Enough is enough. Ban protests outside hospitals.

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

No they shouldn't. If they want to protest, they should do it where the rules are made. The same twits are penalizing businesses like restaurants for following the law. 

Your free speech rights don't override the rights of everyone else.

their right to free speech doesn't override everyone else's rights

they are free to protest outside of hospitals

whether you or I like their choice of location or not

it is already illegal to block access to those hospitals

whether they are protesting or not

 

you are not protecting anyone's rights by supporting banning protests outside of hospitals

the exact opposite is true

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, Aristides said:

Interesting

No, it ain’t. Its only interesting to a person with the smarts of a midge fly.

[Aristides]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

their right to free speech doesn't override everyone else's rights

they are free to protest outside of hospitals

whether you or I like their choice of location or not

it is already illegal to block access to those hospitals

whether they are protesting or not

 

you are not protecting anyone's rights by supporting banning protests outside of hospitals

the exact opposite is true

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, they  are free to say whatever they want, just not wherever they want. 

[Yzermandius19]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, they  are free to say whatever they want, just not wherever they want. 

it has everything to do with free speech

you don't get to pick where they can't say it

without a damn good reason why that is the case

and you don't have that reason

[TreeBeard]

23 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it has everything to do with free speech

you don't get to pick where they can't say it

without a damn good reason why that is the case

and you don't have that reason

You don’t think a cancer patient getting chemo needing to walk 5 blocks through the unvaccinated and unmasked protestors is a good enough reason to move them a block or two out of the way?

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You don’t think a cancer patient getting chemo needing to walk 5 blocks through the unvaccinated and unmasked protestors is a good enough reason to move them a block or two out of the way?

no

because they can have access to the hospital

without having to ban protests outside of hospitals

for example

most of these protests didn't block access

and when access was blocked

that was already illegal

so new law is going to prevent that outcome

making things illegal doesn't prevent people for breaking law

making dumb laws doesn't make it easier to enforce smart laws

it undermines the legitimacy of the law in general when you associate the law with such dumb laws

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

48 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

no

because …

We both agree that free speech should be limited…. You are for libel, slander and speech that incites violence as being illegal.

We just disagree on where the line of allowable speech should be.  

I tend to side with cancer patients.  You tend to side with anti-vaccination mobs.  I guess we will just have to wait to see where the Canadian public/politicians/courts fall on this.  My guess is that they will be siding with cancer patients…

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

We both agree that free speech should be limited…. You are for libel, slander and speech that incites violence as being illegal.

We just disagree on where the line of allowable speech should be.  

I tend to side with cancer patients.  You tend to side with anti-vaccination mobs.  I guess we will just have to wait to see where the Canadian public/politicians/courts fall on this.  My guess is that they will be siding with cancer patients…

the cancer patients and protestors are not at odds

but Canadians will undoubtedly side against free speech

because like you, they hate it

I am for reasonable restrictions

you are for unreasonable restrictions

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the cancer patients and protestors are not at odds

but Canadians will undoubtedly side against free speech

because like you, they hate it

I am for reasonable restrictions

you are for unreasonable restrictions

How is it infringing on the right to protest if they had to do it 1 block away to let cancer patients through unmolested?

[Yzermandius19]

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

How is it infringing on the right to protest if they had to do it 1 block away to let cancer patients through unmolested?

because they can let cancer patients through without being a block away too

that's why

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it has everything to do with free speech

you don't get to pick where they can't say it

without a damn good reason why that is the case

and you don't have that reason

Actually we do get to pick where they can say it, or rather where they can't say it. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Aristides

[Yzermandius19]

33 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Actually we do get to pick where they can say it, or rather where they can't say it. 

not without a good reason

and you don't have one

 

whether the law thinks you have one or not

or whether the public thinks you have one or not

is not important

legality is not morality

popularity is not morality

your opinion and feelings

should not supersede rights, morality and/or logic

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

because they can let cancer patients through without being a block away too

that's why

Did you not read the story of the guy who had to walk 5 blocks through unmasked and unvaccinated mob or protestors to get to his chemo appointment?

[TreeBeard]

14 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

not without a good reason

and you don't have one

 

whether the law thinks you have one or not

or whether the public thinks you have one or not

is not important

legality is not morality

popularity is not morality

your opinion and feelings

should not supersede rights, morality and/or logic

Isn’t morality more about feelings?  Do you equate rights with morality?

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Did you not read the story of the guy who had to walk 5 blocks through unmasked and unvaccinated mob or protestors to get to his chemo appointment?

do you not understand that this is not indicative of all protests outside of hospitals

or that there are already laws against that for the protests that are outliers?

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Isn’t morality more about feelings?  Do you equate rights with morality?

no morality is not about feelings

morality is about principles

feelings often get in the way of principles and morality

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

do you not understand that this is not indicative of all protests outside of hospitals

or that there are already laws against that?

I would be OK with limiting it in only the problem areas.

Yes, I understand the legality.  However, in a crowd of thousands, do you think it’s realistic that a few cops go in and arrest the hundred that are the issue?

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

no morality is not about feelings

feelings often get in the way of morality

What is morality about then, if not how you feel about a topic?

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

What is morality about then, if not how you feel about a topic?

it is about principles

and feelings often get in the way of morality and principles

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it is about principles

and feelings often get in the way of morality and principles

Morality is the same as principles?  Example please?

Edited:  as in moral principles.   A guideline to do what’s right maybe?

Edited September 27, 2021 by TreeBeard

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Morality is the same as principles?  Example please?

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

rights are based on principles too

feelings not so much, especially when they contradict moral principles as important as rights

banning protests outside of hospitals is far worse behaviour

than protesting outside of hospitals

outliers who block access to hospitals notwithstanding

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

rights are based on principles too

feelings not so much, especially when they contradict moral principles as important as rights

banning protests outside of hospitals is far worse behaviour

than protesting outside of hospitals

Aren’t rights what we as a country granted individuals within a legal framework?   You and I have all the same rights.

And morals are principles that guide each individual?  You and I may differ a lot about what we would consider moral or immoral.  

Morals may, or may not, be tied to what is legal, but rights are always about what is legal.  Do you agree with that?

 

[WestCanMan]

Has the village idiot made some kind of attempt to block protests at hospitals or was that just another lie? 

[Aristides]

46 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Did you not read the story of the guy who had to walk 5 blocks through unmasked and unvaccinated mob or protestors to get to his chemo appointment?

He doesn’t care. He also doesn’t understand that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are two different things.

[Yzermandius19]

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Aren’t rights what we as a country granted individuals within a legal framework?   You and I have all the same rights.

And morals are principles that guide each individual?  You and I may differ a lot about what we would consider moral or immoral.  

Morals may, or may not, be tied to what is legal, but rights are always about what is legal.  Do you agree with that?

rights are not privileges

you have them confused

the government doesn't grant you rights

the government is prevented from taking them away

laws which strip rights away are unconstitutional and are supposed to be struck down by the courts

even when they fail to do so

hate speech laws are unconstitutional