Why Canadians re-elected a Liberal government?

[TreeBeard]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe, but we don't have the letter to judge for ourselves.. if you can find it I'll be glad to pass opinion and who knows maybe I'll even agree with you. I'm actually a staunch defender of religious rights. But I find it hard to believe that he published letter saying something is a sin, it sounds like it was more than that.

It was more than that.  It linked homosexuality with pedophelia and such.

BUT, it was overturned by the courts.  The courts admonished the HRT and confirmed that this was allowable speech.

Unfortunately, this example was a dud. 

[Faramir]

13 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

OK…. Don’t you contradict this in the next sentence?  Expressing an opinion and speech are the same thing.  Unless you are redefining terms to mean different things?  

I hope not, because that always makes things awkward and unproductive when people are not even talking about the same thing.  
 

Right.  Very limited restrictions.  Like inciting violence… like yelling ‘this is a stick up” in a bank.

What do you think about libel?  Should lying about someone and impugning their reputation be allowable speech?

 

1 - Yes, nasty is great.  Let’s get nasty!  

Incitement of hatred?  No.  I don’t think people should be allowed to promote hatred of Jews (for example) if it could be foreseeable that it would lead to violence against them.

 

 

2 - But your example so far has been someone’s nasty speech who was confirmed to be OK.  I love nasty speech too!!  Darn gays!

So can you provide another example of people NOT being allowed to say nasty things about LGBTQ (or whatever group…. Your choice) in Canada?  Because you did say this was forbidden to do in Canada. 

Right so you don't believe in free speech as you don't think people should allowed to say nasty or incorrect things about Jews.  You added a qualifier if it can lead to violence in foreseeable future.  That is exactly the weasel language the kangaroo courts use.  

[Faramir]

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Well, there was a time when I'd have agreed that even bad ideas should be expressed, so that good ideas can flourish.  Problem is, I don't see that happening.  People simply get more entrenched in their ideas, good or bad, and as we see become more polarized.  Do you think polarization is good for society?  The States has very recently had an attempted insurrection due to that kind of polarization.  

My opinion is that there has to be limits on people being able to say or promote anything they want.  Just as people can't deliberately sell poison while claiming it's a cure-all, so speech can't spew poison while claiming it's a boon to society.

 

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

[Faramir]

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Pfft.  I'm assuming you are heterosexual.  Please, go out and be homosexual - give up your heterosexuality, like a smoking habit.  Do it just for a month; you don't even have to make it a lifetime commitment.

Being hetero is like drinking water because I'm thirsty.  I don't identify myself by my sexuality.  I just naturally like girls. Being homosexual is a choice to do something disgusting and perverse.

[Faramir]

32 minutes ago, Argus said:

The UK, for one.

It's rather sad but not unexpected that liberal leaning people don't want narrow restrictions on free speech, but as we see here think if something "possibly could lead to violence in the future" it should be censored.  Or if its not nice.  Very Canadian.  Even American liberals, not all, but I'd say most, value the right to free expression.

[TreeBeard]

13 minutes ago, Faramir said:

Right so you don't believe in free speech as you don't think people should allowed to say nasty or incorrect things about Jews.  You added a qualifier if it can lead to violence in foreseeable future.  That is exactly the weasel language the kangaroo courts use.  

Be nasty!!  Just don’t incite violence.

You think they should be able to incite violence?

[Faramir]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Be nasty!!  Just don’t incite violence.

You think they should be able to incite violence?

No I don't.  I do believe someone should be allowed to deny the holocaust.  And I do not deny the holocaust in case you were wondering.  I believe if we don't believe in the the worst speech, we really don't believe in free speech.   We take the good with the bad.  Denying the holocaust could fit into "something that could lead to violence in the foreseeable future.

[Argus]

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s a country.  Do you have an actual example of this actually happening in the UK?

https://reason.com/2018/09/15/britain-turns-offensive-speech-into-a-po/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/uk-mother-arrested-and-locked-in-a-cell-after-calling-a-transgender-woman-a-man-on-twitter/5YKPOVDBLMNJXF5MHEP4TJSJBM/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-58395138

[Army Guy]

46 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

The law enforcement is independent of government or political parties and they do the job without interference. Even the Prime Minister himself can be charged if he breaks the law.

Come on Citizen, do you think the SNC affair was not the government interfering with the law...Miss Raybould thinks so and no charges where laid...And this is the one we know of, how many more could there be ? 

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

1.  It was more than that.  It linked homosexuality with pedophelia and such.

2. BUT, it was overturned by the courts.  The courts admonished the HRT and confirmed that this was allowable speech.

3. Unfortunately, this example was a dud. 

1.  Ok.  Well that's not in the bible is it, nope.
2.  Hmmm...
3. I'll say.  

There's nothing like a grey area for me to shrug and say "well, maybe, who knows" and the zealots to seize upon as proof of the end times and proof that Hell just opened up a liberal hole of fire in the prairies.  Oh well, it's why we're here right ?

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Faramir said:

No I don't.  I do believe someone should be allowed to deny the holocaust.  And I do not deny the holocaust in case you were wondering.  I believe if we don't believe in the the worst speech, we really don't believe in free speech.   We take the good with the bad.  Denying the holocaust could fit into "something that could lead to violence in the foreseeable future.

We agree!!  Right on!  

Both of us believe that we should restrict speech that incites violence!  

Now, how should we go about deciding where to draw the line as to what incites violence or is just the nasty stuff that you and I both like?

Oh, and what about libel?  Should we restrict speech that impugns someone’s reputation?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

https://reason.com/2018/09/15/britain-turns-offensive-speech-into-a-po/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/uk-mother-arrested-and-locked-in-a-cell-after-calling-a-transgender-woman-a-man-on-twitter/5YKPOVDBLMNJXF5MHEP4TJSJBM/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-58395138

Yeah, at least one of these is real and The Guardian UK put an editorial out against it.

We need to protect liberal society but also free speech.  Difficult to do so, because nobody seems willing to look at both sides of the problem.
 
People are hate mongering as well as spreading disinformation online
Intelligence agencies have found foreign agencies and paid agents proliferating this stuff
The governments are also over-reaching and getting ready to legislate speech.

Seems like a pretty tricky problem, mmm hmmm.

 

[Faramir]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Ok.  Well that's not in the bible is it, nope.
2.  Hmmm...
3. I'll say.  

There's nothing like a grey area for me to shrug and say "well, maybe, who knows" and the zealots to seize upon as proof of the end times and proof that Hell just opened up a liberal hole of fire in the prairies.  Oh well, it's why we're here right ?

free speech is a grey area?  

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Faramir said:

free speech is a grey area?  

Of course.  And... the example you give was flipped by a court.  So they don't agree on it themselves.  Hence a grey area.

Do you think you know better than both of them ?

 

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Ok.  Well that's not in the bible is it, nope.
2.  Hmmm...
3. I'll say.  

There's nothing like a grey area for me to shrug and say "well, maybe, who knows" and the zealots to seize upon as proof of the end times and proof that Hell just opened up a liberal hole of fire in the prairies.  Oh well, it's why we're here right ?

1 - I don’t think anyone said it was in the bible.  Just that a pastor was the one saying it.  (Do you think anti-LGBTQ sentiments are more prevalent in religious people?)  

2 - That was my reaction!  “Hmmm…. Why did Faramir use something that the courts said we could say as the example of something we couldn’t say?”  I chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

 

[Michael Hardner]

How about this solution:

People are allowed free speech but they have to use their real names - no fake accounts.

I suspect that few will want to put their name behind actual hate mongering, and few will want to LIKE postings of that kind.

 

 

[Faramir]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course.  And... the example you give was flipped by a court.  So they don't agree on it themselves.  Hence a grey area.

Do you think you know better than both of them ?

 

Sure but Trudeau wanting to criminalize what Stephen did, does that give you pause?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

1 - I don’t think anyone said it was in the bible. 

2.  Do you think anti-LGBTQ sentiments are more prevalent in religious people?

3 - That was my reaction!  “Hmmm…. Why did Faramir use something that the courts said we could say as the example of something we couldn’t say?”  I chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

 

1. Well, I am trying to extrapolate how we could defend his speech as having protection under our Charter of Rights.
2. Well, yes.  
3. Well, he got it somewhere and the article wasn't updated with the appeal result.

[WestCanMan]

On 9/21/2021 at 5:59 AM, EastCanada90 said:

mostly cause overall he didn't handle the pandemic terribly.

Trudeau handled the pandemic terribly.

1) He left travel open from China

2) He didn't screen or quarantine travellers from China, he let them wander freely through crowded airports and all over the country

3) His health minister told Canadians not to wear masks

4) He told Canadians "Covid won't really get here"

5) He gave away tons of PPR to China and got back junk

6) He ignored US vaccines and ordered Chinese vaccines

7) He had to poach vaccines from the 3rd world charity pool because he put us at the back of the line for US vaxxes

FYI - countries with 4x our population and hundreds of times our population density that were a thousand times closer to China than we are got to 5,000 covid deaths several months after we did. 

? Trudeau was so slow to react to covid that our country was saturated by the time we started fighting it, that's why he had to pour hundreds of billions into CERB, etc

9) He lied about mask mandates

10) he lied about vaccine mandates

12) he lied about vaccine passports 

13) He showed cowardice, hiding in his basement for weeks

14) He showed incredible hypocrisy by doing things like travelling across provincial borders for personal reasons after telling Canadians not to do it, and not quarantining when he returned to Canada even though everybody else had to quarantine

15) He even got his own wife infected with covid

16) He tried to use covid as an excuse to give a sole-source $900M contract to his buddies at We so that they could create a Hitler Youth Camp where his family would cash in on some more lucrative speaking engagements, and young adults & children would be subjected to the galling propaganda that We was creating for him. 

Quote

A spokesperson for WE Charity told the National Post that the prime minister was not paid to appear in the ad. “As part of Canada 150, this video was developed to motivate and engage youth to provide service in their communities.”

LOL. 'We didn't pay Trudeau to appear in his propaganda video". 

Which of those things was an example of "not handling the pandemic terribly"?

Trudeau did literally everything 100% wrong. There's not a single thing that he got right on the first try.

Leftist dolts love to act like Trump was a failure, but he blocked travel when there were less than 5 dead Americans (in summer of 2020 Canada finally started blocking countries where the D Variant was breaking out). Trump shut down the economy when there were less than 100 dead Americans. Trump quickly had hospital beds opened up all across the country that were specially designed to care for covid patients. Trump got an N95 mask factory going in the US. He got companies all across the country to chip in and help out with things like making ventilators, etc. Trump initiated operation warp speed to speed up the creation of vaccines. Trump never scoffed at therapeutics, he encouraged all kinds of ways to fight covid, and now therapeutics are saving a lot of lives. Trump cut off funding to The WHO when they turned out to be covid pushers. Trump never divided Americans over whether or not they wore masks, or got vaccinated, he just encouraged people to do the right things: Trudeau has been so divisive and moronic that he has Canadians involved in angry protests for the first time in my lifetime.

WTF did Trudeau do again? Do you have a list?

For sure, not everything Trump did was perfect, but at least he got a lot of things right on the first try, and he was ahead of the science regarding masks and travel restrictions. Trudeau was behind at every single turn. The only reason that Canada doesn't have twice as many deaths as the US is our pop density is so much lower and we have 1/10th their population. 

 

What you actually should have said was "The Canadian mainstream media gave Trudeau glowing report cards on covid every single day", because that's the actual truth. 

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

I'm going to guess what the answer will (or would be):

1.  Send all Muslims back from whence they came; if born here, send them to their parent's/grandparent's/great grandparent's home land.

2.  Forbid LGBTQ from ever pointing out the social (and sometimes systemic) disadvantages under which they live and disallow any effort by them to request any kind of recognition by government or society; disallow any trans-sexual surgery; continue to insist that everyone is either male or female,  ignoring historical and current evidence to the contrary.

Added for good measure:

3.  If anyone should criticize the dominant culture, they must be cancelled immediately.

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...  

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Faramir said:

Sure but Trudeau wanting to criminalize what Stephen did, does that give you pause?

When it comes to legal questions in this area, not only do I pause but I read things again after the pause.  As I said above it is dependent on what was in the letter, which for obvious reasons wasn't republished by anyone.

I think that a religious person should be able to express their opinion that homosexuality is a sin, and that they should be able to decide what constitutes moral behaviour in the realm of their lives and their community generally.  

What I really resent is political gamesmanship using our LGBT people and religious people as pawns.  These things need to go to court and so be it, but when it comes to moral issues we should have 100% free votes and committee all-party groups determining what our collective Canadian values should do.  I don't think that the Liberals were brave to legislate same-sex marriage coincidentally as the polls showed 51% in Canada for it.

 

[Army Guy]

5 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?

Every one is covered in todays existing laws. We do not need special laws to cover every race, creed, or religion... what we need is police and the courts to enforce it... 

[TreeBeard]

15 minutes ago, Faramir said:

free speech is a grey area?  

Do you think inciting violence could be a grey area?  Is it always reallly easy to tell the line?

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Where is this happening?  Examples?

Because the last time I asked for an example of a Canadian who isn’t allowed to express anti LGBTQ sentiments, I got a case that was overturned and confirmed that indeed the person was allowed to say those things about LGBTQ people. 

This may fall in that catogory.

 

Man arrested for contempt after publicly referring to his biological daughter as 'she' during her gender transition (msn.com)

[TreeBeard]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think that a religious person should be able to express their opinion that homosexuality is a sin, and that they should be able to decide what constitutes moral behaviour in the realm of their lives and their community generally.  

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.

Quote

…but when it comes to moral issues we should have 100% free votes and committee all-party groups determining what our collective Canadian values should do. 

So political parties should not set limits on their MPs?

There could be Conservative Communists?  

Anti-gay Liberals?

Union-busting NDP’ers?

Any MP can vote any way they want right now….  But they should be prepared for the Conservatives to kick you out if you vote for pro-Communist legislation, or espouse views antithetical to the political party they freely joined.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/controversial-mp-derek-sloan-ejected-from-conservative-caucus-1.5274153

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

Edited September 24, 2021 by TreeBeard