Jump to content

Why Canadians re-elected a Liberal government?


CITIZEN_2015

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think mentally abusing your child should fall under the purview of allowable speech?

You asked for an Canadian example here it is, What do YOU describe as mentally abusing, for me this sounds like a concerned father, trying to convince his daughter that she is a girl, She was born a female she is a female until she becomes 18 and starts the process of converting...If she wanted to be call  i don't know a fire truck, He man, Superman, king of all the land, or debate the fact that the moon is made from cheese, with out any medical or scientific evidence... where do we draw the line... As far as gender is concerned according to the LGBT side of the house your gender could be endless possibilities there are no limits to what you could call yourself by law... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

1. The courts went way further than that in allowing the pastor’s speech.  They said he could be nasty…. Equating gays to pedophiles…. That sort of thing.

2. So political parties should not set limits on their MPs?

3. There could be Conservative Communists?   Anti-gay Liberals? Union-busting NDP’ers?

4. Sloan was kicked from caucus not for being a commie, but for being too anti-gay…. 

1. I get it but ... again it comes down to exactly what was said.  "Homosexuality is a sin just as murder is and pedophilia is" is a statement of theological opinion and arguably religious expression.  But "We should treat homosexuals like we great pedophiles" is not a statement that Christian teaching holds, it's his personal opinion.  
2. They can do whatever they want.  
3. I've been through the desert on a horse with no name.  And then after we rode out, I just started calling him "Terry"
4. Ok.  Well if dies of a shark bite, I'll read that and go "Hm" and then click on something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So all we’re doing is arguing about where the line should be?  And who administers the line?  

Seems to me a compromise can be made.

Do the HRTs look at a lot of free speech cases?  

They have, and they will continue to do so with Bill C-36.

Opinion: Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is back. And that’s not even the bad news - The Globe and Mail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

What if the claim of victimhood is legit?  Consider the law in Quebec,  implemented specifically for Muslims (though hidden in the language) forbidding the wearing of religious wear in government facilities?  Or the verbal and sometimes physical harassment of Muslims just going about their every day lives?  Or the attacks on Muslim places of worship?

LGBTQ face similar problems, as do Jews.  Why do you insist that these aren't to be acknowledged or changed?

Does society really gain anything with this culture of victimhood constantly thrown about? I can't change what's happened in the past nor am I responsible for any past sins like slavery or indigenous history. I do think people within some of these groups do it primarily because it can be very lucrative(BLM founders for one).

You say the law in Quebec was implemented specifically for Muslims..but it's hidden in the language.  Does it not say all religious symbols? Yet you interpret the law as being targeted against only Muslims. I personally don't care for this law but I'm not getting worked up over it either. I wouldn't really want to deal with someone wearing the niquab like they are forced to in Afghanistan for instance. Any other religious symbol, who cares? You mentioned attacks against Muslims and their places of worship. I think that's horrible. That sort of thing is widely condemned in western society. Christians under attack in the Muslim world doesn't get the same condemnation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think mentally abusing your child should fall under the purview of allowable speech?

That particular case doesn't come across as bad parenting, it comes across as utter stupidity and over reach from the side of the law. She can believe she is anything or anybody(as children do) and you say the parent has no right to gently set the record straight when the time comes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So you thinking it should be legal to encourage the killing of Jews?

More anti-Jewish sermons found in Canadian mosques (cjnews.com)

WATCH: Canadian Imam Calls Muslim Jew-Hatred ‘Just, Logical’ (breitbart.com)

It appears certain people can say these things without fear of being charged with hate speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

1.  I hope this is not tied to down sizing our immigration numbers or restricting immigrants from certain places in the world. Sending them back is non sense...

2. Every Canadian is protected by the law, it does not have to single out any race or religion, or sex. as for the surgeries go let them have them the law already restricts everyone under 18... And everyone is born male or female , and in the rare case both sexes that is a medical and scientific fact. 

3. that is happening look at Antifa, extreme right for instance or the left or right not many can sit down and have a conversation about anything... pretty soon everything will be canceled...  

1.  I agree, sending them back is nonsense, but I have heard it proposed by extremists.

2.  Looks like we agree here, too, more or less.  While most of us are born with either male or female characteristics, I don't think people are simply male or female.  I think our gender is on a continuum, with hormones determining how male or female we look, think and behave.  Hormones are pretty powerful so it doesn't really surprise me that sometimes the hormones we produce do not match the sexual characteristics we were born with.

3.  Yeah, extremists on both sides are a problem.

Amazing, a leftie and a rightie agreeing.  :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

You say the law in Quebec was implemented specifically for Muslims..but it's hidden in the language.  Does it not say all religious symbols? Yet you interpret the law as being targeted against only Muslims.

How long has Quebec had people of faith wearing religious symbols?  Yet only when Muslims became targets of xenophobes did the government decide to pass a law that restricts everyone's freedom to practice their faith.  Such a law would never have been considered if not for anti-Muslim sentiment.  In that sense, the law targeted Muslims; it's too bad so many others have to also pay a price. 

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

Christians under attack in the Muslim world doesn't get the same condemnation.

Muslims condemn attacks against Christians and Christian churches all the time.  I would say that in Muslim countries, Christians are generally treated about as well as Muslims are treated in Western countries.  That is, looked down on as foreign, treated with contempt by a certain segment of the population, verbally and physically attacked by others - things like that.

BTW, Egypt has two legal systems - one for Muslims and one for Coptic Christians, each in line with their respective faiths.  There are a few other Islamic countries that do the same.  Egypt also allows holidays for Christian holy days; Coptics get those days off work, but Muslims do not.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

How do you think that pointing out what’s happening in Alberta is a scare tactic?  Don’t you think it’s a bit scary for Albertans who might need surgery or get in a car accident wondering if there will be a hospital bed available for them?

@Michael Hardner

 

It is a scare tactic when you try to scare voters that voting for O'Toole will end up resulting in the same thing that's happening in Alberta!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think mentally abusing your child should fall under the purview of allowable speech?

it's not slander or libel

nor is it incitement of violence

obvious free speech is obvious

free speech exists to protect speech that people find offensive

it being perceived as offensive is not proper grounds to ban it

calling someone by a pronoun they don't like is not mental abuse

nor should it be illegal

any jurisdiction that makes it illegal

does not allow freedom of speech

and anyone who supports a law banning it

does not support freedom of speech

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

How long has Quebec had people of faith wearing religious symbols?  Yet only when Muslims became targets of xenophobes did the government decide to pass a law that restricts everyone's freedom to practice their faith.  Such a law would never have been considered if not for anti-Muslim sentiment.  In that sense, the law targeted Muslims; it's too bad so many others have to also pay a price. 

Muslims condemn attacks against Christians and Christian churches all the time.  I would say that in Muslim countries, Christians are generally treated about as well as Muslims are treated in Western countries.  That is, looked down on as foreign, treated with contempt by a certain segment of the population, verbally and physically attacked by others - things like that.

BTW, Egypt has two legal systems - one for Muslims and one for Coptic Christians, each in line with their respective faiths.  There are a few other Islamic countries that do the same.  Egypt also allows holidays for Christian holy days; Coptics get those days off work, but Muslims do not.  

 

Nonsense. "Many others have to also pay a price." Your words. The law applies to all religious symbols. Like I said, I don't like this law but it's not my top concern either.

Muslims are treated far better in the western world than Christians in the Middle East. While there have been instances of attacks and bigotry here(inexcusable) they are certainly not comparable to the Middle East.

Christians under fire in the Middle East |The Queens Village Republican Club Online (qvgop.org)

Christianity in the Middle East - Wikipedia

Could you explain why Muslims are flocking in HUGE numbers to live in the western democracies while at the same time virtually nobody is migrating to the Middle East? Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Faramir said:

Ah so another non defender of free speech like Tree.  If it's "poisonous" it should not be allowed to be said. OK Commissar.

So, a KKK rally, hidden in the backwoods of Arkansas, planning the elimination of non-Christians and Liberals is ok with you?  Because that's happening.

How about a guy - casually swinging a golf club as he grins at a brown family coming to visit their parents/grandparents?  Or calling a neighbor a 'terrorist' and feigning shooting a gun at him?  Or using his vehicle to push walkers off the road because they happen to be friends with brown neighbors?  You ok with that, too?  Because it happened in my neighborhood - and it was terrifying for everyone he targeted.

Ask yourself - without poisonous speech, how would people get to the point of planning or attempting to kill others, or feeling so entitled by their belief of superiority that terrorizing others is their daily pastime?

Anyone who thinks unfettered speech is a good idea does not understand how humans work:  speech leads to action.  Hateful/violent speech leads to hateful/violent action.  

And, before you accuse me of wanting to shut down anything I don't agree with - you're wrong.  People on this forum and elsewhere say plenty I disagree with and I don't want to shut them down. 

What I would shut down is the hateful stuff that dehumanizes entire groups of people, speech that emboldens people to shoot doctors outside of abortion clinics, or shoot down Muslims in a Mosque, or kill black worshippers in a Church.  And just because most people wouldn't do those sorts of thing doesn't mean what they say or the messages they put out doesn't influence what the fringe element would do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So, a KKK rally, hidden in the backwoods of Arkansas, planning the elimination of non-Christians and Liberals is ok with you?  Because that's happening.

How about a guy - casually swinging a golf club as he grins at a brown family coming to visit their parents/grandparents?  Or calling a neighbor a 'terrorist' and feigning shooting a gun at him?  Or using his vehicle to push walkers off the road because they happen to be friends with brown neighbors?  You ok with that, too?  Because it happened in my neighborhood - and it was terrifying for everyone he targeted.

Ask yourself - without poisonous speech, how would people get to the point of planning or attempting to kill others, or feeling so entitled by their belief of superiority that terrorizing others is their daily pastime?

Anyone who thinks unfettered speech is a good idea does not understand how humans work:  speech leads to action.  Hateful/violent speech leads to hateful/violent action.  

And, before you accuse me of wanting to shut down anything I don't agree with - you're wrong.  People on this forum and elsewhere say plenty I disagree with and I don't want to shut them down. 

What I would shut down is the hateful stuff that dehumanizes entire groups of people, speech that emboldens people to shoot doctors outside of abortion clinics, or shoot down Muslims in a Mosque, or kill black worshippers in a Church.  And just because most people wouldn't do those sorts of thing doesn't mean what they say or the messages they put out doesn't influence what the fringe element would do.  

There’s no such thing as unfettered speech.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Than why am I being criticized for saying that unfettered speech - that which promotes hate and violence (and misinformation) - should be curtailed?

incitement to violence is already illegal

hate speech should not be

that is why you're being criticized

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

hate speech should not be

that is why you're being criticized

Why should hate speech be allowed?  It leads to violence, too.

In any case, Canada's legal system penalizes hate speech, as well as hate crimes.

What would you consider hate speech?  Any examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Why should hate speech be allowed?  It leads to violence, too.

In any case, Canada's legal system penalizes hate speech, as well as hate crimes.

What would you consider hate speech?  Any examples?

speech that isn't hateful leads to violence too, that isn't grounds to ban it

the violence is on the perpetrators not the speech

banning hate speech just creates more hate

just as banning alcohol resulted in heavier drinking

prohibition backfires, who knew?

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

speech that isn't hateful leads to violence too, that isn't grounds to ban it

the violence is on the perpetrators not the speech

banning hate speech just creates more hate

just as banning alcohol resulted in heavier drinking

prohibition backfires, who knew?

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

In some cases speech that isn't hateful can lead to violence, yes, but hate speech is more likely to lead to violence. 

Just as cars may lead to accidents but we have speed limits and such to reduce the frequency. 

And of course there are types of cars that are not permitted on the road.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...