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

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

And we have to point out painstakingly that none of this amounts to compelled speech.

 

Preventing someone from using abusive words in a framework where harassment is disallowed is not compelled speech.

Yeah, yeah, to the SJW set refusing to call someone who is 'gender fluid' whatever the hell that is, by today's pronoun is 'abusive'. If these people got punched in the face more often they might have a better understanding of what 'abuse' is.

[TreeBeard]

56 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

So we'll ruin a business and cost everyone else their jobs because some wacked out snowflake wants their pronouns changed whenever they feel like changing 'gender'? Thirty thousand grand because the snowflake didn't get proper psychiatric care and instead insists the world cater to her fantasies?

And you think that's a swell idea, right?

I think it’s a swell idea that employers must not harass their employees.   If that means not calling black people the ‘n’ word or needing to refer to someone by how they identify, that really isn’t asking very much at all.  
 

You need to add in a bunch of superfluous nonsense to even make your argument.   Snowflakes changing their pronouns constantly and needing psychiatric care are issues you made up, not an issue that there is any evidence of in this particular SCC case.  

Edited June 3 by TreeBeard

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

So in other words, you're not allowed to act or speak in a way the fashionable set considers improper or you will be sanctioned by the state.

Not if you can't without being an arsehole about it.

How hard can it be?

[I am Groot]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not if you can't without being an arsehole about it.

How hard can it be?

I'm pretty sure I'd consider much of what this type says and does as being an arsehole, too.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

I think it’s a swell idea that employers must not harass their employees.   If that means not calling black people the ‘n’ word or needing to refer to someone by how they identify, that really isn’t asking very much at all.  
 

You need to add in a bunch of superfluous nonsense to even make your argument.   Snowflakes changing their pronouns constantly and needing psychiatric care are issues you made up, not an issue that there is any evidence of in this particular SCC case.  

There is no such thing as 'gender fluidity'. There is no such thing as 'non binary'. These are the things that are being made up. And we're all required to cater to their fantasies and pretend they're sane because cowardly institutions are afraid of being accused of being 'phobic' or some other such crap and patronize these weird little freaks by pretending their fantasies are reality. 

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And we have to point out painstakingly that none of this amounts to compelled speech.

Of course it does. lying doesn't change that. What happened to your whole 'ethics' argument?

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Preventing someone from using abusive words in a framework where harassment is disallowed is not compelled speech.

OF course it is.  "you must use this word despite the fact that it is not true or be subject to penalty".

Whether or not you feel it SHOULD be compelled is another matter but it is compelled speech. You MUST refer to this person by this term which is a lie.  That is compelled speech. Being forced to call a boy a girl is compelled speech.  While they might find it offienseive it is not harrasment in the normal historic use of the term. It is only being CALLED harassment because that suits the agenda of compelling speech.

If you force me to say something other than the truth then you're compelling my speech.  Aren't you.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I think it’s a swell idea that employers must not harass their employees.   If that means not calling black people the ‘n’ word or needing to refer to someone by how they identify, that really isn’t asking very much at all. 

The "n" word is a derrogatory term.  But calling a male a male is not derrogatory in the slightest.

And you still call them black.  So if a white man says he now identifies as black will you now refer to him as black and claim that he's a 'real black'?

What about age?  If a teenager shows up at a movie theatre and demands the seniors'  discount because he indentifies as 65 will you fight for his right to do so?

Using demeaning or derrogatory terms is harrassment. There is nothing derrogatory about calling a man a man.

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

 

You need to add in a bunch of superfluous nonsense to even make your argument.   Snowflakes changing their pronouns constantly and needing psychiatric care are issues you made up, not an issue that there is any evidence of in this particular SCC case.  

Nope - it's as simple as 'we call black people black people, even tho we don't call them ni@@ers'. It's not derrogatory or demeaning to be called black when you're black, even if you wish you were white.

If you put your argument in any other context it immediately sounds asinine.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Not at all.  Misgender someone all you want in the public realm;  you have no responsibility to treat everyone with respect. 

Actually that's not true. There are cases regarding that as well.

It is now considered to be a human rights violation to misgender someone. And that is a serious issue.

[myata]

8 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I think it’s a swell idea that employers must not harass their employees.  

And again we have to reflect and ask an obvious question: what is harassment, what constitutes harassment and are all kind of harassment in our definition are the same? Anything less and we are on a way to horrific "discrimination".

A identifies as a CEO and insists on being addressed as "us, the presidents". The pronoun is of course essential to their feeling of self and existence in the world. Everybody around addresses them in a common way, causing heated argument, physical violence by A that isn't their fault and a prompt and just HRT hearing.

The only reason we haven't heard something of the kind yet, because the departed and disconnected leftie Central Committee with its pocket hand-fed "caucus" of employee-representatives" (having a connection to a representative body of the citizens only as a disfigured parody) decided to put in the Charter this line and not that. And why did they decide to do that? Easy: because they had to show something and that's pretty much all they could show and wanted to. Easy.

Commonsense? Lines? Limits on the broad and bright highway to shining absurdity? Why? Where? Who cares?

[TreeBeard]

On 6/3/2023 at 1:53 PM, I am Groot said:

These are the things that are being made up.

Gender and gender roles have always been made up.  

 

On 6/3/2023 at 1:53 PM, I am Groot said:

patronize these weird little freaks

Call your employees that and you’ll owe them lots of money.  Clearly, there are standards that employers must follow, regardless of how much you want to share your bigoted views about what you really think about them.  

[TreeBeard]

On 6/3/2023 at 9:59 PM, myata said:

A identifies as a CEO and insists on being addressed as "us, the presidents". The pronoun is of course essential to their feeling of self and existence in the world. Everybody around addresses them in a common way, causing heated argument, physical violence by A that isn't their fault and a prompt and just HRT hearing.

What a bizarre analogy.  If you think someone can demand to be called “us, the presidents” and everyone then has to do this by law, you’re sadly mistaken and clearly have some sort of cognitive dissonance that makes you believe crazy “woke” conspiracies.  

[myata]

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If you think someone can demand to be called “us, the presidents” and everyone then has to do this by law

You obviously did not read it to the end (attention span?) and have no clue how an inch or even razor blade close we were / are to this scenario. If only the zombie-representative"" pseudo parliament on a whistle-cue of its Central Committee that just thought "and why not? sure we can" added in that book the "general" identification rights instead of their gender-narrow interpretation we would be discussing this very case, maybe word to word. You never know.. in Canada.

[TreeBeard]

23 minutes ago, myata said:

You obviously did not read it to the end (attention span?) and have no clue how an inch or even razor blade close we were / are to this scenario. If only the zombie-representative"" pseudo parliament on a whistle-cue of its Central Committee that just thought "and why not? sure we can" added in that book the "general" identification rights instead of their gender-narrow interpretation we would be discussing this very case, maybe word to word. You never know.. in Canada.

Trying to scare people with slippery slope fallacy.  Won’t work on the young people.  Probably works on old conservatives though.  

[myata]

33 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Trying to scare people with

Why "scare" though happens all the time. Who said that washroom right is a human right? Why couldn't the same people make general identification one next? Where is the line and what is the bound?

[TreeBeard]

22 minutes ago, myata said:

Why "scare" though happens all the time. Who said that washroom right is a human right? Why couldn't the same people make general identification one next? Where is the line and what is the bound?

Yes, that’s the slippery slope fallacy.  “If we allow gays to get married, next people will be marrying dogs”.   That was the argument a decade ago.  Did you use that argument back then?  Just curious.
 

Now, it’s the same sort of thing, but with the next vilified people asking to be treated with a modicum of respect.  

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Gender and gender roles have always been made up.  

Bullshit.

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Call your employees that and you’ll owe them lots of money.  

Nah, you just fire their ass for something else. That's if you've made the mistake of hiring one to begin with.

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Clearly, there are standards that employers must follow, regardless of how much you want to share your bigoted views about what you really think about them.  

But employees don't need to have any standards. Nor do people who think the idea of having standards or questioning bullshit is 'bigoted'.

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Trying to scare people with slippery slope fallacy.  Won’t work on the young people.  Probably works on old conservatives though.  

You mean like saying offensive speech is 'unsafe'? Because... because.. well, it might lead to something...?

[myata]

The country these days reminds a herd of sleepwalkers (not sure if it was much different throughout the history, not my call). Think of this, all rights till now protected an individual against injustice by the governments and the society:

- the right of being safe from arbitrary prosecution;

- the right to free speech

- the equality rights, being safe from arbitrary discrimination.

Now a bunch of entitled leftwing bozos or so they like to posture themselves, for no better reason than to waive a banner distracting from their may failures decides to change the foundation literally upside down: not that individual is protected from injustice, any individual, but some individuals, certain groups can dictate their conditions to the society. I have the right to be in your washroom. Like it or not because we can.

And there's no limits or lines how far it could go. What "courts" where common sense and reason? And few seem to understand it or care. And the bozos have no incentive to think. Why? They have no need for that. Things have been working great (for them) haven't they? What can help this country? Who? How? Not a great chance for that as far as I can see.

Edited June 7 by myata

[TreeBeard]

16 minutes ago, myata said:

And there's no limits or lines how far it could go. What "courts" where common sense and reason? And few seem to understand it or care. And the bozos have no incentive to think. Why? They have no need for that. Things have been working great (for them) haven't they? What can help this country? Who? How? Not a great chance for that as far as I can see.

Courts used to make judgments in favour of denying women the right to vote, or own property too.   Luckily, the courts progress with time.   

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/persons-case-plain-language-summary#:~:text=included female persons.-,Supreme Court Decision,in 1928 as in 1867.
On 24 April 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that women were not “persons” under section 24 of the BNA Act. The decision was based on the premise that the BNA Act had to be read the same way in 1928 as in 1867. The justices said that the BNA Actwould have specifically referred to women if it had meant for them to be included.

Courts reflect the society that they’re in.  And society has progressed to allow many more freedoms to individuals of all groups than in the past.  Your exact same arguments against were used against women’s rights, and those of visible minorities in the past.   Luckily for us, people like you lost.  

[myata]

23 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Courts used to make judgments in favour of denying women the right to vote, or own property too.   Luckily, the courts progress with time.   

Exactly my point. The courts will nod to any nonsense bs from Up There, whether pandemic sky is falling or general identification rights, "us the presidents" oh you didn't know that's your bad! Who will help?

[myata]

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Your exact same arguments against were used against women’s rights, and those of visible minorities in the past.

Bull. There's a line and it is obvious to any intelligent being, not including entitled bozos and their single track enthusiastic crowd:

Denying an an essential ability is discrimination; one can have the right to be protected against it. Imposing one's views on the others is not a right but a privilege. Feudal lords had the privilege of the first night at some point in history - because they could. I don't want you in my washroom. It's as simple as that: you cannot impose. No, you don't have that "right".

Privilege is not a right. You don't write a privilege as the right in the Constitution, only complete idiosyncrasies or those self-serving and focused on themselves to the oblivion of all else would do that. And there's no bounds or limits. Congrats!

[eyeball]

21 hours ago, myata said:

I don't want you in my washroom. It's as simple as that: you cannot impose. No, you don't have that "right".

I'm pretty sure you'll have the right to say 'I don't want you in my stall' but probably not the public spaces where stalls are installed.

Don't worry I suspect before long someone will open a chain of private toilet rooms.

It'll all work itself out.

[I am Groot]

On 6/7/2023 at 1:47 PM, TreeBeard said:

Courts reflect the society that they’re in.

Yes. But the judges of the courts reflect the society of university-educated liberal arts graduates in and from urban areas. They do not reflect the larger society around them, or even notice it exists. They are not a part of it. They disdain it. 

On 6/7/2023 at 1:47 PM, TreeBeard said:

And society has progressed to allow many more freedoms to individuals

Has it really? If we took a referendum how many 'rights' do you imagine would be approved for transgender people? Would a referendum come down on the side of trans women being in sports, being allowed in womens change rooms, womens dormitories, or prisons? Would it be in favor of huge gay pride parties in schools, in favor of drag queens reading to small children? Would a referendum vote tabulation show the majority in favour of teaching CRT and gender fluidity to nine year olds? 

 

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm pretty sure you'll have the right to say 'I don't want you in my stall'

 

 

That's exclusionary. 

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's exclusionary. 

As your right to privacy should be.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

As your right to privacy should be.

But it isn't - that's  what we've learned with the whole Trans movement demanding that they be allowed to share different sex's personal space against their wishes.