Senator Lynn Beyak Suspended from Senate

[Argus]

7 hours ago, jacee said:

She should have removed those.

80,000 were still alive during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

http://www.iap-pei.ca/story-eng.php

38,000 submitted claims for serious physical, sexual and emotional abuse. 

Yes. That doesn't mean they all actually suffered serious physical, sexual or emotional abuse. They simply wanted the money which was being given out to pretty much anyone who applied and told a story. No evidence was required.

7 hours ago, jacee said:

Yes. And he lost.

I think it was the natives who lost. They've been going downhill ever since. Violent crime, alcoholism and drug abuse are now endemic on the reserves.

7 hours ago, jacee said:

She likely does. She's a racist idiot.

And yet 40% of Canadians say the same thing. Are they all racist idiots? In fact, visible minorities are more likely (42%) than whites (38%) to say too many visible minorities are immigrating to Canada. 

[jacee]

4 hours ago, scribblet said:

But for saying pretty much what I have written above, Lynn Beyak has been suspended from Canada's Senate.

Gunter is a racist idiot and a liar: That's not why Beyak was suspended. She was suspended for her persistent and prolonged refusal to remove some constituents' racist letters from her GOVERNMENT website.

She was first kicked off a Senate Aboriginal committee, then she was  kicked out of the Conservative caucus and Party by Andrew Scheer, who read out one of the offensive letters and called it "racist". (Not sure why Conservatives on here are still defending her, when she's been booted out of your Party by your Leader.)

She sat as an Independent Senator until now, still refusing to remove the racist letters from her GOVERNMENT website.

So now she's finally suspended and her GOVERNMENT website has finally been shut down. 

Good.

Edited May 13, 2019 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

36 minutes ago, jacee said:

Gunter is a racist idiot and a liar: That's not why Beyak was suspended. She was suspended for her persistent and prolonged refusal to remove some constituents' racist letters from her GOVERNMENT website.

 

 

So what...many "racist" policies remain embedded in official Canadian (government) web sites...why pick on her ?

[Dougie93]

I'm not one to scapegoat Immigrants, Indians, nor Jews, none the less, unlike the Cuckservatives, I have no enemies on the right, anybody who will fight against the loonie left is my ally by default, I'll not throw them under the bus.

[scribblet]

40 minutes ago, jacee said:

Gunter is a racist idiot and a liar:

 

Not true, but then we know anyone disagreeing with a liberal is racist

[jacee]

17 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Not true, but then we know anyone disagreeing with a liberal is racist

Gunter did not tell the truth about why Beyak was suspended.

Call him what you want. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, jacee said:

She was first kicked off a Senate Aboriginal committee, then she was  kicked out of the Conservative caucus and Party by Andrew Scheer, who read out one of the offensive letters and called it "racist". (Not sure why Conservatives on here are still defending her, when she's been booted out of your Party by your Leader.)

What makes you think conservatives give a shit what the milkman has to say?

[August1991]

On 5/10/2019 at 9:44 PM, Argus said:

What does that mean in English?

Argus,

I quickly answered (?) that "The State has no business deciding what is polite." (Paraphrasing Pierre Trudeau, Trudeau Snr.)

====

More seriously,

In private, some people don't always say the nicest things about other people. In public, Canadians are polite. 

[August1991]

On 5/13/2019 at 3:20 PM, jacee said:

Gunter is a racist idiot and a liar.... Beyak was suspended....

.... site has finally been shut down. 

Good.

Jacee,

I have no problem with suspending a Senator. Call a journalist a "racist idiot", as you wish.

====

I object to the State deciding what is "polite".

La politesse is a private affair, between individuals.

[August1991]

At issue, I reckon, is what is "private" and what is "public"?

With the Internet, everything once private is now public.

=====

I never really liked the US 1964 federal Civil Rights Act: It made some private contracts subject to criminal law.

In Canada, we've dealt with this, uh, minority issue differently.

Edited May 15, 2019 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

At issue, I reckon, is what is "private" and what is "public"?

With the Internet, everything once private is now public.

Sort of.  The internet allows for the creation of 'publics'.  Public, people, and masses are different things. 

Michael Warner has written about 'publics':

 

Quote

Three senses of public: 1. the public "the people in general", 2. a public "a concrete audience", 3. "the kind of public that comes into being only in relation to texts and their circulation--like the public of this essay."

The 'third' is the real publics that we are creating and if you read McLuhan you can understand the revolution we are witnessing: our character seems to change because our relations have changed.  

But we are not organized yet - we have people who say anything at all and have not been held to account.  This is the result of 'masses' being shown the internet.  It will work itself out for better or worse.  A possible past model to look at is the cataclysm caused by Gutenberg.

[jacee]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

Jacee,

I have no problem with suspending a Senator. Call a journalist a "racist idiot", as you wish.

====

I object to the State deciding what is "polite".

La politesse is a private affair, between individuals.

 Calling an individual columnist Lorne Gunter a "racist idiot" is perhaps not polite. 

Posting letters on a website smearing all Indigenous people with racial stereotypes is racism. 

The state has a role in that, especially  when it is the employer of the poster. 

[Rue]

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 3:58 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So what...many "racist" policies remain embedded in official Canadian (government) web sites...why pick on her ?

Who said she is being picked on? How is she a victim? She has a cushy job for life BC. Senators in Canada are patronage appointments.

For the most part they are parasites. Some work hard revising bills to amend mistakes. Also the Senate committee on Euthanasia did a

fantastic job only to have their report ignored. However for the most part they are a useless vestige like an appendix is to the human

body. No one would miss it if it was cut out of government. Sorry I can't see any Senator being a victim.

 

In this specific case the question is should a representative of all Canadians, which she claims to be leave up on her personal web-site

letters from people she knows contain hateful comments about an entire group of Canadians. It lends to the appearance she supports

those hateful comments. When you hold a public office, conflict of interest is a crucial issue and the test for whether there is a conflict

of interest in law with public figures  is not whether there actually is one, only if there is an appearance there could be one.

 

By allowing hateful messages of OTHERS to remain on her personal site, she lends to the appearance her leaving them up means she condones or

supports those hateful comments. If she agrees with those comments, then she should step down from the Senate because she is a civil servant

of all Canadians including those aboriginals being insulted. She does not have the luxury of being able to condone hateful comments. Her standard of care

is higher because she is being paid a lot of taxpayer's money and in a cushy job for life, to be a representative of ALL Canadians not just some.

 

This Senator is not stupid. She made sure the letters were not on her Senate web site. She also never made any hateful comments herself which

lends to the appearance she is being passive aggressive and using others to state what she really thinks.

 

Yes we can have a two sided discussion on these reform schools-that is not the issue. Her original comments may literally have not crossed the line and are

part of a necessary two sided discussion. That is not the issue, the letters are. Had she removed them we would not have this discussion.

 

So the question remains if you keep up letters that contain negative stereotypes of an entire group of people, what are the consequences. I leave that to others to decide.

Me personally I think she showed poor judgement leaving them up. If those letters stay up they should be on a site where they are not on a civil servant's site because hat civil servant must remain neutral and not associate themselves with such comments. To me that is all about conflict of interest and common sense. We are talking about the place where those letters sould remain if they do remain for the sake of free speech. They might belong on a public forum not a civil servant's personal site. Civil servants especially public ones, give up the right to personal opinions even in private life that could lend to the appearance of conflicting with their job responsibilities.

 

 

[Dougie93]

Thank goodness the National Parent is protecting us from seeing mean comments online, comrades.

There should be a system wherein people who make mean comments are denied access to services while people who rat them out would be given extra rations.

To make it more efficient, the RCMP, CBSA, CSIS and CSE should be merged into a single service.

Call it the Committee for State Security.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Dougie93

[jacee]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

This Senator is not stupid. She made sure the letters were not on her Senate web site. 

The letters were on her Senate web site. 

They have now FINALLY been removed by the Senate, which also suspended her. 

2 hours ago, Rue said:

She also never made any hateful comments herself ...

That's debatable.

Beyak's response to the Truth and Reconciliation report on the 'Indian' Residential Schools was to persistently insist that the schools had done a lot of good for most students

... except the 34,000 (of 80,000 still living) who received average $91k settlements for "serious physical, sexual and emotional" abuse, I guess? Not exactly a record of achievement to be bragged about. Is it hateful to dismiss the thousands seriously damaged because a few may not have been?

... or may have repressed it? 

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-chief-weeps-during-residential-schools-speech-1.795828

One of British Columbia's most prominent aboriginal leaders wept uncontrollably Friday as he told Canada's truth and reconciliation commission that he never fully realized the impact of Indian residential schools on his life until he heard survivors recount their own experiences at the hearings.

Grand Chief Ed John, leader of the First Nations Summit, said the stories he heard while the commission was in Inuvik, N.W.T., tore open wounds he never realized were there.

"I never realized the depth of my own story until I heard their stories," said John, who stood back from the podium, tried to start speaking again, but couldn't as the tears flowed.

"It haunts me."

...He said he remembered looking at the mountains and thinking about running away to his home, but he never did.

Three boys ran away once, but their frozen bodies were found nearby, he recalled.

...Wiping away tears, he apologized for "sounding like a bit of a blathering idiot up here."

John paid tribute to B.C. aboriginals who testified in court about the abuse they endured at residential schools.

Lynn Beyak did everything in her power to publicly dismiss and villainize residential school survivors of abuse who spoke out and testified, the only Parliamentarian in Canada to do so.

Is that hateful? 

I would suggest that Lynn Beyak was using her position as Senator, and her Senate website to 'incite and promote hatred' against Indigenous people. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by jacee

[Argus]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But we are not organized yet - we have people who say anything at all and have not been held to account.  This is the result of 'masses' being shown the internet.  

That sounds pretty damned elitist.

I honestly don't understand why we should freak out because someone says something insulting or offensive to others based on race or religion or ethnicity. Why are these so harshly condemned in a society which is absolutely filled with insults. There isn't a single person who gets aghast at the very idea of anyone using the N-word who hasn't done their very best, many, many times to insult this or that person or group as offensively as they possibly can. We insult people based on their height, weight, looks, skin condition, eyes, ears, hair (or lack thereof) job, political views, intelligence, education, success (or lack thereof) with the opposite sex, and just about anything and everything else we can think of when we're angry. We're not the least bit concerned about hurting their feelings. We WANT to hurt their feelings! 

Yet somehow or other, we want to put a wall around insults based on race or ethnicity - and now over gender orientation, and act like using these is something of national import. It doesn't make any damn sense to me.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, jacee said:

 Calling an individual columnist Lorne Gunter a "racist idiot" is perhaps not polite. 

Posting letters on a website smearing all Indigenous people with racial stereotypes is racism. 

The state has a role in that, especially  when it is the employer of the poster. 

No, it doesn't. And politicians are not merely employees. A degree of independence is expected. Which is why you can't fire an MP or a Senator.

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

No, it doesn't. And politicians are not merely employees. A degree of independence is expected. Which is why you can't fire an MP or a Senator.

She's not a politician: Senators are not elected but appointed. She's a public employee. 

Lots of employers fire people for racism because it affects the employer's reputation and business.

Government has the same right to do so. 

She should have been fired long ago just for being a brainless idiot. Nobody that dumb deserves $150k+/yr of my tax money! 

Edited May 15, 2019 by jacee

[Argus]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

She's not a politician: Senators are not elected but appointed. She's a public employee. 

Lots of employers fire people for racism because it affects the employer's reputation and business.

Government has the same right to do so. 

She should have been fired long ago just for being a brainless idiot. Nobody that dumb deserves $150k+/yr of my tax money! 

You can't fire a senator. 

[August1991]

Reading through this thread, I see no reason to change my thinking.

Argus? Remove a Senator? Why not?

=====

But, jacee, should the State have the authority to force people to be "polite"? You're dead wrong.

Should a government pass laws to encourage good behaviour? Maybe.

Edited May 17, 2019 by August1991

[jacee]

32 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Reading through this thread, I see no reason to change my thinking.

Argus? Remove a Senator? Why not?

=====

But, jacee, should the State have the authority to force people to be "polite"? You're dead wrong.

Should a government pass laws to encourage good behaviour? Maybe.

I never said that.

I referred to the crime of 'inciting and promoting hatred'. 

Section 319, Criminal Code of Canada.

[August1991]

50 minutes ago, jacee said:

I never said that.

I referred to the crime of 'inciting and promoting hatred'. 

Section 319, Criminal Code of Canada.

Jacee, you did. Hence, you invoked the State.

(BTW, the federal criminal code may differ from provincial code.)

====

IMHO, being polite, getting along - maybe a State, particular government - can help us do this.

Or maybe we can do this on our own:

For example, in a family.

Edited May 17, 2019 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

 But, jacee, should the State have the authority to force people to be "polite"? You're dead wrong.

The idea of what the state 'should' do seems to come up when there are challenges to the status quo.  The presumption seems to be that what the state 'does' is perfectly logical and designed with objectivity.  The state laws are not based on a high-minded ethnical model of ethics, beyond the high-level philosophies in the constitution.  No, they start from that point and end up being executed in the murky swamp of public 'morality'.

So nudism is illegal.  Working on Christmas Day is illegal.  And we tout the absence of a state religion while having state-funded Catholic schools.

 

What "should" the state do, August ?  I'll tell you this: it does what the people want it to do.

[Argus]

On the subject of being free to express your opinions, this from Bruce Pardy:

Of course, freedom of expression is never absolute. “Your money or your life” is speech but can also be an assault. Announcing that your colleague cheats on his taxes is defamatory unless you can prove it is true, while relentlessly hounding the object of your desire with unwanted propositions may constitute harassment. But exceptions make the rule: freedom of expression does not depend upon social approval of its content. In Canada commitment to that idea is eroding. Exhibit A is the Code provision that Whatcott was found to have violated. As Mark Steyn observed in an address last year, when was the last time you heard somebody say that everyone is entitled to their opinion? The purpose of civil society is not to prevent conflict but to allow it to occur without violence. If you believe in free speech except for comments that are hurtful, then you don’t believe in free speech. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” wrote Voltaire’s biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall, attempting to encapsulate Voltaire’s beliefs.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-you-have-free-speech-so-long-as-you-think-the-right-thoughts

Edited May 17, 2019 by Argus

[jacee]

19 hours ago, August1991 said:

Jacee, you did. Hence, you invoked the State.

(BTW, the federal criminal code may differ from provincial code.)

====

IMHO, being polite, getting along - maybe a State, particular government - can help us do this.

Or maybe we can do this on our own:

For example, in a family.

Merely referencing the relevant law.

(There is only one Criminal Code in Canada.)

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 

I guess it depends what you mean by polite. Lol