have the decency to understand that the soldiers are following orders, the knowledge to understand that many of them may not have even lifted a weapon, and finally the respect for the families that lost a loved one.

It doesn't matter whether being offensive is right or not,  that's your call and shouldn't apply to anyone else.  What matters is the right to be offensive.

30 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Complete and utter nonsense. They are not protecting, or even championing the protection freedom of speech. They are abusing that freedom in order to be offensive.

I disagree with this.  Some Muslims tried to dictate what non-Muslims should and should not do, and as such, they had every right to stand up for their freedom to draw whatever they wanted.

Edited February 18, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So how is that different from calling a black person the N word or drawing a cartoon? It is not illegal (nor should it be) to express an opinion regardless of how offensive it is. It is illegal to advocate or commit violence against someone. 

Again you are equating legal with right. They are very different issues. Its not illegal to go to school in a dirty torn shirt, but you mom taught you that it is not right.

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Some Muslims tried to dictate what non-Muslims should and should not do, and as such, they had every right to stand up for their freedom to draw whatever they wanted.

No, just because some Muslims do wrong things is not an excuse for you to offend many Muslims who do not. Find a better way of expressing your opinion.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No, just because some Muslims do wrong things is not an excuse for you to offend many Muslims who do not. Find a better way of expressing your opinion.

Fundamental disagreement here.  Muslims have no right whatsoever to dictate what non-Muslims can or cannot do, and as such, any response to such a diktat is perfectly valid, and should be supported wholeheartedly.  Offense be damned.

Edited February 18, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[?Impact]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Fundamental disagreement here.  Muslims have no right whatsoever to dictate what non-Muslims can or cannot do, and as such, any response to such a diktat is pefectly valid, and should be supported wholeheartedly.  Offemse be damned.

and therefore I can be as offensive I want about your sister, just because. Your logical is completely flawed.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

and therefore I can be as offensive I want about your sister, just because. Your logical is completely flawed.

It's not.  You can.  You would probably be an *******, but that's not illegal either.  I would dislike you for it.  I would not shoot you for it.

What is it about freedom of speech/expression that is so difficult for some people to grasp?

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they insult someone's sister - Blaise Pascal

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

What is it about freedom of speech/expression that is so difficult for some people to grasp?

 

The part about offensive speech apparently.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's not.  You can.  You would probably be an *******, but that's not illegal either.  I would dislike you for it.  I would not shoot you for it.

What is it about freedom of speech/expression that is so difficult for some people to grasp?

You answered the question yourself. Don't be an *******, because that is wrong. It might be legal, but that doesn't make it right. Abuse your freedoms and you are not a hero for others who exercise them properly, you are hurting them as well.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You answered the question yourself. Don't be an *******, because that is wrong. It might be legal, but that doesn't make it right. Abuse your freedoms and you are not a hero for others who exercise them properly, you are hurting them as well.

By all means don't be an ****** if you don't want to be.  My sister will be relieved.  Your right exists, nonetheless.

Edited February 18, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[Wilber]

24 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Again you are equating legal with right. They are very different issues. Its not illegal to go to school in a dirty torn shirt, but you mom taught you that it is not right.

 

No I'm not, I was explaining the difference. What is "right" or "wrong", offensive or not,  is merely an expression of current correctness in a particular society. The law is the law.