Jump to content

Why Canadians re-elected a Liberal government?


CITIZEN_2015

Recommended Posts

23 hours 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.  

Is it okay to say you hate the people attending the KKK rally, hidden in the backwoods of Arkansas, planning the elimination of non-Christians and Liberals, or the guy casually swinging a golf club as he grins at a brown family coming to visit their parents/grandparents?

Is it okay to say you hate the people that want to ban abortions, that might result in the shooting of doctors outside of abortion clinics?  Is it hate speech to tell the truth about how vile are those religious extremists who want to control what other people can and cannot do with their bodies?

Let's face facts: When most people talk about hate speech in the west nowadays, they are mainly talking about Islamophobia.  Is there any reason the truth as you know it to be, not just as I know it to be, should not be discussed openly, just because someone might take it upon themselves to do something we would not?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Useless to translate the number of seats for each party if instead of FPTP there had been a PR electoral-system as people's voting behaviour would be totally different. I guess that even in Canada the Greens would get something like 10% if every vote mattered.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you think that?

silencing the hateful just fuels their grudge

make stupid laws and that just encourages some people to become reactionary against them

people like to thumb their nose at authority and bad authority in particular

prohibiting alcohol backfired and that's why

prohibiting speech is even dumber

 

so be careful what you wish for

because you'll empower the hateful you are trying to disempower

by restricting their rights to free speech

you give them an angle to claim some moral high ground that they had no claim to before

you are using the law to infringe on their right because you don't like the way they exercise that right 

in doing so, you make their cause more attractive to others, not less

they can now cloak their hate in fighting for freedom of speech 

and you make your cause less attractive to others by attaching the baggage of restricting rights

good job dummies

 

there is a reason the least hateful countries on the planet restrict free speech the least

and the most hateful countries restrict it the most

it ain't a coincidence 

banning free speech empowers the hateful,  and not banning it reduces their influence

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

silencing the hateful just fuels their grudge make stupid laws and that just encourages some people to become reactionary against them people like to thumb their nose at authority and bad authority in particular prohibiting alcohol backfired and that's why prohibiting speech is even dumber so be careful what you wish forbecause you'll empower the hateful you are trying to disempowerby restricting their rights to free speech you give them an angle to claim some moral high ground that they had no claim to before you are using the law to infringe on their right because you don't like the way they exercise that right  in doing so, you make their cause more attractive to others, not less they can now cloak their hate in fighting for freedom of speech  and you make your cause less attractive to others by attaching the baggage of restricting rights good job dummies there is a reason the least hateful countries on the planet restrict free speech the least and the most hateful countries restrict it the most it ain't a coincidence banning free speech empowers the hateful,  and not banning it reduces their influence

ok, a hunch then.  Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1. Is it okay to say you hate the people attending the KKK rally, hidden in the backwoods of Arkansas, planning the elimination of non-Christians and Liberals, or the guy casually swinging a golf club as he grins at a brown family coming to visit their parents/grandparents?

2.  Is it okay to say you hate the people that want to ban abortions, that might result in the shooting of doctors outside of abortion clinics?  Is it hate speech to tell the truth about how vile are those religious extremists who want to control what other people can and cannot do with their bodies?

3. Let's face facts: When most people talk about hate speech in the west nowadays, they are mainly talking about Islamophobia. 

4. Is there any reason the truth as you know it to be, not just as I know it to be, should not be discussed openly, just because someone might take it upon themselves to do something we would not?

 

You ask good questions, thanks.

1.  My opinion:  It's not hate speech to say that you hate the KKK, or Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism because of ______.  It It is hate speech to say that Muslims are terrorists (based on some extremists), Christians are murderers (based on some extremists), or Jews are out to rule the world and must be eliminated (based on nothing), Chinese Canadians are spies and not to be trusted (because you don't like China).  

2.  My opinion:  It's not hate speech to say you hate abortion.  It is hate speech say that people who are pro-choice are baby-killers, have no morals, are murderers.  It is ok to say you hate misogyny, it's not ok to say that all men are misogynists, abusers, rapists.  It not hate speech to deny the holocaust (however wrong you are); it is hate speech to say that the Nazi's had the right idea, that Jews are a blight on humanity.

3.  Am not talking about Islamophobia in particular; was more remembering my neighbor, who targeted anyone who wasn't white; neighbors from Jamaica, South America, India and Greece.  At the time, there were no Muslims living here.  He brought home to me the problem of racism in Canada, and made me think about the way in which people like him are created - or radicalized.  He wasn't born hating brown people; that attitude had to be shown him by the words and beliefs of others - whether his parents, friends or online groups.  His behavior was on the verge of becoming violent, rather than just spouting hateful/abusive claims.  Words people say influence others, for good or bad.   I read a bunch and watched some documentaries on how people are radicalized, and that is how I came to my opinions on this.

4.  Just because you (generic, not specifically you) wouldn't do anything, the words you use can empower others.  They hear what you say, understand that you guys believe the same things but for some reason you don't or can't act on it - maybe you have a family you don't want to leave if you end up in jail; maybe you are just afraid; maybe you don't understand the true seriousness of the situation.  Therefore, it is up to the extremist listening to you to do something.  By denying the power of many voices who, (for example), claim that Muslims are barbaric, misogynistic, do not fit into our society, are lazy, refuse to work because they can take advantage of our social supports and should not be let into the country - you are creating hate for Muslims in general.  Not terrorists, or extremists - but Muslims who simply want to live their lives, who work, who don't even talk about their religion to others - let alone coerce - who follow all laws, who don't beat their wives, who don't subject their daughters to FGM.  Even the claim that immigrants from certain countries do not work hard, can't speak English because they choose not to as a way of rejecting Western society, who have lower education, who create criminals - those things create hate for immigrants.

No group is monolithic and "hate speech", by default, must ascribe only the worst traits to whatever group is targeted - Muslim, Jews, immigrants, Christians, homosexuals, LGBTQ.  If someone is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the huge variety of beliefs any group has, and focuses only the behavior of the very worst of the, that is hate.

Definition of hate speech:  abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.  On this forum, that definition is regularly met.

Criticism of Islam, or Judaism or Christianity is different.  I criticize Christianity because of it's inbuilt paternalism, exclusion of others, judgement of anyone who is different; I criticize Judaism and Islam for much the same reasons.  But not all Muslims, Christians or Jews are paternalistic, exclusionary or judgmental.  Especially in Christianity many adherents fail to follow the worst of Christianity.  I don't criticize immigrants, or even immigration policy; others criticize immigration policy without also demonizing immigrants.  Some people criticize pro-choice because they believe that there is no point at which an individual isn't human.  Other people demonize pro-choice people by calling them baby-killiers, murderers, immoral and by extension evil.  Failing to take responsibility for the words you use is simply a cop-out.

Just for the record, I don't hold it against people who may, in a moment of emotion, express hateful thoughts, but are overall do not indulge in hateful rhetoric.  There are a few on this forum who'll do that (I've been guilty of that myself).  In my opinion, hate speech must be consistently expressed by an individual or group, not a one-off situation.

 

 

Edited by dialamah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

silencing the hateful just fuels their grudge

make stupid laws and that just encourages some people to become reactionary against them

prohibiting alcohol backfired and that's why

prohibiting speech is even dumber, so be careful what you wish for, you'll empower the hateful you are trying to disempower

This'll be the third time I've asked:  What would YOU consider hate speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

ok, a hunch then.  Got it.

you are for banning it on a hunch

I am not the one trying to restrict people's rights

you are

by wanting to ban their speech

that gives them the moral high ground on you

you just lowered yourself below the virulent racists

good job

that's quite feat

considering how low the virulent racist are in moral stature

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, dialamah said:

This'll be the third time I've asked:  What would YOU consider hate speech?

that isn't relevant to the discussion

what is relevant is what things are being declared hate speech

as justification to ban them

 

I consider hate speech to just be free speech

that some people find particularly offensive

and is intended to be particularly offensive

to the point of being considered hateful

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. you are for banning it on a hunch

2. you are

3. that gives them the moral high ground on you

4. you just lowered yourself below the virulent racists

1. No, I'm banning it because it is useless and ugly.  Did the Quebec City Mosque shooter like the anti-Muslim content for its interesting analytical content ?  Maybe.  Anyways.
2. Yes.
3. 4. I disagree.  They started the cycle of bad moral behaviour by attacking people based on race, religion etc.  Useless.

So you claim high moral ground and so do I.  Tiebreaker is the law and public opinion.  Bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, I'm banning it because it is useless and ugly.  Did the Quebec City Mosque shooter like the anti-Muslim content for its interesting analytical content

useless and ugly

is not grounds to restrict a right as important as freedom of speech

free speech > public opinion and the law

free speech > democracy

if you think public opinion and the law are more important than constitutional rights

you support the tyranny of the masses

the whole point of rights is that they are above the law and public opinion

otherwise they ain't rights and mere privileges

they are supposed to be protected from silly laws and the whims of the mob

3. 4. they may have started it, but your crime is worse than theirs

your retaliation is not proportional

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

that isn't relevant to the discussion

what is relevant is what things are being declared hate speech

as justification to ban them

 

I consider hate speech to just be free speech

that some people find particularly offensive

and is intended to be particularly offensive

to the point of being considered hateful

So you have no idea what you are arguing for.  

Hate speech needs people to lie for it's success in swaying others to hatred and violence.  Even in the privacy between individuals, lies are not tolerated; why should they be tolerated in the public sphere?  

Anyway, there are limits to hate speech, but it's difficult to prove and so far, courts are willing to give people a lot of leeway.    My opinion is that hate speech leads to more violence, but I'm happy to let the courts decide on individual cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So you have no idea what you are arguing for.  

Hate speech needs people to lie for it's success in swaying others to hatred and violence.  Even in the privacy between individuals, lies are not tolerated; why should they be tolerated in the public sphere?  

Anyway, there are limits to hate speech, but it's difficult to prove and so far, courts are willing to give people a lot of leeway.    My opinion is that hate speech leads to more violence, but I'm happy to let the courts decide on individual cases.

lies are free speech

unless they are libel or slander

you want to ban some lies that aren't either

that is anti-free speech

it should not be the governments job to determine what is and isn't a lie, as justification to ban speech

it sucks at that job, and is not to be trusted with that power

if you do, then what government agrees with will become the "truth" and what it doesn't agree with will become a "lie"

with little to no regard for objective truth

supporting an Orwellian Ministry of Truth always backfires

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Is it hate speech to tell the truth about how vile are those religious extremists who want to control what other people can and cannot do with their bodies

I see, so Trudeau will be a vile religious extremist because he is trying to control vaccinations - in other words what people can and cannot do with their bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cougar said:

I see, so Trudeau will be a vile religious extremist because he is trying to control vaccinations - in other words what people can and cannot do with their bodies.

To you, obviously.  And I support your right to both hold and express that view.

Of course, I would argue that he's doing nothing of the sort, and request you provide evidence of some one who has been vaccinated against their will, rather than simply given a choice between two things they do not like, just as those who choose to have an abortion have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why Canadians re-elected a Liberal government?"

 

And what difference does it make to any of you?    You already knew our standard of life will be going down under a conservative or a liberal government.   You already knew our environment will be in danger under a conservative or a liberal government. 

You could achieve the same things under both governments - start a business and hopefully your business is successful and . you become rich, or get a job with your income gradually converging to the minimum wage level.

I see those "FU Trudeau" stickers on vehicles in town and wonder how dumb one should be to put one of those on; then let the public know he/she is exactly that dumb.   Amazing.

 

 

 

Edited by cougar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

given a choice between two things they do not like

But then you also control one of the things they do not like and make it more terrible and unbearable in order to exercise power to push them toward the second choice.  Yep, this matches the definition of "vile extremist"  Mike provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cougar said:

 the definition of "vile extremist"   

"Ugly, useless and possibly harmful"

Please don't try to tell me we are in a marketplace of ideas ?  If so what's the BEST BEFORE date on Naziism ?  Why is it still sold and bought ?

Just use your head: anti-vax, racist, hate-mongering, pernicious lies... if there's no value in them stop defending them.  Maybe they shouldn't be illegal but they sure don't need promotion right ?

There are lots of opinions I don't agree with that I will defend, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

You ask good questions, thanks.

1.  My opinion:  It's not hate speech to say that you hate the KKK, or Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism because of ______.  It It is hate speech to say that Muslims are terrorists (based on some extremists), Christians are murderers (based on some extremists), or Jews are out to rule the world and must be eliminated (based on nothing), Chinese Canadians are spies and not to be trusted (because you don't like China).  

2.  My opinion:  It's not hate speech to say you hate abortion.  It is hate speech say that people who are pro-choice are baby-killers, have no morals, are murderers.  It is ok to say you hate misogyny, it's not ok to say that all men are misogynists, abusers, rapists.  It not hate speech to deny the holocaust (however wrong you are); it is hate speech to say that the Nazi's had the right idea, that Jews are a blight on humanity.

3.  Am not talking about Islamophobia in particular; was more remembering my neighbor, who targeted anyone who wasn't white; neighbors from Jamaica, South America, India and Greece.  At the time, there were no Muslims living here.  He brought home to me the problem of racism in Canada, and made me think about the way in which people like him are created - or radicalized.  He wasn't born hating brown people; that attitude had to be shown him by the words and beliefs of others - whether his parents, friends or online groups.  His behavior was on the verge of becoming violent, rather than just spouting hateful/abusive claims.  Words people say influence others, for good or bad.   I read a bunch and watched some documentaries on how people are radicalized, and that is how I came to my opinions on this.

4.  Just because you (generic, not specifically you) wouldn't do anything, the words you use can empower others.  They hear what you say, understand that you guys believe the same things but for some reason you don't or can't act on it - maybe you have a family you don't want to leave if you end up in jail; maybe you are just afraid; maybe you don't understand the true seriousness of the situation.  Therefore, it is up to the extremist listening to you to do something.  By denying the power of many voices who, (for example), claim that Muslims are barbaric, misogynistic, do not fit into our society, are lazy, refuse to work because they can take advantage of our social supports and should not be let into the country - you are creating hate for Muslims in general.  Not terrorists, or extremists - but Muslims who simply want to live their lives, who work, who don't even talk about their religion to others - let alone coerce - who follow all laws, who don't beat their wives, who don't subject their daughters to FGM.  Even the claim that immigrants from certain countries do not work hard, can't speak English because they choose not to as a way of rejecting Western society, who have lower education, who create criminals - those things create hate for immigrants.

No group is monolithic and "hate speech", by default, must ascribe only the worst traits to whatever group is targeted - Muslim, Jews, immigrants, Christians, homosexuals, LGBTQ.  If someone is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the huge variety of beliefs any group has, and focuses only the behavior of the very worst of the, that is hate.

Definition of hate speech:  abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.  On this forum, that definition is regularly met.

Criticism of Islam, or Judaism or Christianity is different.  I criticize Christianity because of it's inbuilt paternalism, exclusion of others, judgement of anyone who is different; I criticize Judaism and Islam for much the same reasons.  But not all Muslims, Christians or Jews are paternalistic, exclusionary or judgmental.  Especially in Christianity many adherents fail to follow the worst of Christianity.  I don't criticize immigrants, or even immigration policy; others criticize immigration policy without also demonizing immigrants.  Some people criticize pro-choice because they believe that there is no point at which an individual isn't human.  Other people demonize pro-choice people by calling them baby-killiers, murderers, immoral and by extension evil.  Failing to take responsibility for the words you use is simply a cop-out.

Just for the record, I don't hold it against people who may, in a moment of emotion, express hateful thoughts, but are overall do not indulge in hateful rhetoric.  There are a few on this forum who'll do that (I've been guilty of that myself).  In my opinion, hate speech must be consistently expressed by an individual or group, not a one-off situation.

 

 

There's not a lot there that I would argue with, (given the assumption that agreeing what the legal definition of hate speech is in Canada does not imply approval of the laws around it) but when you make the distinction between it's okay to say and it's not okay to say are you saying that the not okay speech should be proscribed?  Because there's an awful lot there that I would say should be allowed, regardless of what I think of it. 

I don't think people who have an abortion are baby killers, but I could never see denying that view to anyone else.  The idea that the Nazis had the right idea is utterly abhorrent to me, but I can't see charging someone with a crime for expressing that view.  I'm an immigrant, but I support the right of those who say immigration should not be allowed to say it.  From specific countries, if they like.

I don't know how someone can take reponsibility for their words if they have no control over what others are going to do.  For instance, I don't think a man is a woman just because he says he is.  Luckily I can still say that in Canada. (I think)  I don't know that I would be allowed to in my home country.  What if someone read those words and hurt a transgender person.  Should I take any responsibility for that?  What if they hurt me because they thought I was a TERF?  Did I deserve it?  Is someone who thinks I'm a TERF guilty of a hate crime?

In your comment above you bolded a definition of hate speech that, in my opinion, highlighted all the wrong words and left unbolded the only word that really matters  "Threatening".  And then it would have to be shown to represent an actual threat.  Abusive and prejudiced don't reach the level where a ban on such speech would be warranted.  In my opinion.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cougar said:

But then you also control one of the things they do not like and make it more terrible and unbearable in order to exercise power to push them toward the second choice.  Yep, this matches the definition of "vile extremist"  Mike provided.

Sure, if you like. 

As far as I'm concerned, no-one has been forced to be vaccinated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

but when you make the distiction between it's okay to say and it's not okay to say are you saying that the not okay speech should be proscribed?

Then I'd say you support hate speech.  And yes, I think hate speech should be proscribed.  The government agrees with me, although we may differ on where and what constitutes hate speech.  

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm an immigrant, but I support the right of those who say immigration should not be allowed to say it.

I agree they should be able to say that, and give rational reasons why not.  What I don't agree they should be able to promote is the idea that immigrants from certain areas of the world are lazy, inclined to crime, not fit for our society.  That, to me, is hate speech.  It targets a certain group of people, it lies about those people as a group, and it supports the idea that they immoral, evil and unworthy.    

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know how someone can take reponsibility for their words if they have no control over what others are going to do. 

I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again:  If you deny that words can sway or influence people in certain directions (good or bad), then you have no clue about how and why humans communicate.

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think a man is a woman just because he says he is. 

Sure you can say that.  Promoting the idea that such people are delusional, predators, pedophiles, immoral, evil and unacceptable is different, imo.  

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

and left unbolded the only word that really matters  "Threatening".  And that it would have to be shown to represent an actual threat.  Abusive and prejudiced don't reach the level where a ban on such speech would be warranted.  In my opinion.

Your opinion differs from the law, and mine.  Abusive language directed toward a group creates hatred for that group.  

I'd agree that there is a fine line between free speech and hate speech, and that the line drawn by one judge may not be shared by other judges.  The link I included in another post looked at 7 cases in Canada that helped define the difference between hate speech and free speech.  One in particular was about a guy who distributed posters protesting homosexuality.  Two of them were fine, per the court's decision, but the other two were not because they promoted hate against homosexuals.   None of the pamphlets included threatening language.

So your opinion differs from law, but I concede that law is not always right and may need objecting to.  However, in this case I think Canada has the right idea - there has to be a limit on speech, not all speech is acceptable.

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...