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

Posted
9 hours ago, suds said:

I would presume a very high standard would have to be set for the court's to see speech as defamatory.

On this point, we are in agreement.

9 hours ago, suds said:

I don't believe this particular case passes that high standard.

One would need to consider the full set of details and circumstances to determine that, and more importantly, outline the exact rationale for the decision. Not meeting the standard of libel isn't the same as "in some topics libel is not allowed while in others, just feel free to spit it out".

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

Posted
On 5/26/2023 at 3:56 PM, suds said:

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.

The standard is simple. You say something about someone, then you have to prove it's correct to a jury.

Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The standard is simple. You say something about someone, then you have to prove it's correct to a jury.

LOL

That's the complete opposite burden of proof required.   You don’t have to prove your innocence, the prosecutor has to prove your guilt.  

Edited by TreeBeard
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

LOL

That's the complete opposite burden of proof required.   You don’t have to prove your innocence, the prosecutor has to prove your guilt.  

That's not the way it works in defamation suits, son.

The plaintiff rarely has to 'prove'  you said or wrote what you did. Especially when it's in the media. YOU now have to prove what you said about someone is correct. 

Edited by I am Groot
Posted
4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

That's not the way it works in defamation suits, son.

Not sure if you're just trolling or you actually believe that.  It's hard to tell with you now.  

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The plaintiff rarely has to 'prove'  you said or wrote what you did. Especially when it's in the media. YOU now have to prove what you said about someone is correct. 

That's just...completely wrong. 

  • Like 2

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
10 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Not sure if you're just trolling or you actually believe that. 

No, I actually know something about the law.

Been in this country long?

10 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It's hard to tell with you now.  

You've seemed like kind of an A-hole since you arrived, actually. So at least you're consistent.

10 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's just...completely wrong. 

Yawn.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

No, I actually know something about the law.

You really don't.  

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Been in this country long?

My whole life.  

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

You've seemed like kind of an A-hole since you arrived, actually. So at least you're consistent.

Been here far longer than you, goof, and long enough to remember what the forum was like before hysterical culture-war clowns like you started shitting everything up.  ?

  • Like 2

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
On 5/25/2023 at 3:33 PM, 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.   

My family was liberal Christian, and charitable both in donations and good works.  There were a fair number of hard right conservatives too, both social and fiscal conservatives however I would never have suspected any of them in being materialistic or (worse) worshipping money.  These were people who had lived hard lives, and simply didn't believe in handouts without work in trade.  

There is no 'ethic' behind the materialism of today.  It's simply assumed that a person who owns a few dairy queen franchises should pay less and less because they are employing Filipino workers and "helping the economy" that's all. 

Posted
5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You really don't.  

My whole life.  

Been here far longer than you, goof, and long enough to remember what the forum was like before hysterical culture-war clowns like you started shitting everything up.  ?

You've always been a woke, culture war twat.

Posted
1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

You've always been a woke, culture war twat.

Crying Black Man GIFs | Tenor

I'm merely trying to make sure the trannies and the blacks are able to successfully erase white power culture and steal your freedom.  Just doing my duty, ser.  ?

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
On 5/28/2023 at 7:15 PM, Michael Hardner said:

These were people who had lived hard lives, and simply didn't believe in handouts without work in trade.  

"Work in trade" right. What would you call a builder who constructed something that couldn't be fixed? Broke? Just too bad buddy, it would be such a can of worms.

SNC-Lavalin, Phoenix fiasco, pandemic Emergency nothing can be done that's just the way things are. Why is it called "good charitable work", with a lifetime pension out of public pocket? What if it just cr*ppy job by a lazy tradesman who knows that the customer doesn't have a choice and would have to buy from him any cr*p for any obscene bill?

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

Posted
10 minutes ago, myata said:

1. "Work in trade" right. What would you call a builder who constructed something that couldn't be fixed? Broke? Just too bad buddy, it would be such a can of worms.

2. SNC-Lavalin, Phoenix fiasco, pandemic Emergency nothing can be done that's just the way things are. Why is it called "good charitable work", with a lifetime pension out of public pocket? What if it just cr*ppy job by a lazy tradesman who knows that the customer doesn't have a choice and would have to buy from him any cr*p for any obscene bill?

1. Hm ?  What are you talking about ?  Workfare has been in place for maybe 25 years now ?
2. I'm not sure what you are talking about sorry.

Posted
On 5/31/2023 at 1:33 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not sure what you are talking about sorry.

It was about a self-appointed privilege to call one's dismal, grossly inadequate results "good governance", "charitable life", "good work" while the reality is exactly the opposite: few if any problems solved, new ones created regularly and obscene, unbounded by any reality or decency on the background of struggling population pay to itself out of the public pocket, a sweaty hand firmly stuck in the public's pocket?

What would be "charitable" about that style of life, where do you see it, in what universe?

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

Posted
4 hours ago, myata said:

 

What would be "charitable" about that style of life, where do you see it, in what universe?

I was talking about Christian charity, and how some Christians didn't believe in it.  You're taking a side with those who didn't believe in Christian charity, or the public safety net.

That's my guess anyhow.

If you're asking me to assess why it's worthwhile at all, I guess I would say compare 2023 with 1923.

The excesses of laissez faire economics resulted in public response with more and more government intervention.  That's not a defense exactly, but an explanation.

Posted
On 5/28/2023 at 1:38 PM, Moonbox said:

You really don't.  

My whole life.  

Been here far longer than you, goof, and long enough to remember what the forum was like before hysterical culture-war clowns like you started shitting everything up.  ?

Psst...hey honorless one...it was actually Libbies like you who started this culture-war.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I was talking about Christian charity, and how some Christians didn't believe in it.  You're taking a side with those who didn't believe in Christian charity, or the public safety net.

There's a certain class that rakes all they could scramble out of someone else pocket, wear a great smile and call it "charity". Because they can, define the term. And why not?

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

Posted (edited)

We’re witnessing concept creep where language that is not violence is being called violence.  Being offended is now grounds for censorship.  Speech is not a form of violence.  Being offended is not a reason to censor speech, because as we’ve established, people have very different thresholds for what is offensive and we don’t have a constitutional right not to be offended.  We are supposed to have free speech.  Lose free speech and you lose democracy.

Canada is becoming a second rate democracy because of the increasing totalitarian control over speech.  Courts in Canada are compelling speech. Experimental gender expression has been declared a human right worthy of trouncing on fundamental longstanding rights such as women’s rights, religious rights, and free speech. Basically language in Canada is being forced to conform with a narrow political perspective on the left, so much so that now all organizations, government institutions, and businesses in Canada are self-censoring for fear of cancellation.  We have no First Amendment in Canada and we’re paying the price.  Canada is no longer a free-thinking society of healthy debate and pluralism.   It is a de facto one party system where certain ways of thinking that have no scientific basis are being treated as Truth.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada is no longer a free-thinking society of healthy debate and pluralism.   It is a de facto one party system where certain ways of thinking that have no scientific basis are being treated as Truth.

Well, you see in Russia they have the Rights and a great, possibly the greatest Constitution. Everybody knows though that what you see is not what you get. Rights is not what's in a pretty book on a cute shelf surrounded by fine folk in fancy robes. Rights is what the citizens understand, need and are ready to defend each time they are threatened and every time. That's what makes the U.S. a greatest democracy in the world, and Russia, a totalitarian hole. There's no escapes from this rule and exceptions. Turning blind eye, ignoring erosion of democracy while repeating cute mantras from the last century when they weren't true either will have, in time, exactly the same effect as in Russia or very close.

  • Like 1

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

Posted
4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada is becoming a second rate democracy because of the increasing totalitarian control over speech.  Courts in Canada are compelling speech.

Can you give any concrete examples of this happening?

Posted
23 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Can you give any concrete examples of this happening?

This is only true in the land of "I need to change the language to make this even tenuously plausible, then use the language so the unawares are alarmed".

Kind of like calling a teacher who is teaching approved curriculum a groomer...

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

This is only true in the land of "I need to change the language to make this even tenuously plausible, then use the language so the unawares are alarmed".

Kind of like calling a teacher who is teaching approved curriculum a groomer...

I literally provided an example.

And a teacher is a groomer. What do you think they're there for. that's not the question. The question proposed by some is what are they grooming them for.

Posted
16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You haven’t provided a single one.  

Well now we're at the "i'll try to lie my way out of it" stage.

Honestly @Zeitgeist, not much point talking to someone if they're just going to be that blatant in their dishonesty

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
      10,832
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Majikman
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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