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

[myata]

3 hours ago, suds said:

Who would YOU like to see make these determinations?

A wrong question does not have good answers. You can have free speech in its pure and clear meaning: no one can interfere with the right to express an opinion, as long as its not directly related to a criminal act (and there are way to formulate this, sure).

So the right one, as far as I can see is this: what do you prefer, the free speech or pseudo, quasi stretched and massaged imitations, with central committees (however you choose to name and appoint them) deciding for you what are "good" and "wrong" things to say and topics to raise.

Yes you have to pick one because no, you cannot have both, as it seems and is.

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

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

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

1.  Well, social change happens and that bubbles up to changes in laws and policy. Some person or group has to make a decision, and we need them to be wise. Judges are considered to be the height of wisdom and our institutions, and yet they are more often than not plucked from the elite

 Like I say, come up with something better.

2. We haven't tested the thresholds strongly yet, not even close.

[OftenWrong]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Like I say, come up with something better.

And like I say, there is nothing better but what we have needs to be protected from political. The fight continues.

I see the main "fight" these days in Canada is between citizens and government. Our government is a big part of the problem. That's why I value the notion of keeping government power in check. Political influence in the courts is a good example of what needs to be protected.

Else, little girls might lose their faith in democracy. 

[BeaverFever]

So you’re revisiting the right’s old “wah I can’t spread hate speech” whine  again?

 I thought that argument was put to bed decades ago when the supreme court ruled that the right to free speech didn’t protect holocaust denier Ernst Zundel’s antisemitic hate speech. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. And like I say, there is nothing better but what we have needs to be protected from political. The fight continues.

2. I see the main "fight" these days in Canada is between citizens and government. Our government is a big part of the problem. That's why I value the notion of keeping government power in check. Political influence in the courts is a good example of what needs to be protected.

3. Else, little girls might lose their faith in democracy. 

1. 2. How is the current process political in the common sense of the word though ?  I don't see how you could make it less political, frankly.
3. If someone tells the little girls first that "there's nothing better" as you say then I'm sure they'll be fine. 

The people that are angriest about our current system today are ones that knew exactly zero about politics five years ago, based on people I know.  Then people tell them some selective facts about the way things are and they're instantly outraged.   Getting people who know little about how things work upset for your own political gain - well there's not much more political than that.
 

[myata]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

If someone tells the little girls first that "there's nothing better" as you say then I'm sure they'll be fine.

Of course, the entitled politician's God complex: "we say so you are". No need for "little girls" to have their own eyes and brains, no we here will take care of everything no need to bother just sign here and here.

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. How is the current process political in the common sense of the word though ?  I don't see how you could make it less political, frankly.
3. If someone tells the little girls first that "there's nothing better" as you say then I'm sure they'll be fine. 

The people that are angriest about our current system today are ones that knew exactly zero about politics five years ago, based on people I know.  Then people tell them some selective facts about the way things are and they're instantly outraged.   Getting people who know little about how things work upset for your own political gain - well there's not much more political than that.
 

Political is doing things like appointing partisan judges, since the final decision is made by the Prime Minister (party in power) which opens the door to unfair and unbalanced process.

On the other hand, in the United States, the appointment process involves both the President and the U.S. Senate. The President nominates a candidate, and the Senate provides advice and consent through the confirmation process. The Senate's role is to evaluate and approve or reject the President's nominee. The Senate Judiciary Committee plays a prominent role in vetting nominees and conducting hearings.

The Canadian PM has far more power and authority over issues in Canada than the US president in the USA.

[OftenWrong]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How is the current process political in the common sense of the word though ? 

How about appointing a long-time family friend and admirer to decide if a hearing or inquiry is necessary related to government corruption, auditing, political influence from outside malevolent forces (CCP), then coming up looking clean every time?

Even people who knew "exactly zero about politics five years ago" know when something stinks. Little Lisa is so discouraged, she doesn't even bother to vote.

Edited May 24, 2023 by OftenWrong

[myata]

Little girls liked and believed the final cute fairy tale that "elections is the accountability time" (because others like independent media, fair and just courts all went up in the pandemic smoke and the representatives" never even claimed the right to speak their mind and act their conscience).

Wait, wait though, is it? Can one call an election "fair and free" if governments can suppress any information they don't like at will? Like shutting down critical inquiries, for example. Does it still counts as "fair", in your world? In some worlds, like the third one, it's a standard and routine practice.

Edited May 24, 2023 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. How about appointing a long-time family friend and admirer to decide if a hearing or inquiry is necessary related to government corruption, auditing, political influence from outside malevolent forces (CCP), then coming up looking clean every time?

2. Even people who knew "exactly zero about politics five years ago" know when something stinks. Little Lisa is so discouraged, she doesn't even bother to vote.

1. Right, but that's not "Canada's woke supreme court" ... that's a parliamentary inquiry where the fix is in from the get-go.  And the commuppence is in the political backlash, which is happening now if you look at the polls.

2. Yeah, but when you tell them it's socialized healthcare that's causing their problems what exactly is going on ?

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, suds said:

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.

So hiring or promotion based on merit is now discrimination? Have I got that right?

13 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 

That these governments have little interest in freedom of speech is supposed to be an argument in favor of quashing freedom of speech?

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, suds said:

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.

The other appointed members of the diversity squad, you mean? And they are supposed to be an authority on discrimination? Did they take a diversity course or something? But then, when you're on the supreme diversity squad the law is whatever the hell you say it is.

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

It was. But the judiciary has become irreparably politicized over the past couple of decades. It started in law schools, which are the wokest parts of any university you'll find, determinedly graduating legions of social justice warriors. Then came a succession of Liberal governments appointing the most leftward and progressive judges they could find.

By the time Harper got into power he couldn't really find anyone conservative to put on the supreme court and was reduced to trying to appoint a semi-retired judge. The ones on the supreme court changed the law and said that was illegal so he had to appoint another liberal progressive.

[myata]

In a closed system that cannot change and adapt effectively the law of entropy dictates only one direction: stagnation and decay. Consume as much as possible, do as little as you can get away with till it all grinds to a halt. There's no exceptions, cannot be. Only another physical confirmation unrolling right before our eyes.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well, social change happens and that bubbles up to changes in laws and policy. Some person or group has to make a decision, and we need them to be wise. Judges are considered to be the height of wisdom and our institutions, and yet they are more often than not plucked from the elite

Uh, judges are considered to be the height of wisdom? Why? Do they take wisdom courses or something? Are they selected and promoted based on their IQ? In a perfect world, judges would be selected based upon the clarity and brilliant legal arguments they make on paper or in oral arguments, and moved up the ladder according to how insightful and just they were. But we are not in that world and you know it.

Judges are selected according to the following criteria

1 Must be from the province in question

2 Must be bilingual

3 Must be progressive

4 Number of diversity points

So we have the latest judge appointed: Michelle O'Bonsawin, as an example. Her primary qualifications are she's a francophone native. While you ought to be appointed to the supreme court after decades of demonstrated legal and judicial brilliance she had been a judge for only six years when appointed. During that time she had not exactly made a name for herself with her insightful rulings.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Like I say, come up with something better.

That would require unbiased judges, which we do not have.

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. It was. But the judiciary has become irreparably politicized over the past couple of decades. It started in law schools, which are the wokest parts of any university you'll find, determinedly graduating legions of social justice warriors. Then came a succession of Liberal governments appointing the most leftward and progressive judges they could find.

2. By the time Harper got into power he couldn't really find anyone conservative to put on the supreme court and was reduced to trying to appoint a semi-retired judge. The ones on the supreme court changed the law and said that was illegal so he had to appoint another liberal progressive.

1. If society is becoming "woke" then what is the material change between society accepting women's equality, equality between races and so on ?  How would you change the process to prevent social change, which it seems to me is what you are saying.  Why do you think conservatives don't support things like LGBTQ+ trans rights and so on ?  Do the conservative-appointed judges oppose LGBTQ+ advances ?  

I'm asking honestly.

2. Harper couldn't find a conservative judge ?  That sounds like relativism, as I'm sure there are plenty of judges that vote conservative.  If he couldn't find one, in all of the available candidates, that matched his values then isn't that just a comment on the changing values of the country generally ?

Again, honest question.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So you’re revisiting the right’s old “wah I can’t spread hate speech” whine  again?

 I thought that argument was put to bed decades ago when the supreme court ruled that the right to free speech didn’t protect holocaust denier Ernst Zundel’s antisemitic hate speech. 

To the extremist left anything which goes against the holy kant of diversity, equity and inclusion is 'hate speech'.

The supreme court specifically said this was NOT hate speech, not that I expect you actually read or know anything about the case.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

1. Uh, judges are considered to be the height of wisdom? Why? Do they take wisdom courses or something?

2. Are they selected and promoted based on their IQ?

3. In a perfect world, judges would be selected based upon the clarity and brilliant legal arguments they make on paper or in oral arguments, and moved up the ladder according to how insightful and just they were. But we are not in that world and you know it.

4. Judges are selected according to the following criteria ... That would require unbiased judges, which we do not have.

 

1.  Institutionally, I said.  Do you have a counter example ?  It's just a comment I thought of just now - so tell me if you have another idea ?  
2. Wisdom is not IQ.
3. Stop the "and you know it" part of any single point you make.  It is basically telling me what I think.  Would you let me say that to you ?
4. Yes, I accept your point.

Just FYI - I am trying to work through this discussion, so you don't need to counter every point.  I'm not trying to say I'm an expert on the legal system I am trying to parrot what the general vernacular says about the way the "system" works.

This is more of a discussion where we both fill in gaps and knowledge and look at problems to see what is to be said about them.  You have an answer, and then I poke at it... I comment on the status quo and you tell me what's wrong with that...

If you keep up with this bullshit telling me that I'm lying to you then not only will I not participate in this, but I will block you for wasting my time.

[I am Groot]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If society is becoming "woke" then what is the material change between society accepting women's equality, equality between races and so on ? 

Society is not becoming woke. If that were the case then the court would reflect Canadian values. It does not. Wokeness is not popular among Canadians. It is popular among urban university graduates of the humanities and liberal arts. 

Further, 'woke' has nothing to do with equality. It does not call for equality but equity. These are unrelated concepts. In many ways, they are complete opposites.

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Why do you think conservatives don't support things like LGBTQ+ trans rights and so on ?  Do the conservative-appointed judges oppose LGBTQ+ advances ?  

Conservatives don't support 'trans rights' because the idea of gender fludity is contrary to evolution, biology, science and basic reality. It's a fad inflated by fanatics and the mentally ill. Conservatives generally don't have much problem with the rest, though they would prefer if it wasn't flaunted as some kind of magnificent life choice. If you want to be gay then go for it. Just don't demand I wave a damn rainbow flag, attend a stupid parade and applaud your bravery. Jesus, just shut the hell up about it. It's not my business.

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Harper couldn't find a conservative judge ? 

Why do you suppose he had to try to appoint a semi-retired judge?

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That sounds like relativism, as I'm sure there are plenty of judges that vote conservative.

Why would you be sure of that? After more than a decade of Liberal appointees do you think there were a lot of conservative judges to choose from?

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you keep up with this bullshit telling me that I'm lying to you then not only will I not participate in this, but I will block you for wasting my time.

You have a habit of getting your panties in a twist every time I mention something that is absolutely common knowledge and suggest that you know it too. Stop it. It's silly. My suggesting you know something is not an insult but a determination that you are politically active and sufficiently well-read to know something. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. Society is not becoming woke. If that were the case then the court would reflect Canadian values.  

2. Conservatives don't support 'trans rights' because the idea of gender fludity is contrary to evolution, biology, science and basic reality. It's a fad inflated by fanatics and the mentally ill.

3. Why do you suppose he had to try to appoint a semi-retired judge?

4. Why would you be sure of that? After more than a decade of Liberal appointees do you think there were a lot of conservative judges to choose from?

5. You have a habit of getting your panties in a twist every time I mention something that is absolute common knowledge and suggest that you know it too. Stop it. It's silly.

1.  Understood. Let's rephrase: is there more support for same-sex marriage, trans rights than 5, 10, 20, 50 years ago ?  Is social progress a better term, since 'woke' very hard to define.
2. And yet Conservative party members, MPs and so on support these things right ?  What is the dissonance we're talking about ?
3. Because he had to find somebody with further right values than most conservatives ?
4. Because judges are appointed by all parties and the judges appointed by Harper in his 10 years or so are still around ?
5. "Common knowledge" is not political.  

I told you to stop telling me that I "know" things.  If you think I'm lying to you every post then why do you bother to talk to me on  here ?

Last time: are you going to stop telling me that I "know something" or not ?

[I am Groot]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Last time: are you going to stop telling me that I "know something" or not ?

Just get lost. I'm done with you. Go sit in a corner and cry.

Edited May 24, 2023 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Last time: are you going to stop telling me that I "know something" or not ?

Personally - I would NEVER do that to you.  I"m quite positive you don't know anything.

(oh come on!  SOMEONE was going to take that shot )  

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

Just get lost. I'm done with you. Go sit in a corner and cry.

Sigh.

Well I used to like talking to you.

So, I pegged you incorrectly, but it seems you actually don't like discussing because you don't like being wrong and think discussion of issues is a zero-sum game.    I guess in the end, you like insulting and berating people more than intelligent discussion, I can't see any other answer.  Maybe you only post to me because you know most who call themselves conservatives on here are empty Trump shills. 

I'm sad and and I am sure you will also be very sad when I put you on ignore.  But I will allow private messages in case you want to renounce your lying ways.

---------

Meanwhile, here's a list of Harper cabinet members who voted FOR trans rights over ten years ago.  Enjoy your culture war, I guess these guys are RINOs to you.  Meanwhile, people who actually have conservative principles and care about rights, freedom and the possibilities of politics will leave you and your silly tribe behind.

Here it is, you might want to sit down:

"[in 2013] Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt and Heritage Minister James Moore were among the Conservatives who supported the bill."

https://globalnews.ca/news/374979/commons-approves-transgender-rights-bill/

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Right, but that's not "Canada's woke supreme court" ... that's a parliamentary inquiry where the fix is in from the get-go.  And the commuppence is in the political backlash, which is happening now if you look at the polls.

2. Yeah, but when you tell them it's socialized healthcare that's causing their problems what exactly is going on ?

You asked for a better system than ours. I showed you how partisan politics has created a biased judiciary in this country (one post above the one you quoted, but no comment from you). The US system requires the senate to give the final nod after considerable public debate and investigation. Canada requires the PM to be the decider. After several generations of Liberal party governance, we have what we have now.

And that power (PM) extends deeply into the beurocracy, right down to the attitudes of people who can withold your tax return or freeze your bank account. 

So yes Virginia, there is a better system. Far far better.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

1. You asked for a better system than ours. I showed you how partisan politics has created a biased judiciary in this country (one post above the one you quoted, but no comment from you).
 
2. So yes Virginia, there is a better system. Far far better.

1. I think maybe I missed it.  The post with the US example is indeed another approach so thank you for that.
2. Noted.