The woke police going after nurse for believing in biology

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Stop dodging.

2. Leftards said that people can wear slogans at work and kneel for the anthem. 

3. Now they tell us we can't say "Keep men out of the girl's bathroom."

4. Which is it? It's one or the other...

1. ?
2.  What do I care what other people (that you have a cute name for) say ?
3.  Those things are analogous at all.  You don't have a logical mind.
4.  Rights discussions are pretty tricky things to undertake.  From your post you seem to be pretty invested in one side or the other, and you want me to be on the other I guess.  That's just not how it is.  I find the situation interesting, and have stated multiple times what I would like to get out of this discussion.  

[myata]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

make public statements etc. 

But you wouldn't be able to make them, if you have a contract and your employer has an absolute privilege to interpret and decide what may or could harm their reputation is some stretched remote way. You lost you rights and the paper they were written on is worthless.

No, this is not how freedoms and democracy work, and you struggle to get it because you never really understood the democracy.

The rights are universal, they apply to every citizen. But because of your situation, relationships, etc, they may be limited in a very certain, specific, limited and justified way. If someone's health or wellbeing is at stake, you may not share publicly some information. If you are employed, cannot spread defamatory information about your employer. Police cannot discuss tomorrow's raid on the criminals, etc. Obvious.

But thanks to the eternal "because we can" it all turned around. You signed it off, done deal. Now I own it, your former rights, so better be careful to say (and think, obviously). Universality left behind, with the democracy itself. Hello, China.

[TreeBeard]

45 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There you are making general vague statements without any basis.  I said no contract can take away basic rights without a clear meaningful reason such as when you are on the job, you can't say certain things.  But it doesn't need a written contract to tell people how to think and speak on the job.  That's just common sense.

You’re absolutely correct and @Michael Hardner is wrong.  
 

You can say anything you want about your employer, even if you sign a contract that you won’t.  The government will not take away your freedoms because you signed a contract.  
 

Your employer can also fire you for doing so because you signed a contract not to.  
 

You’re both conflating your freedoms with the consequences of saying things.  You’re free to say them, and the government can’t punish you for doing so, but your employer has a right to fire you as a consequence. 

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, myata said:

1. But you wouldn't be able to make them, if you have a contract and your employer has an absolute privilege to interpret and decide what may or could harm their reputation is some stretched remote way. You lost you rights and the paper they were written on is worthless.

2. No, this is not how freedoms and democracy work, and you struggle to get it because you never really understood the democracy.

3. Police cannot discuss tomorrow's raid on the criminals, etc. Obvious.

 

1. Well, not worthless.  If it didn't say anything about your public statements in the contract then it would be hard for them to bring a case.
2. Ok, well you seem to be saying that my employer doesn't have the right to restrict my public speech.  Can I find a case that answers the question before us and we can be done with it ?
3. These are some examples, yes, of your rights being restricted.  

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

1.  You’re both conflating your freedoms with the consequences of saying things.  You’re free to say them, and the government can’t punish you for doing so, but your employer has a right to fire you as a consequence. 

1. Ok - that sounds like what I meant, even if I stated it wrong legally.  Thanks.

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. ?
2.  What do I care what other people (that you have a cute name for) say ?
3.  Those things are analogous at all.  You don't have a logical mind.
4.  Rights discussions are pretty tricky things to undertake.  From your post you seem to be pretty invested in one side or the other, and you want me to be on the other I guess.  That's just not how it is.  I find the situation interesting, and have stated multiple times what I would like to get out of this discussion.  

I think that freedom of speech is for people outside of their workplace. Pretty basic. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok - that sounds like what I meant, even if I stated it wrong legally.  Thanks.

This means - to all on the thread I'm discussing - I am 100% wrong about "signing away your rights".  But they can fire you for breach of contract as TB said.

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

To answer your question, I think government employees are restricted from political participation.   One friend told me that he couldn't put a sign on his lawn.  Not sure how much of this is so, but for sure there are restrictions.  I also can't express myself freely about things online, with regards to financial legislation, due to my job.

Government employees regularly express their political views on their own time. Sometimes they even run for political office. And I've seen lawn signs on the lawns of people I know are public servants.

In any event, I wasn't asking so much about employees as members of a professional association.

[blackbird]

Another article reporting the decline of freedom.  It seems the bigger government gets, the less freedom.  Could there be a correlation?  After all, civil servants have to have a purpose.  What other purpose than control of the society they are supposed to be serving?  Control for our own good or control for the good of the collective and those in charge?

GOLDSTEIN: Freedom in Canada and globally on decline, says report (msn.com)

Could this be yet another sign we are in the last days or end times as prophesied in the Bible and moving toward a one world government?

Edited January 27 by blackbird

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Another article reporting the decline of freedom.  It seems the bigger government gets, the less freedom.  Could there be a correlation?

GOLDSTEIN: Freedom in Canada and globally on decline, says report (msn.com)

Could this be yet another sign we are in the last days or end times as prophesied in the Bible and moving toward a one world government?

We're lagging behind Estonia now? 

What's Canada going to do to keep our immigration up when we can't even compete with Estonia? 

We're already paying people to come here. 

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

We're lagging behind Estonia now? 

What's Canada going to do to keep our immigration up when we can't even compete with Estonia? 

We're already paying people to come here. 

Next they’ll try to keep us from leaving the country.  Oh wait, some memories seem to be returning…

[myata]

10 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

but your employer has a right to fire you as a consequence. 

That is not the case that's been discussed in this topic. You say something you think without any association to your employer, never mentioning them from you home, during your free time. Next morning the employer runs a "tribunal" on the grounds that it may have affected their "reputation" and fires you. That would be clearly, a) arbitrary dismissal, and you should be able to sue the employer, including damages for violating your constitutional rights; b) a gross violation of the constitutional rights.

But wait, there's more. Who would be the employer here, in most cases no other than the government itself. Governments in violation of constitutional rights? So should they be allowed to use those pads, "professional associations" to do the same job on their behalf?

The solution is easy, define jurisdictions clearly and specifically: only clear professional misconduct, in direct execution of professional duties is in the jurisdiction of "associations" and "tribunals". And for everything else, for overstepping jurisdiction even by a half a step or inch, their a..es can (and should be) sued off, that time sure, for damaging reputations, exemplary damages for overstepping authority all of that. Only this way the society can make "because we can" folk learn because they will always come to believe that yes, they can and try it again. Persistently, tirelessly and regularly. That's a fact, nothing to discuss here, proven, certified and stamped by history.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, myata said:

That is not the case that's been discussed in this topic. You say something you think without any association to your employer, never mentioning them from you home, during your free time. Next morning the employer runs a "tribunal" on the grounds that it may have affected their "reputation" and fires you. That would be clearly, a) arbitrary dismissal, and you should be able to sue the employer, including damages for violating your constitutional rights; b) a gross violation of the constitutional rights.

But wait, there's more. Who would be the employer here, in most cases no other than the government itself. Governments in violation of constitutional rights? So should they be allowed to use those pads, "professional associations" to do the same job on their behalf?

The solution is easy, define jurisdictions clearly and specifically: only clear professional misconduct, in direct execution of professional duties is in the jurisdiction of "associations" and "tribunals". And for everything else, for overstepping jurisdiction even by a half a step or inch, their a..es can (and should be) sued off, that time sure, for damaging reputations, exemplary damages for overstepping authority all of that. Only this way the society can make "because we can" folk learn because they will always come to believe that yes, they can and try it again. Persistently, tirelessly and regularly. That's a fact, nothing to discuss here, proven, certified and stamped by history.

You’re describing the scary overreach that has become ubiquitous in government and organizations in Canada today.  It’s put a chill on free speech because everyone is afraid of being canceled, losing their jobs and reputations, etc.   Canada has dropped down in freedom rankings for these reasons.  We are increasingly told what we should think and how we should live in top-down totalitarian fashion.  Anyone who has studied history should know where this attack on free thinking leads. We can refer to the Spanish Inquisition, McCarthyism, the various purges in communist and fascist countries.  Disagreement on matters of opinion has become grounds for mistreatment by employers, media, etc.

I don’t know exactly when this got out of control in recent years, but the pandemic response certainly heightened the situation.  It always starts for “good” reasons: ending racism, communism, sexism, public health emergencies, environmental catastrophe, etc.   Having free exchange and debate of ideas suddenly became misinformation, conspiracy, and so on.

The shift against freedom today is supported by cutting edge surveillance, data collection, and enforcement systems.  That’s why we should be highly critical of new centralized controls, such as digital state currencies.

Government and big businesses are working closely together like in the days of the fascist regimes to make sure citizens follow the path of “good” behaviour. 

Edited January 27 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 It always starts for “good” reasons: ending racism, communism,  

😂 Communism??

Isn't this post about FREE SPEECH??

Hilarious... True colours here...

[myata]

Canada's political culture does not have any of this ("weak" isn't true enough). Just absent:

- critical analysis of the decisions of governments and authorities

- effective independent mechanisms of checks and oversight

This is a problem, long standing and critical one that, as the history shows, does not have easy sweet talking solutions. An authority without controls will always try to overstep its boundaries and reduce controls. With each passing decade sailing in this mode, we will have more encroaching and less effective (and efficient, obviously) governments. This is no forecast, only history.

Edited January 27 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Canada's political culture does not have any of this ("weak" isn't true enough). Just absent:

- critical analysis of the decisions of governments and authorities

- independent mechanisms of checks and oversight

This is a problem, long standing and critical one that, as the history shows, does not have easy sweet talking solutions. An authority without controls will always try to overstep its boundaries and reduce controls. With each passing decade sailing in this mode, we will have more encroaching and less effective (and efficient, obviously) governments. This is no forecast, only history.

You can't say it doesn't have "any" but I agree that we don't have a good culture of criticism.

The current populism plays into the hands of the royalist status quo by dumping ridiculous claims out there instead of well-founded ones.  The healthiest media criticism seems to be in the podcast/twitter world, occasionally from the MSM (once in a long while) and maybe in Quebec.

[myata]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

media criticism seems to be

Thank you Michael, added a word that should have been there all along: "effective independent checks and oversight". Now "any" there is fully justified.

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

😂 Communism??

Isn't this post about FREE SPEECH??

Hilarious... True colours here...

The point is that free speech can be attacked from the left or the right.  It’s you who wants to pin all attacks on free speech exclusively on the right when it’s crystal clear today that the biggest threats to free speech are coming more commonly from the left.  It’s funny watching you who call yourself conservative constantly defending the left.  You don’t see how far left government and media have shifted in Canada and how other political voices are silenced or dismissed.  It’s a distinct lack of pluralism.  

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

😂 Communism??

Isn't this post about FREE SPEECH??

Hilarious... True colours here...

Right?

How does the topic of communism enter into a discussion of free speech? 

So random...

[PIK]

And what did Trudeau mean by saying cons want to go back to the days when men were men  well ,guess what that means?.lol 

Edited January 27 by PIK

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.  It’s you who wants to pin all attacks on free speech exclusively on the right when it’s crystal clear today that the biggest threats to free speech are coming more commonly from the left.  
2. It’s funny watching you who call yourself conservative constantly defending the left.  
3. You don’t see how far left government
4. ...and media have shifted in Canada and how
5. ...other political voices are silenced or dismissed.   

1. No, I think it's both sides.
2. No, it's funny seeing people who say they are 'conservatives' attacking institutions, business, and international commerce because they saw a YouTube video paid for by Russia.  THAT is funny.  
  It's also quite funny that you think free speech needs to be harnessed to stop people from talking about communism, if I read that right.
3. It's also funny that you think "far left" means governments that pay lip service to diversity while lowering taxes for the wealthy, and removing consumer protections etc...
4.  It's also funny that you think corporate concentrations of media are 'left', including in America where an Australian billionaire directs his television network to actively promote his favourite candidates...
5.  What is silenced and dismissed is common sense: talking about government providing value for services, talking about providing a level playing field for government an so on...

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, I think it's both sides.
2. No, it's funny seeing people who say they are 'conservatives' attacking institutions, business, and international commerce because they saw a YouTube video paid for by Russia.  THAT is funny.  
  It's also quite funny that you think free speech needs to be harnessed to stop people from talking about communism, if I read that right.
3. It's also funny that you think "far left" means governments that pay lip service to diversity while lowering taxes for the wealthy, and removing consumer protections etc...
4.  It's also funny that you think corporate concentrations of media are 'left', including in America where an Australian billionaire directs his television network to actively promote his favourite candidates...
5.  What is silenced and dismissed is common sense: talking about government providing value for services, talking about providing a level playing field for government an so on...

It’s funny that you think we’re still living under the old timey 1990’s Liberal vs. Conservative political opposition.  I voted for that Liberal party and still would today.  We’ve come along way from Chrétien-Martin fiscal prudence and laissez-faire with people speaking their conscience.

You can resume your CBC government love-in.  

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s funny that you think we’re still living under the old timey 1990’s Liberal vs. Conservative political opposition.  I voted for that Liberal party and still would today.  We’ve come along way from Chrétien-Martin fiscal prudence and laissez-faire with people speaking their conscience.

You can resume your CBC government love-in.  

You might note that I said nothing about the Liberal party, nor the CBC.  As happens so often, this little exchange with you making a personal comment about me rather than addressing these points:

- media is more concentrated
- corporations are more concentrated, more powerful, and wealthier
- governments paying lip service and batting their eyes while whispering 'diversity' doesn't mean anything
- conservatives today regularly make comments against institutions like universities, the courts, the police, and trade

And your response is that I love the Liberals and the CBC.  My bad for wading through the ignore list for being bored.... double secret probation for you.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You might note that I said nothing about the Liberal party, nor the CBC.  As happens so often, this little exchange with you making a personal comment about me rather than addressing these points:

- media is more concentrated
- corporations are more concentrated, more powerful, and wealthier
- governments paying lip service and batting their eyes while whispering 'diversity' doesn't mean anything
- conservatives today regularly make comments against institutions like universities, the courts, the police, and trade

And your response is that I love the Liberals and the CBC.  My bad for wading through the ignore list for being bored.... double secret probation for you.

🤷🏻‍♂️

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You might note that I said nothing about the Liberal party, nor the CBC.  As happens so often, this little exchange with you making a personal comment about me rather than addressing these points:

- media is more concentrated
- corporations are more concentrated, more powerful, and wealthier
- governments paying lip service and batting their eyes while whispering 'diversity' doesn't mean anything
- conservatives today regularly make comments against institutions like universities, the courts, the police, and trade

You have university-level writing skills and the ignorance of a champion.

1) Our gov't isn't whispering 'diversity', they're peddling division, racism, and bigotry. Then you pretend to see the swastikas and confederate flags that somehow nobody managed to capture in photos or on video. That means something.

2)  "Conservatives today regularly make comments against institutions like universities, the courts, the police, and trade" doesn't even mean anything. Everybody comments on those things. What are you trying to say? 

Conservatives definitely call out the media for being hypocrites, liars and disinformers, do you think they're wrong?

If they feel that way, what would you rather they do, just ignore it?

Quote

And your response is that I love the Liberals and the CBC. 

Weird how you don't love Trudeau, but you will lie for him and carry his water.

Weird how you don't have blind faith in our MSM, but you can't even contemplate for a second that our media has ever told a lie.

Quote

My bad for wading through the ignore list for being bored.... double secret probation for you.

Let me guess what brilliant conversationalists and free thinkers haven't made your ignore list: Beave, eyeball, ExFlyer, Rebound, Hodad, CrakHoBarbie, robo... 

I can't even imagine what your little echo chamber sounds like when there are no conservatives around to inject reality into the discourse dialogue debate discussion conversation prattle session.