Canada's Woke Supreme Court says some free speech is no longer important compared to protecting identity groups from being offended.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Where's my effing squirt gun?

Forget that... go get your shovel instead

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Forget that... go get your shovel instead

Don't be stupid .

You can't kill someone with a squirt gun. No need for a shovel.

[herbie]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You can't fight racism and discrimination with more racism and discrimination.

So how do you attribute this ruling as having anything to do with racism or discrimination? What racism? What discrimination?

As per usual, you've got everything ass backwards and call everyone else stupid.

The Bible thumping fun-dumb-mental-ist oaf tried to sue someone for calling him out and the court said F*** off. The rest of his term the Board ignored and overruled him until the voters, unlike Flori-Duh tossed him for good.

[myata]

4 hours ago, suds said:

If the courts feel that certain marginalized groups aren't being treated fairly then they might be inclined to be more protective of speech that defends those groups.

Of course there's a problem with that. A huge one at that. You just made a key right and a cornerstone of democracy conditional... on what? What in your view is "the courts"? A repository of eternal and perfectly pure knowledge, with 100% accuracy and justness of every word? Or a bunch of appointed bureaucrats, increasingly detached from the reality? Pick one. Because in some, very distorted view of the reality, Putin and Kim are also protecting some important (to them) abstract principle because they "feel" and "see it" that way. You won't even notice as you get there down this path, or at least to the third world state where meaning of words and decisions changes with the wind.

[myata]

I am exaggerating here? Let's see:

In Putin's world: on a slightest pretext, "you are an agent of world capitalism and conspiracy", no evidence, no accountability, life destroyed.

After this ruling, in Canada: "A is homophobic lgbt hater the source of all evil in this country", no evidence, no accountability job lost, reputation destroyed - what? Is it principally different, right now in this reality except one isn't sent jail? Yet.

This is as fine example of the slippery slope as it gets - you are already there, in the wagon rolling down the hill the windows firmly shut, pretty muzak playing non stop and you lack the mind and the will to open them and see the reality for yourself, not the movies you're being fed.

Edited May 22, 2023 by myata

[blackbird]

43 minutes ago, herbie said:

The Bible thumping fun-dumb-mental-ist

Did you know:

"The Church of Satan is a religious organization dedicated to the religion of LaVeyan Satanism as codified in The Satanic Bible. The Church of Satan was established at the Black House in San Francisco, California, on Walpurgisnacht, April 30, 1966, by Anton Szandor LaVey, who was the church's High Priest until his death in 1997.[2] In 2001, Peter H. Gilmore was appointed to the position of high priest, and the church's headquarters were moved to Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, New York City.

Members do not believe that Satan literally exists and do not worship him.[3] Instead, Satan is viewed as a positive archetype embracing the Hebrew root of the word "Satan" as "adversary", who represents pride, carnality, and enlightenment, and of a cosmos which Satanists perceive to be motivated by a "dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things".[2] The Devil is embraced as a symbol of defiance against the Abrahamic faiths which LaVey criticized for what he saw as the suppression of humanity's natural instincts. In his book, The Satanic Bible, the Satanist's concept of a god is described as the Satanist's true "self"— a projection of his or her own personality, not an external deity.[4] Satan is used as a representation of personal liberty and individualism.[5]

Church of Satan - Wikipedia

Would you classify yourself as someone who:-

1.  Does not believe Satan exists?

2.  Would you say you embrace a defiance against Bible believers?  ( see your comment above)

3.  Would you say "Bible thumper fundamentalists" suppress humanity's natural instincts?  

4.  Do you support totally free liberty and individualism of everyone to follow their natural instincts?

If you can answer yes to these four questions, you may wish to reconsider your beliefs to see if that is really how you want to be viewed, someone in total opposition to God and his word.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by blackbird

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Church of Satan - Wikipedia

 

Would you classify yourself as someone who:-

1.  Does not believe Satan exists?

2.  Would you say you embrace a defiance against Bible believers?  ( see your comment above)

3.  Would you say "Bible thumper fundamentalists" suppress humanity's natural instincts?  

4.  Do you support totally free liberty and individualism of everyone to follow their natural instincts?

If you can answer yes to these four questions, you may wish to reconsider your beliefs to see if that is really how you want to be viewed, someone in total opposition to God and his word.

Wow, are those the requirements one has to meet join the club, or did you think of those yourself?

Because I'm thinking, sign me up!

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, herbie said:

So how do you attribute this ruling as having anything to do with racism or discrimination? What racism? What discrimination?

What makes you think i would? The quote i was responding to addressed the issue, i responded to that.

You don't pay attention much do you.

51 minutes ago, herbie said:

As per usual, you've got everything ass backwards and call everyone else stupid.

You mean like calling the guy who couldn't figure out what i was responding to despite my quoting it in my response a bit stupid? Yeah that'd be crazy.

51 minutes ago, herbie said:

The Bible thumping fun-dumb-mental-ist oaf tried to sue someone for calling him out and the court said F*** off.

And the reason they gave is that some groups of people should be protected. Not all - but some. Sooooo .... maybe it is about racism and prejudice after all?

51 minutes ago, herbie said:

 

The rest of his term the Board ignored and overruled him until the voters, unlike Flori-Duh tossed him for good.

ok - cool story

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Wow, are those the requirements one has to meet join the club, or did you think of those yourself?

Because I'm thinking, sign me up!

I'm  wondering if there is a special place in hell for Satan worshipers.  Hell won't be a fun place..

"

Jesus spoke of hell as “eternal fire” (Matt. 25:41) and “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). In Matthew 25:46, the same word—eternal—is used to describe eternal life for the righteous and the eternal punishment of hell for the unrighteous. According to Jesus, hell will be eternal.

HELL IS MORE TERRIBLE THAN WE CAN IMAGINE.

The images of fire (Matt. 25:41), darkness (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30), the weeping and gnashing of teeth ” (Matt. 8:12; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28), and being cut into pieces speak of the horror of hell.

Are these vivid images of hell Jesus literal or figurative? If they are meant to be figurative, then the imagery is pointing beyond what human language can convey. In other words, hell—if not a literal fire and literal darkness—is immeasurably worse than those images and inexpressibly worse than we can even imagine or describe. As heaven is more wonderful than our finite minds can comprehend, hell is more horrible than we can comprehend."

What did Jesus say about hell? - Explore the Bible (lifeway.com)

Odd that I have been scorned and mocked for "fire and brimstone" talk.  Seems the Devil doesn't want it to be known.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I'm  wondering if there is a special place in hell for Satan worshipers.  Hell won't be a fun place..

You better hope not.

[herbie]

Thumpers gotta thump.

[I am Groot]

On 5/20/2023 at 8:22 PM, TreeBeard said:

Nowhere is blasphemy cited in the judgement. 

The modern variant of it.

[I am Groot]

22 hours ago, suds said:

. 'Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability'.  If the courts feel that certain marginalized groups aren't being treated fairly then they might be inclined to be more protective of speech that defends those groups. Anybody here have a problem with that? I for one find that line of thinking perfectly acceptable in a liberal democracy.

What part of 'every individual is equal before and under the law' sounds like it allows for deliberately unequal treatment in law, in criminal justice, in hiring and promotion, based solely on race? Now, if the court can point to something being done which is illegal they should order that organization to stop. But they haven't done that. Any more than the government has. Instead, they seem to have taken unequal economic/participation statistics as proof of discrimination. Oddly, they only ever do this when a group can be unequally compared to white men on the downside. If a racialized group is doing BETTER than white people, that's ignored. No one ever suggests that somehow the system is cheating on their behalf and discriminating against whites. The system also doesn't care if male participation at universities or other organizations is lower or even much lower than their numbers in the population at large. They would only care if it was higher.

[TreeBeard]

21 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The modern variant of it.

Nonsense.  You don’t really know what the judgement says, or won’t quote it directly because it isn’t the bogeyman you think it is, so you just make it up.  

[I am Groot]

On 5/21/2023 at 4:37 PM, herbie said:

Never heard so many load of shit arguments.

The pot can't sue anyone, not even the kettle, for calling it black.

Certainly, you can. But of course, that would fail if the kettle was, in fact, black.

On 5/21/2023 at 4:37 PM, herbie said:

If you stand on a soapbox praising Hitler and condemning the Jews, you can't sue the person that calls you a Nazi.

True enough. So all you'd have to do is demonstrate this to a court and they'd throw out the lawsuit against you. However, the SC stated that the speech involved here was NOT hate speech. This ought to mean there should be some interpretation done by the courts if someone gets called names in public, if they are defamed, so to speak.

It's interesting that given this court has used hypothetical possibilities or cases to strike down laws, however unlikely those possibilities might be it seems to be saying in this case that since the individual got re-elected, well, all's good. But what about future cases where someone loses their job? Their scholarship? Their place at college because someone started calling them undeserved names?

And as one example we could do worse than JK Rowling. As immensely popular and successful as she is, as much effort and money as she's devoted to Left-wing causes since becoming rich, she is now persona non grata to most of the Left and their organizations. There'd be riots at any university which dared to allow her to come speak or read her work. She has to hire a ton more security to protect her everywhere she goes. She's inundated with threats of rape and death.

All because she politely disagreed on the holy trans issue.

So no, you don't have to praise Hitler to draw thunderous condemnation down on you. And you might well say she's rich enough and powerful enough to survive cancellation, and she is, but many other are not and have been squashed by vitriolic campaigns of character assassination launched by fanatics of the church of woke.

But you feel they should have no recourse under the law to sue their harassers.

 

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Nonsense.  You don’t really know what the judgement says, or won’t quote it directly because it isn’t the bogeyman you think it is, so you just make it up.  

I know it establishes that people who accuse other people of being bigots, racists, homophobes, transphobes, etc., are acting for the noble good of all mankind and so cannot be sued by the wretched, evil, blasphemous heretics who have dared to go against the holy writ of woke.

[myata]

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

It's interesting that given this court has used hypothetical possibilities or cases to strike down laws, however unlikely those possibilities might be it seems to be saying in this case that since the individual got re-elected, well, all's good. But what about future cases where someone loses their job? Their scholarship? Their place at college because someone started calling them undeserved names?

Now the courts in their Supreme wisdom have claimed the powers of foresight. So the next time someone is publicly accused of those horrible things, they will have to take into account how the events will develop in the future. Easy. Can they predict stock market too (and better than the AI or why would we need them?).

Or just wait long enough till the matter takes care of itself (a famous quote here), diverse obscene salaries and benefits raked for the great service to the society done dutifully and diligently?  Sad. Pathetic.

The integrity of the country's justice system is eroding at an alarming pace. The free press is mostly gone. What still remains to connect the country with being a democracy, in fact and reality?

Edited May 23, 2023 by myata

[Moonbox]

On 5/22/2023 at 12:31 AM, blackbird said:

Odd that I have been scorned and mocked for "fire and brimstone" talk. 

and in your own deluded fantasy, you picture yourself a brave missionary trying to share the Bible among the  evil heathens.  

In reality, you're just being loud, obnoxious and pointing your finger at people.   

[eyeball]

On 5/21/2023 at 9:31 PM, blackbird said:

I'm  wondering if there is a special place in hell for Satan worshipers.  Hell won't be a fun place..

Compared to Pat Robertson's idea of fun you mean? He says Heaven is like Sunday School that goes on for trillions upon quadrillions of years.

I'm pretty sure Hell will be populated with more interesting people and things to do than singing I'll be Standing By the River for bazillions of years.

[suds]

On 5/21/2023 at 11:42 PM, myata said:

Of course there's a problem with that. A huge one at that. You just made a key right and a cornerstone of democracy conditional... on what? What in your view is "the courts"? A repository of eternal and perfectly pure knowledge, with 100% accuracy and justness of every word? Or a bunch of appointed bureaucrats, increasingly detached from the reality? Pick one. Because in some, very distorted view of the reality, Putin and Kim are also protecting some important (to them) abstract principle because they "feel" and "see it" that way. You won't even notice as you get there down this path, or at least to the third world state where meaning of words and decisions changes with the wind.

The provincial governments of British Columbia and Ontario have determined that speech in the public's interests should be more protected when it comes to defamation lawsuits than speech which is not (and have put it into law). Especially the kind of lawsuits that are intended to 'suppress debate on matters of public interest'. And of course it's the courts that have to deal with these matters. So yeah, some speech is more protected than other speech. After deciding whether it's a matter of public interest, the courts then have to take into consideration whether 'protecting free debate on matters of public interest (without fear of lawsuits) outweighs harm done to the plaintiff'. Now add in constitutional concerns. You're making this into some kind of freedom of speech RIGHTS issue which it clearly is not.

[suds]

On 5/22/2023 at 5:33 PM, I am Groot said:

What part of 'every individual is equal before and under the law' sounds like it allows for deliberately unequal treatment in law, in criminal justice, in hiring and promotion, based solely on race?

For starters you left a few words out.....Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination.  And then there's Section 15(2) of the Charter.

[myata]

5 hours ago, suds said:

The provincial governments of British Columbia and Ontario have determined that speech in the public's interests should be more protected when it comes to defamation lawsuits than speech which is not (and have put it into law).

Yep. Putin has that too. Getting there.

5 hours ago, suds said:

Especially the kind of lawsuits that are intended to 'suppress debate on matters of public interest'.

So an unrestricted privilege to throw accusations and insults on certain interests topics, without any evidence and with assumed impunity is somehow supposed to "encourage debate"? In what country? In what context, struggle sessions maybe?

But here's the important one: who determines what is and is not "public interest", who gets to know and decide that? Putin knows, sure. But who else, genuinely and sincerely in a free democratic society, gets to decide, what speech should be encouraged and which (we aren't talking criminal here, remember), suppressed "in the public interest"? There isn't a good answer. A bunch of entitled bureaucrats is not a good answer. I don't think and the history showed it not once, there's a good exit down this path.

Edited May 24, 2023 by myata

[suds]

1 hour ago, myata said:

But here's the important one: who determines what is and is not "public interest",

Who would YOU like to see make these determinations? In this particular case it ended up before the Supreme Court which in my opinion 9 minds is better than 1.  We know that one of the Justices was against dismissing the lawsuit and allowing it to see its day in court. I wouldn't be entirely against that either but it was out-voted by the other Justices.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, suds said:

Who would YOU like to see make these determinations?

How bout no one. Liberalism in free speech good

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

How bout no one. Liberalism in free speech good

There will always be legislation over some aspects of speech.

What is acceptable changes over time, but a judicial process can conceivably weigh the consequences of legislation and rule.

It's not perfect but it's a superior system to anything else we've seen.

[OftenWrong]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not perfect but it's a superior system to anything else we've seen.

It needs to be protected from political influence. We appear to be losing that battle as we become more and more divided.

Then there is the consequences of becoming a target of cancel-culture, which calls for increasingly punitive measures for expressing "wrong ideas".