"HATE" crime legislation IS 'hate'-ful....

[Queenmandy85]

13 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm not permitted. You require being first a default supporter in your 'queen

No you don't. Louis Riel took the oath as a Member of Parliament. Lorne Nystrom and former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley served as MP's and they were opposed to the Monarchy. If you believe in what you say, you have every right to campaign for a nomination and run for Parliament. If you win or don't win, that is democracy in action.

[Scott Mayers]

Example: I wouldn't be permitted to speak against the present assertions about the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women in public when we are placing statues dedicated to this in our police departments, promoting a PRESUMPTION of indirect innuendo ABOUT what has happened regardless of the fact that the perpetrators are unknown. We are to default a 'faith' THAT there is some perpetrators that are NON-female, NON-Indigenous, and likely 'white' haters, out there stalking these people specifically FOR some 'hate' interest. This ignores that the nature of poverty set up BY the religious establishment IS the cause of any real stage set that makes them vulnerable. 

And what do we do? We promote this group to assert victimhood WITHOUT actual knowledge of what if anything occurred. We promote hypocritically further means to ISOLATE these very people BY promoting distinct private languages, private rights to OWN one's own 'subspecies' (like how one adopted of some minority is granted some inherent right to their genetically related people's artistic and religious lifestyles, etc. 

We are promoting and staging a distinct assurance of hate, done by the architects OF the causes, ....like the Catholic French/Anglican Ontarian and other already secretive groups that have demeaning interest to keep outsiders down. 

There are many others. But not only do I as an individual NOT have a right to say anything, I get penalized MORE FOR complaining should I try. We have false 'freedoms' of thought here. They are all caveated with protective clauses for the select.

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

There are many others. But not only do I as an individual NOT have a right to say anything, I get penalized MORE FOR complaining should I try. We have false 'freedoms' of thought here. They are all caveated with protective clauses for the select.

It's true that the Charter isn't worth the paper it's written on,  the protective clause is simply the caveat "reasonable", and what is reasonable is arbitrary.

This however,  is a double edged sword, as Queenmandy has said, all you need is Parliamentary Supremacy, at which point you can unleash the full ferocity of state force against your political opponents in fiery vengeance upon them.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[Scott Mayers]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

No you don't. Louis Riel took the oath as a Member of Parliament. Lorne Nystrom and former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley served as MP's and they were opposed to the Monarchy. If you believe in what you say, you have every right to campaign for a nomination and run for Parliament. If you win or don't win, that is democracy in action.

None of that matters if I can't have a constitution that deliberately discriminates against me for speaking. When and where the censors have the select power to manipulate HOW the news is presented, how we are moderated by deplatforming measures in secret friends of the 'established' cults and heirs of fortune here, I would easily be buried. And if I spoke louder, I too might be formulated as being some 'conspiracy group thinker' with the means of HOW I am permitted to speak. I'd get a badge with a symbol just as the Jews of WWII did. Only I, just as the Jews then, would be given 'proof' of bad and evil conduct, be called a hater BEFORE the evidence. 

Those past peoples' are plagues with myth and/or exaggeration. They are heroes 'now' but were NOT often receivers of such glory of notice when they lived. So what does it matter. If I'm being treated as some 'hater' today to be repaired by some posterity, it doesn't mean much to an atheist like myself who wouldn't be there in the future to feel vindicated. 

[Queenmandy85]

If many people tell you that you are wrong, you are probably wrong.

In Canada, the Constitution guarantees you Freedom of Religion, unless the Quebec government invokes the not- withstanding -clause, or you are the Queen. Some women chose to cover their hair for the same reason most men cover their junk. I think I should challenge the Premier of Quebec to stop wearing pants if he wishes others to stop wearing a head scarf or a Kipa. 

[Scott Mayers]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It's true that the Charter isn't worth the paper it's written on,  the protective clause is simply the caveat "reasonable", and what is reasonable is arbitrary.

This however,  is a double edged sword, as Queenmandy has said, all you need is Parliamentary Supremacy, at which point you can unleash the full ferocity of state force against your political opponents in fiery vengeance upon them.

The problem is, I wouldn't stoop so low as to take advantage of things I am against as a hypocrite. If the world turns out to require us to PLAY this game when or where we get such success, then why can't those who BELIEVE they are being unfairly being called terrorists and haters not just embrace it instead? 

We hypocritically go all out in formally defining things for laws only to be permitted to call upon 'exception' by future selective reinterpretation ABOUT the past decisions when we could be more accurate if we just kept ONE 'formal' language and lose the 'traditional' crap. You can't have it both ways. But this IS how our system is staged.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Scott Mayers

[Dougie93]

Just now, Scott Mayers said:

The problem is, I wouldn't stoop so low as to take advantage of things I am against as a hypocrite. If the world turns out to require us to PLAY this game when or where we get such success, then why can't those who BELIEVE they are being unfairly being called terrorists and haters not just embrace it instead? 

Because it's war, c'est le guerre, hypocrisy is a meaningless term on the battlefield.

[Dougie93]

In the end, I am like Queenmandy, a militant monarchist, so it wouldn't be hypocritical for me,  upon ascendance of my order to Parliamentary Supremacy, to unleash the state force of the Crown upon HM enemies, I am in fact sworn to do so.

The trick is simply employing the broad latitude within the Counter Terrorism Act which really is an exceedingly blunt instrument, and if your political adversaries happen to crush themselves with it, so be it, turn around is always fair play.

[Scott Mayers]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If many people tell you that you are wrong, you are probably wrong.

In Canada, the Constitution guarantees you Freedom of Religion, unless the Quebec government invokes the not- withstanding -clause, or you are the Queen. Some women chose to cover their hair for the same reason most men cover their junk. I think I should challenge the Premier of Quebec to stop wearing pants if he wishes others to stop wearing a head scarf or a Kipa. 

WE need 'freedom' from LAWS being made REGARDING religion, a formal separation of church. You can't have a system that serves to promote a constituted favoritism for 'owned' cultural heritage based upon nothing but genes as though the ARTificial constructs of past people's behaviors somehow transfers over to our progeny. I know stupid people think we 'own' heritage specifically. But it then JUSTIFIES the hate inherent in those of the same genetic lineage. Shouldn't all the religions who were actually granted complete control of the evils of things like the Residential schools be the ones particular held up in court|? Why is no actual evidence FOR abuse and no literal direct charges made? Why has the judges LOCKED out any right to prosecute the teachers of these crimes that the very teachers' foster religions are now in power successfully making it look as though some 'WE' were all at fault?

I am DICTATED that I am religious and though can have a freedom of conscience, as long as I particularly keep it to myself because I have no magical protection of a God ... I uniquely am not allowed to dispel those lunatics. I am dictated that I believe in the select historical cults related to people who have similar color of 'white' skin but have no actual inherent fortune. Ironically, Quebec HAD the right idea and would have evolved to integrate until Senior Trudeau fostered a means to save the minority cult-thinkers of Quebec by promoting their segregation through language and culture laws that permit them UNIQUE favoritism FOR their beliefs. This is NOT actual freedom in any sense of the word EXCEPT for your cult beliefs.

[Scott Mayers]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

In the end, I am like Queenmandy, a militant monarchist, so it wouldn't be hypocritical for me,  upon ascendance of my order to Parliamentary Supremacy, to unleash the state force of the Crown upon HM enemies, I am in fact sworn to do so.

The trick is simply employing the broad latitude within the Counter Terrorism Act which really is an exceedingly blunt instrument, and if your political adversaries happen to crush themselves with it, so be it, turn around is always fair play.

Then you EARN your own counter enemies who think as you do. You are the terrorist with the big weapons of favoritism of those in power. So again, I don't trust those of you asserting who the 'haters' really are. If POWER is all that matters, then the reflection of those OTHER extremists only appear more harmful for lacking the big guns of power as they are more desperate than you at present.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Scott Mayers

[Queenmandy85]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

In the end, I am like Queenmandy, a militant monarchist, so it wouldn't be hypocritical for me,  upon ascendance of my order to Parliamentary Supremacy, to unleash the state force of the Crown upon HM enemies, I am in fact sworn to do so.

The trick is simply employing the broad latitude within the Counter Terrorism Act which really is an exceedingly blunt instrument, and if your political adversaries happen to crush themselves with it, so be it, turn around is always fair play.

The most important safeguard for democracy is the ability to lose an election and get together for coffee or beer with the winners and laugh about it. 

Governing in Canada has surprisingly a narrow range of options. The party label doesn't mean much when events overtake the agenda and you have to do what you can to fix the problem regardless of any silly ideology. CPC, Grit or NDP makes no difference. A problem usually only has one solution.

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Then you EARN your own counter enemies who think as you do. You are the terrorist with the big weapons of favoritism of those in power. So again, I don't trust those of you asserting who the 'haters' really are. If POWER is all that matters, then the reflection of those OTHER extremists only appear more harmful for lacking the big guns of power as they are more desperate than you at present.

Well indeed, it is a long war, and we North German Protestants have certainly earned our share of enmity.

But thus is simply human nature, Homo Sapiens Sapiens Apex Predator Males, we gotta be we, it's in the DNA you see.

Would be very naive for a North German Protestant to think that anyone will ever offer us quarter or mercy, we're the only ones who've ever done that, none the less, it would be folly for us to rely on the good graces of others, that's not after all how we came to the rule the world in our own image.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The most important safeguard for democracy is the ability to lose an election and get together for coffee or beer with the winners and laugh about it.

Not historically the case, the distance between the parties in Parliament after all,  is two sword lengths from one another, for a reason.

Plenty of room within British Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy for extremism and hatred, "Progressives" are simply innocent of history.

The most important safeguard, by definition, is simply to preclude the Sovereign from being unhorsed and unheaded in a revolution, as thus is what Constitutional Monarchy is for.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why not? Hate is not personal. It is toxic and creates fractures in society. It leads to discrimination such as we are seeing in Quebec. It leads to Islamophobia and homophobia. We have decided that the best way to achieve Peace, Order and Good Government is to foster a society that discourages hate. 

Hate is not caused by what people say to each other on internet forums but by people's everyday encounters, what they read/see of what ACTUALLY happens out in the world. and what they read/hear of what others ACTUALLY do. The notion that only 'fake news' causes people to dislike a given group or ideology is patently silly.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Foster whatever you want.  Discourage it too. 

I disagree that hate is not personal.  It seems to me it's one of the most personal emotions one can feel. 

Hate is also becoming an overused word, like 'fascist' and 'racist'. You can want immigration to be lowered without 'hating' immigrants.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If many people tell you that you are wrong, you are probably wrong.

In Canada, the Constitution guarantees you Freedom of Religion, unless the Quebec government invokes the not- withstanding -clause, or you are the Queen. Some women chose to cover their hair for the same reason most men cover their junk. I think I should challenge the Premier of Quebec to stop wearing pants if he wishes others to stop wearing a head scarf or a Kipa. 

Or we could just stop bringing in immigrants who want to dress up in religious outfits. Then the ones here would probably get tired of it.

[Queenmandy85]

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

Or we could just stop bringing in immigrants who want to dress up in religious outfits. Then the ones here would probably get tired of it.

My friend said the same thing only he said his people should have implemented that policy 500 years ago.

[taxme]

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I don't have to agree to other group's opinions to know that they should have a right to a freedom to speak. I am extremely pissed at the present laws being PUSHED upon us non-democratically (other than the 'cult' as the minimal individual). Yesterday (June 27, 2019), CBC announced the new internet legislation telling us indirectly that the capacity of the polices here to IMPOSE REDIRECTION of our searches through Google by specifically targeting those who search for 'trigger searches' that tell us they KNOW what 'hate' is. This is VERY DANGEROUS to our DEMOCRACY!! It is itself a VIOLENT LAW and those proposing it ARE NECESSARILY the 'haters' by DEFINING their political counter-opinions they approve of to be treated as extreme  criminals. 

Now while this may be considered 'good' by some, I assure you that when we have increasing 'MODERATION" of our own 'free speech' (like at the CBC's forums that hide and protect their secret censors of their own POLITICAL anti-democratic impositions), we are DOOMED in MORE than any concern of terrorism. In fact, this only AMPLIFIES it as it PROVES to those being 'criminalized' that their IS a 'conspiracy' of 'hate' with specific INTEREST groups. These groups are religious in nature themselves (even under potential denial) because they impose that WE THE PEOPLE should default some FAITH in some specific humans as 'superior' to others. 

Also, they are giving policing a power here of 'superior' judges by enabling them to decide what OUR rights are of 'privacy' and 'freedom'. 

 

Today, the news added more proof of the counter-hate evidence of this behavior by targeting some Nationalist group (Canadian Nationalist Party). What is ironic is THAT the thinking of these arrogant extremists making these laws ARE NATIONALISTS. Just because it is composed of different cults of SOME subset of competing groups, they ALL agree to 'disagree' with individual differences while they are not directly in power. But collectively, these actual HATE groups are constituted here to with such power and momentum that they are doing completely the opposite of the American means at every step of whistleblowers there regarding privacy and anti-free speech.: For every new realization of the American public about abuses of independent powers in policing or present government opportunists, we are CREATING means to spy and harm our 'citizens' here!

 

Like I said, I don't agree with certain views. But the way these laws and behaviors of other issues of our governments are making me concerned about these arrogant idiots in power imposing MORE anti-democratic laws. All parties here are 'conservatives' of just different subsets: so now even the NDP lacks concern for individual democracy. I don't know what we can do...but the way things are, the parties here are acting worse than the very Chinese by our own HIDDEN means to CENSOR our communications. 

 

I wish others here would get involved and try to overrule this danger. I already know that what HAS been done already limits us here from seeing much of the Internet we saw only ten years ago. And it IS of a select subset of religiously-propagated groups that operate as though they are 'democratically' shared of us all. 

 

We need to redress our Constitution and the SELECT 'supremist' groups being empowered by it to be disempowered if they continue to do this without OUR CONSENT! Is there any hope?

The Canadian government is a threat to all kinds of freedom of speech these days. They are especially wanting to go after conservatives and their right to their freedom of speech. Many groups are being lumped in as belonging to or are trying to promote hatred and violence towards others and are being labeled as white supremacists and Nazi's even though they do not nor preach any kinds of hate or violence at all. These hate laws are only being pushed by the communists in our Canadian government who are trying to get and use new legislation to stifle all speech that the government does not agree with. Hate laws are pretty much anti-free speech communist laws. Find any excuse to shut the people down period. If there is anything people should have learned by now is to never trust the government when they say that they want to fight hatred and racism. That is just their excuse to eventually take away all kinds of speech. If a website is not promoting any kinds of hatred or violence towards others than they should have the right to their freedom of speech even if someones feelings are hurt. Grow up. According to the Canadian Charter of Rights we have a right to freedom of speech. It does not say anywhere in the COR words like maybe, perhaps, could be, not sure or there is no if's, and's or but's. It says that freedom of speech is a right period. What will be next? If I say that I hate my neighbor that will now get me in trouble with the government. Hey, you never know, eh? 

[taxme]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why not? Hate is not personal. It is toxic and creates fractures in society. It leads to discrimination such as we are seeing in Quebec. It leads to Islamophobia and homophobia. We have decided that the best way to achieve Peace, Order and Good Government is to foster a society that discourages hate. 

If one wants to immigrate to Canada then one should leave their past life behind them and become and try to appear to look Canadian. The problem going on in Canada today is that the federal government is telling new immigrants who immigrate here to carry on as you did from whence you came. We see today too many people from other countries trying to push their culture and religion on this Christian country. The government is making openings for them to allow them to push some of their religious beliefs onto Canadians and their beliefs and be able to ignore some of our laws.

Before Canada started bringing in all of the many languages and cultures and religions that are here today in Canada there was none of this hatred and violence going on these days. But thanks to the promotion of multiculturalism and diversity we now see what happens when a government caters to other minorities and tries to mix several cultures and religions together. It creates the many crimes of hatred and violence that we see happening today in Canada and in other European countries. Muslims are killing white people and white people are killing Muslims. Maybe it is not such a good idea to be mixing the two together because in reality Muslims will not assimilate and do not believe in our values and ways in life of doing things. They treat their women like chit and believe that all gays should be killed and that will never change in their bible. 

Our government is not creating peace, order and good government. They are doing just the opposite as far as I am concerned. But the politicians do not care. I think that they wnat division and hatred to exist. Just my opinion of course.   

[Queenmandy85]

10 minutes ago, taxme said:

If one wants to immigrate to Canada then one should leave their past life behind them and become and try to appear to look Canadian

Did your ancestors adopt the look and culture of the Salish?

[taxme]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The most important safeguard for democracy is the ability to lose an election and get together for coffee or beer with the winners and laugh about it. 

Governing in Canada has surprisingly a narrow range of options. The party label doesn't mean much when events overtake the agenda and you have to do what you can to fix the problem regardless of any silly ideology. CPC, Grit or NDP makes no difference. A problem usually only has one solution.

That does not happen anymore where after an election the political party's get together and laugh about it. I am pretty sure that after the election they all laugh at the electorate though. There is a war going on in Canada, and it is going on between real conservatives and between leftist liberals. Leftist liberals especially do not want to kiss and make up after an election. If they lose they go crazy and will not accept the results of the election if conservatives won the election. We see that happening in America today where the leftist liberal democrats and their supporters refuse to accept Trump as the President or their president and they have committed violence in the streets over it and have attacked members of Trump's cabinet. At one time this would never happen. Politics is becoming a dangerous game these days to be or get involved in. In some countries politicians get shot. Let us hope that it does not go that same way here in Canada. Hey, you never know. 

[taxme]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Did your ancestors adopt the look and culture of the Salish?

Are some of the new immigrants coming to Canada today adopting and changing the clothing on their backs and are trying to appear more western looking when they get here? If all goes well we may all end up looking like some of them. Hey, you never know, eh? 

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, taxme said:

.... We see that happening in America today where the leftist liberal democrats and their supporters refuse to accept Trump as the President or their president and they have committed violence in the streets over it and have attacked members of Trump's cabinet. At one time this would never happen. Politics is becoming a dangerous game these days to be or get involved in. In some countries politicians get shot. Let us hope that it does not go that same way here in Canada. Hey, you never know. 

 

No worries....Canada values peace and order over civil rights including freedom of expression.   The Gay Pride parades and rainbow flags celebrated in Canada today came from violent riots and protests in the United States (e.g. Stonewall).   By controlling "hate speech" and banning groups from social media the government hopes to stop any such uprisings.   What they don't understand is that conflict and "hate" are the currency and energy of social media platforms to drive clicks and ad revenue.

Routine Canadian politics is otherwise quite boring.    Like sex, conflict sells.

Edited June 28, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

I understand what you are saying, and agree also with your earlier statement that the line can be hard to define.  The problem I see with organizations like Combat18 or ISIS being free to post on social media is that the "public" face of the page is pretty sanitized.  It draws people in, and as time goes they become either disgusted - as you say - or they become believers and go ever deeper behind the scenes, where the calls to action are.  This is how recruitment works, and social media is a great tool for extremists.  They certainly aren't going to draw people in by saying, right-up-front, 'we are looking for soldiers to fight and kill.'

If the legislators were to draw a line at recruitment to a criminal organisation then they could enforce that.  I can see ISIS being a problem as they have openly and quite proudly killed thousands, but how many has Combat18 seen off?  (Genuine question.  I had never heard of them until I read the name on here).  I know all these groups are under surveillance, and when any of them goes too far they can be brought to heel.  But expressing support (not giving physical support (finances, succor, etc.)) should not be illegal, no matter how stupid.  If someone says they think either are doing a great job, I can argue, but I'm not going to advocate any kind of sanction.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My friend said the same thing only he said his people should have implemented that policy 500 years ago.

I always find this argument to be particularly idiotic.

"Duh, duh, if da natives had said that back when we came here where would we be!? Duh! Duh!"

A better question would be where would they be. Maybe still in charge in their own lands.

Because the natives were short-sighted enough to welcome people to replace them and take over the place puts no obligation on us to be similarly short-sighted.

So tell your 'friend' it's too bad his ancestors were idiots. But that doesn't mean we have to be.