Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

3.  You mentioned people would know Christians by their actions.   Since we can't really know much about people's actions on a forum, all we have to go by is their words.  So why are you mentioning "knowing Christians by their actions" here?  What is your point?

I can't speak for Michael, but having grown up in a very Church-oriented family (grandfather was a Minister), I'd say you're a bad Christian.  A good Christian spreads the Good Word, rather than wasting all of his time being angry and telling everyone how bad they are.  If the early missionaries were anything like you, the world would still be pagan.   

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I can't speak for Michael, but having grown up in a very Church-oriented family (grandfather was a Minister), I'd say you're a bad Christian.  A good Christian spreads the Good Word, rather than wasting all of his time being angry and telling everyone how bad they are.  If the early missionaries were anything like you, the world would still be pagan.   

Hate to have to tell you the truth, but you are an opponent of God and Christianity.  The only reason you smear me is because you hate the truth.  You want me to tell everyone including yourself that you are good boys on the way to heaven when the opposite is true. 

Christians don't win popularity contests for telling the truth from the Bible.  That's just a fact.  If you want to be soothed by Christians you will have to find someone else to do that.  That's not how Biblical Christianity is.  The truth is uncomfortable.

The message from the Bible is exactly what I have been saying.  Everyone is a sinner and has a corrupt heart and needs to be born again.  Read the Bible.  Don't believe me if you think I am so wrong.

On your last point, the world is mainly pagan.  Canada is by far mostly pagan.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I can't speak for Michael, but having grown up in a very Church-oriented family (grandfather was a Minister), I'd say you're a bad Christian.  A good Christian spreads the Good Word, rather than wasting all of his time being angry and telling everyone how bad they are.  If the early missionaries were anything like you, the world would still be pagan.   

Doubt it. The church and its clergy have been intolerant pricks for a lot longer than they've been sensitive and caring. In my mother's time, you could hear a gentle sermon from one church and thundering denunciations and threats of eternal damnation in another. Depends on the mindset of the priest.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

Doubt it. The church and its clergy have been intolerant pricks for a lot longer than they've been sensitive and caring. In my mother's time, you could hear a gentle sermon from one church and thundering denunciations and threats of eternal damnation in another. Depends on the mindset of the priest.

Agreed.  I think churches in Canada are a lot more liberal now than they ever have been.  Even public schools “back in the day” were often run by churches, especially in small towns.  
 

It’s why my father was beaten if he dared use his left hand to write with.  Left handedness was “of the devil”.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You think Jesus would say the state shouldn’t collect taxes to feed the poor?  Or would Jesus say “whatever it takes to feed the poor, let’s just do it!  Let’s add 2% to the GST and use that money to feed the poor”?  
 

Are you opposed to school lunch programs?


How much of your income do you devote to feeding the poor?

Well if i understand the character correctly, jesus would say that man should have a choice, and that  it is this choice which determines if the man is righteous or not.

So wouldnt' compelling the man to do 'the right thing' by law take away from that? I think jesus would want people to choose to donate or not on their own wouldn't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

I think you're mistaken here. Like the dissenting judge noted, libel, deliberate misrepresentation, abuse, insults and vitriol, destruction of reputation and possibly, career without any or sufficient evidence is not only an opinion, but also an impact, possibly a very serious one, on specific individual(s). The ruling basically allows an open season for such acts based on an arbitrary declaration of "topics of public interest".

This direction is very wrong. Not only it will not achieve the desired goal, but it will suppress a genuine discussion of complex matters and erode democratic rights of the citizens and the democracy itself. Incredible that folks called top justices in the country couldn't have thought about possible effects of their decision.

  1. Party A makes what many in the community believed to be derogatory statements of transgender and other 2SLGBTQ+ individuals using online posts.
  2. Party B publicly denounces Party A calling his views bigoted, transphobic, hateful, and questioned if he should remain a school board trustee.
  3. Party A sues Party B for defamation.
  4. In response Party B files an application with the courts to dismiss the lawsuit under BC's 'Protection of Public Information Act'.
  5. An application Judge agrees with Party B finding the lawsuit has the effect of suppressing debate on matters of public interest and dismisses the lawsuit.
  6. A B.C. Court of Appeal disagrees with the application judge's decision and allows the lawsuit to go ahead.
  7. Party B then appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada which takes it on.
  8. The SCC decides the public interest in protecting Party B's speech outweighed the public interest in remedying the reputational harm to Party A. And that Party B spoke out to counter what it perceived to be discriminatory and harmful speech against transgender and 2SLGBTQ+ youths, and that Party B's statements were neither disproportionate nor gratuitous.

So there you have it, name calling and derogatory statements by both sides. In my view it's like the pot calling the kettle black. It's a tough one to call and I certainly don't disagree with the dissenting judge's opinion. I'm glad I'm not a judge, it would keep me up nights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, suds said:

So there you have it, name calling and derogatory statements by both sides. In my view it's like the pot calling the kettle black. It's a tough one to call and I certainly don't disagree with the dissenting judge's opinion. I'm glad I'm not a judge, it would keep me up nights.

The thing is one 'name calling' is not attacking an individual and doesnt cause reputational harm to a person. The other one is.

It's not a good decision. It's one thing to say 'i feel that trans people tend to be (derrogatory)."  its also one thing to say "i feel that people who think trans people are (Derogatory) tend to be (derogatory). 

But when you say John Smith of 1234 anywhere ave is a racist bigot and we should all hate him...  Well that's another thing.

And this kind of decision will cause hatred to build up and that is going to boil over somewhere, i dont' care what the law says. You can't say that only trans people or those 'defending' them have rights and other people don't, or sooner or later the 'ohter people' lose respect for the law and start seeking their remedies outside it. And then the news papers are full of "where is this trans hatred and violence coming  from!"  (picture of man scratching his head).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The thing is one 'name calling' is not attacking an individual and doesnt cause reputational harm to a person. The other one is.

It's not a good decision. It's one thing to say 'i feel that trans people tend to be (derrogatory)."  its also one thing to say "i feel that people who think trans people are (Derogatory) tend to be (derogatory). 

But when you say John Smith of 1234 anywhere ave is a racist bigot and we should all hate him...  Well that's another thing.

And this kind of decision will cause hatred to build up and that is going to boil over somewhere, i dont' care what the law says. You can't say that only trans people or those 'defending' them have rights and other people don't, or sooner or later the 'ohter people' lose respect for the law and start seeking their remedies outside it. And then the news papers are full of "where is this trans hatred and violence coming  from!"  (picture of man scratching his head).

Imaginary victims are getting real people cancelled for questioning dominant narratives that are radically left-wing.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, suds said:

believed to be derogatory

A persona belief is not a ground for anything. Some believe in UFO, others in alien lizard monsters. A belief that anyone said anything has no merit of its own. The cases of hateful speech are defined in the criminal code. Other than that, in a free society, a citizen can express their opinion on any matter without any fear or restriction.

10 hours ago, suds said:

calling his views bigoted, transphobic, hateful,

In contrast, this can be a personal attack, insult and all the way up to destruction or reputation and personal, individual damage depending on exact circumstances. In a normal society obviously can be a valid cause for a defamation suit. No you can't accuse a specific individual in a potentially harmful way because you happened to "believe" they said something wrong. The society could descend into a chaos of mutual insults if it was the case (to which state the decision seems to be paving the way).

Ask yourself: why did he have to do that? He could show flaws in the argument or belief without resorting to personal attacks. That was a choice, an individual made it and so shouldn't they carry responsibility for the act if it caused real harm to another individual?

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The thing is one 'name calling' is not attacking an individual and doesnt cause reputational harm to a person. The other one is.

It's not a good decision. It's one thing to say 'i feel that trans people tend to be (derrogatory)."  its also one thing to say "i feel that people who think trans people are (Derogatory) tend to be (derogatory). 

But when you say John Smith of 1234 anywhere ave is a racist bigot and we should all hate him...  Well that's another thing.

Exactly. It undermines the perception of justice system as a whole. The folks don't seem to realize that the status as the country's top justices is determined not by the chair, robe or position but by the quality of decisions that have to be explainable to a regular citizen.

So how can you explain that Joe cannot libel while Jack please have your way because we here decided that it should make sense from now on?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The thing is one 'name calling' is not attacking an individual and doesnt cause reputational harm to a person. The other one is.

It's not a good decision. It's one thing to say 'i feel that trans people tend to be (derrogatory)."  its also one thing to say "i feel that people who think trans people are (Derogatory) tend to be (derogatory). 

But when you say John Smith of 1234 anywhere ave is a racist bigot and we should all hate him...  Well that's another thing.

And this kind of decision will cause hatred to build up and that is going to boil over somewhere, i dont' care what the law says. You can't say that only trans people or those 'defending' them have rights and other people don't, or sooner or later the 'ohter people' lose respect for the law and start seeking their remedies outside it. And then the news papers are full of "where is this trans hatred and violence coming  from!"  (picture of man scratching his head).

Nobody called anyone a 'racist bigot' because obviously race doesn't come into play in this particular case. 'Bigot' on the other hand has a more general definition... 'a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices' or 'one who regards or treats members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance' (Merriam-Websters). Would it be fair comment (or opinion) to say that Neufeld was 'bigoted' in his opinions? The Supreme Court found Hansman's comments to not be 'disproportionate'. If the Supreme Court had allowed the defamation lawsuit to proceed, would Neufeld have won? It sounds a bit sketchy to me and I would suggest he grow a thicker skin especially with the way the word 'bigot' is thrown around so indiscriminately today. Again I can't say i disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, suds said:

Nobody called anyone a 'racist bigot' because obviously race doesn't come into play in this particular case. 'Bigot' on the other hand has a more general definition... 'a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices' or 'one who regards or treats members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance' (Merriam-Websters).

How is that even relevant?

2 minutes ago, suds said:

Would it be fair comment (or opinion) to say that Neufeld was 'bigoted' in his opinions? The Supreme Court found Hansman's comments to not be 'disproportionate'. If the Supreme Court had allowed the defamation lawsuit to proceed, would Neufeld have won? It sounds a bit sketchy to me and I would suggest he grow a thicker skin especially with the way the word 'bigot' is thrown around so indiscriminately today. Again I can't say i disagree with you.

Well they could argue that but the key is consistency.  Either we let anybody talk that way and agree it's not slander or we don't allow anyone.

But when part of the ruling is that we should take whether or not we like the group beling maligned into account..  (if you try to get literal there i'll slap you :) )  then we have a problem. I suspect we're more or less on the same page there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, myata said:

A persona belief is not a ground for anything. Some believe in UFO, others in alien lizard monsters. A belief that anyone said anything has no merit of its own. The cases of hateful speech are defined in the criminal code. Other than that, in a free society, a citizen can express their opinion on any matter without any fear or restriction.

In contrast, this can be a personal attack, insult and all the way up to destruction or reputation and personal, individual damage depending on exact circumstances. In a normal society obviously can be a valid cause for a defamation suit. No you can't accuse a specific individual in a potentially harmful way because you happened to "believe" they said something wrong. The society could descend into a chaos of mutual insults if it was the case (to which state the decision seems to be paving the way).

Ask yourself: why did he have to do that? He could show flaws in the argument or belief without resorting to personal attacks. That was a choice, an individual made it and so shouldn't they carry responsibility for the act if it caused real harm to another individual?

Exactly. It undermines the perception of justice system as a whole. The folks don't seem to realize that the status as the country's top justices is determined not by the chair, robe or position but by the quality of decisions that have to be explainable to a regular citizen.

So how can you explain that Joe cannot libel while Jack please have your way because we here decided that it should make sense from now on?

I agree that it can be construed as a 'personal attack', but a personal attack on someone they believed attacked them first in a bigoted, transphobic, and hateful way. With the transgender issues one can sound bigoted, transphobic, and hateful, and still be honest in their opinions and make perfect sense. Points taken though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, suds said:

With the transgender issues one can sound bigoted, transphobic, and hateful, and still be honest in their opinions and make perfect sense.

We are talking about different perspectives here. An individual can feel, think and believe. Competent legal professionals, particularly top ones in the profession, have to be able to distinguish personal beliefs from rightfully expressed general opinion from a vitriolic personal attack with potential damage to the reputation. If they fail that, it just points at a degradation of the legal system as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

How is that even relevant?

It's relevant because Neufeld does sound a bit like a bigot when it comes to certain types of individuals. Although there's not much I can find  about the exact wording of his online postings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well they could argue that but the key is consistency.  Either we let anybody talk that way and agree it's not slander or we don't allow anyone.

I agree with that, but what proof have you that the court's are being 'inconsistent'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, suds said:

It's relevant because Neufeld does sound a bit like a bigot when it comes to certain types of individuals. Although there's not much I can find  about the exact wording of his online postings.

So is what you're trying to say that if the description is accurate it's not defamation?  I don't think that's how that particular law works, i think it just has to be with the intent of hurting someone else.

Just now, suds said:

I agree with that, but what proof have you that the court's are being 'inconsistent'?

It's right in the ruling. They note that this particular group is really important etc so that has to be factored. Thus if it was a different group the answer might have been different.

But who he's talking about shouldn't matter.  The fact the court likes this particular group and might not like another creates inconsistencies that are divisive in the extreme,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So is what you're trying to say that if the description is accurate it's not defamation?  I don't think that's how that particular law works, i think it just has to be with the intent of hurting someone else.

This I believe is where things get complicated. There's a balancing act between an individual's reputation and the right to free speech. Saying someone is 'bigoted' 'hateful' can be seen as honest opinion or fair comment. How can someone prove they're not bigoted? The acts by the B.C. and Ontario governments were designed to enable the courts an easy way to throw out frivolous lawsuits that were intended to limit free speech. The Supreme Court is bound to those acts (laws). Opinion is usually considered not to be defamatory unless it can be proven it's done with malicious intent. Let's also not forget who started the whole charade and launched the lawsuit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, suds said:
  1. Party A makes what many in the community believed to be derogatory statements of transgender and other 2SLGBTQ+ individuals using online posts.

And many might agree with him. The thing is that there is no way to disagree with the prevailing narrative on these social issues without deeply offending and outraging people. Even someone pretty good with words, and a consistent supporter of left-wing causes like JK Rowling, who chose her words carefully and mentioned her respect for trans people has still drawn howls of fury, including threats of rape and death.

There is simply no way to politely disagree on the trans issue without enraging many supporters.

22 hours ago, suds said:
  1. Party B publicly denounces Party A calling his views bigoted, transphobic, hateful, and questioned if he should remain a school board trustee.

So the first party is a public person stating his position on a policy issue. The second person is just someone spewing insults and accusations because he disagrees. And make no mistake, such accusations can be deadly, these days, destroying careers and severing friendships.

I also dislike the Left's new favorite word 'hate'. It seems like another escalation on the effort to make hyperbole ever more outrageous. Again, no matter how you put it they'll call it not just hate but dangerous. Even the damned judges are now using the same language in talking about the need for the 'safety' of groups.

22 hours ago, suds said:
  1. Party A sues Party B for defamation.
  2. In response Party B files an application with the courts to dismiss the lawsuit under BC's 'Protection of Public Information Act'.

Why should that be allowed? Surely he can easily prove his case that the school board guy is a homophobe and hateful?

22 hours ago, suds said:
  1. The SCC decides the public interest in protecting Party B's speech outweighed the public interest in remedying the reputational harm to Party A.

Why? Was B's speech particularly thoughtful and insightful? It seems from the report it was nothing more than spewing insults. Why is it important to let people spew personal insults at other people?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, myata said:

We are talking about different perspectives here. An individual can feel, think and believe. Competent legal professionals, particularly top ones in the profession, have to be able to distinguish personal beliefs from rightfully expressed general opinion from a vitriolic personal attack with potential damage to the reputation. If they fail that, it just points at a degradation of the legal system as a whole.

I would presume a very high standard would have to be set for the court's to see speech as defamatory. Otherwise you end up with mass self censorship and say good-bye to free speech. I don't believe this particular case passes that high standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, suds said:

This I believe is where things get complicated. There's a balancing act between an individual's reputation and the right to free speech. Saying someone is 'bigoted' 'hateful' can be seen as honest opinion or fair comment. How can someone prove they're not bigoted? The acts by the B.C. and Ontario governments were designed to enable the courts an easy way to throw out frivolous lawsuits that were intended to limit free speech. The Supreme Court is bound to those acts (laws). Opinion is usually considered not to be defamatory unless it can be proven it's done with malicious intent. Let's also not forget who started the whole charade and launched the lawsuit.

Well like many rights there's always got to be a balance.

But terms like racist and bigoted and hateful are always somewhat subjective. As you say historically courts kind of look at WHY you're saying it. Even if it's true, if you're just trying to do harm to someone then its usually on the side of defamation. Can there be any real doubt that this person made those accusations maliciously?  certainly it's courtworthy.

But calling it a 'charade' is pretty unjust.  A guy has had his reputation hurt and been attacked for his views.  Whether you agree with him or not that's not nothing. Are you saying if anyone expresses their opinion and are attacked as a result that it's a  'charade' if they complain? I feel like that would be abused in 2 seconds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Even if it's true, if you're just trying to do harm to someone then its usually on the side of defamation. Can there be any real doubt that this person made those accusations maliciously?

Of course there can be, and those accusations were no more hateful or hurtful than what they were speaking out against.  

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But calling it a 'charade' is pretty unjust.  A guy has had his reputation hurt and been attacked for his views. 

Crying about being having your reputation attacked after attacking and mocking an entire minority group is peak irony.  

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Whether you agree with him or not that's not nothing. Are you saying if anyone expresses their opinion and are attacked as a result that it's a  'charade' if they complain?

It's a charade if they sue for it.   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Of course there can be, and those accusations were no more hateful or hurtful than what they were speaking out against.  

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Crying about being having your reputation attacked after attacking and mocking an entire minority group is peak irony.  

It's a charade if they sue for it.   

Yeah - this topic may be over your head. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - this topic may be over your head. Sorry.

You've demonstrated your grasp of our legal systems on this forum before.  It wasn't pretty.  

We'll add this gem to your mounting pile of clueless irony. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,607
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Jameessmith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...