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

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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

It’s incredible the amount of willful blindness.  I think it’s cognitive dissonance.  People can’t accept that their rights are eroding in Canada.  Canada has changed for the worse.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s incredible the amount of willful blindness.  I think it’s cognitive dissonance.  People can’t accept that their rights are eroding in Canada.  Canada has changed for the worse.

I wonder if it is or if it's just a quasi-religious dedication to the 'tribe' they subscribe to . Same result either way i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is a case where it should.

From the ruling;

The BCHRT concluded that Gobelle's actions and the employer’s response amounted to discrimination against Nelson based on gender identity and expression. 

It could have just as easily read these two were guilty of deliberate arseholery. 

Also from the article;

While based in BC, this decision will likely impact Courts across Canada

?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

This is a case where it should.

From the ruling;

The BCHRT concluded that Gobelle's actions and the employer’s response amounted to discrimination against Nelson based on gender identity and expression. 

It could have just as easily read these two were guilty of deliberate arseholery. 

Also from the article;

While based in BC, this decision will likely impact Courts across Canada

?

 

I didn’t see that example as I have that user on ignore.  
 

In reference to that case, can an employer willfully, and constantly denigrate their employees?   No.  So, this is not a question of “free expression” at all, but the boss treating his employee like shit based on their gender.  That’s what they call, in legal terms, a “no-no”.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I wonder if it is or if it's just a quasi-religious dedication to the 'tribe' they subscribe to . Same result either way i guess.

Yes Canada is a Balkanized mess, not just by region but by ideology, but the country has shifted much further left and more authoritarian than it’s ever been.  Our government persists by taking on more debt to buy votes with spending programs and uses legislation and claims of national security to silence critics and justify secrecy. It’s old time Soviet with a creepy anti-science, anti-family destabilizing push for alternative gender exploration, state-assisted suicide, and provision of hard drugs as a solution to inadequate healthcare.  Question it and risk being called racist-misogynist-fringe.  Our government gaslights reasonable people who see the odd attention this government gives to identity politics as it brushes major concerns like foreign undermining of our democracy under the carpet.  Most Canadians aren’t impressed by a PM who lectures other heads of state about not being 2SLGBTQ+ enough while deflecting responsibility for scandals at home.

People across North America are also questioning the costly distraction of war in Ukraine.  They may be wondering if culturally Russia is so much less aligned morally with their values than politicians like Trudeau. Perhaps Trudeau is more anti-democratic than they thought.  Perhaps his government is pushing beliefs that they find undermining as parents, men, and women.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

This is a case where it should.

From the ruling;

The BCHRT concluded that Gobelle's actions and the employer’s response amounted to discrimination against Nelson based on gender identity and expression. 

It could have just as easily read these two were guilty of deliberate arseholery. 

Also from the article;

While based in BC, this decision will likely impact Courts across Canada

?

 

Well here's the thing - they're basing that on the idea that it's automatically an 'arsehole' thing to call someone by their real biological sex. So it's still compelled speech.

If i claim that you MUST call me "my lord and master the Gread CDNFOX!", and you say "i'm not calling you that", and i fine you 30,000 because i've arbitrarily decided that if you don't say what i want then you're being an arsehole... it's still compelled speech.

And frankly once that precedent is set as it now is then in ANY circumstance doing it would be an offense and you could be sued for it.   So if i make the absolutely accurate statement "katlyn Jenner is a male",  then i'm guilty of a human rights violation that could cost me 30,000 k?

Lets be clear - i use people's preferred genders as a rule and even on this board i have where we're discussing a trans person. But - the idea that i MUST is utterly wrong.

Edited by CdnFox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes Canada is a Balkanized mess, not just by region but by ideology, but the country has shifted much further left and more authoritarian than it’s ever been.  Our government persists by taking on more debt to buy votes with spending programs and uses legislation and claims of national security to silence critics and justify secrecy. It’s old time Soviet with a creepy anti-science, anti-family destabilizing push for alternative gender exploration, state-assisted suicide, and provision of hard drugs as a solution to inadequate healthcare.  Question it and risk being called racist-misogynist-fringe.  Our government gaslights reasonable people who see the odd attention this government gives to identity politics as it brushes major concerns like foreign undermining of our democracy under the carpet.  Most Canadians aren’t impressed by a PM who lectures other heads of state about not being 2SLGBTQ+ enough while deflecting responsibility for scandals at home.

People across North America are also questioning the costly distraction of war in Ukraine.  They may be wondering if culturally Russia is so much less aligned morally with their values than politicians like Trudeau. Perhaps Trudeau is more anti-democratic than they thought.  Perhaps his government is pushing beliefs that they find undermining as parents, men, and women.

I'd love to tell  you you're wrong.  Unfortunately, being center right i just can't lie that well :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'd love to tell  you you're wrong.  Unfortunately, being center right i just can't lie that well :) 

But I’m still not sure enough Canadians are alert to what’s unfolded.  I used to think Americans were more inward looking and ignorant of the outside world, more ignorant in general than Canadians.  We brag about our more educated population, but what if the education system has gotten more into the business of indoctrination than educating students to be more literate, better at math, etc.?  What happens when much more of the school day consists of talking about how bad the country was in the past (when it was really better than most countries) and kids are sitting in circles talking about their identities, levels of privilege, and other clearly ideological content?

I venture to say that eventually you get unquestioning citizens.  Sprinkle in compelled speech legislation and other rules in the name of “equity, diversity, inclusion” and you get a strange new brew: woke authoritarianism.  Don’t forget to add climate fear for good measure, as fear works wonders for indoctrination.  Just think of Covid.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

But I’m still not sure enough Canadians are alert to what’s unfolded.  I used to think Americans were more inward looking and ignorant of the outside world, more ignorant in general than Canadians.

except Canada has now completely adopted the imported ideologies of America

what is left of Canada,

when HM Queen Victoria, Mother Canada, is torn down in the name of American Wokeism ?

the ramparts have fallen, the barbarians are through the gates, into the temple

1_5493246.jpg?cache_timestamp=1625242613

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Especially for trans, non-binary, or other non-cisgender people, using the correct pronouns validates and affirms they are a person equally deserving of respect and dignity."

Something here concerns me. Imagine A was harassed for their appearance, voice and other characteristics as a wrong gender. That happens often, as everybody knows. Is it harassment? Certainly. Is it wrong? Absolutely? Do the same arguments about "existence" apply?

Is it less wrong than the case in question? Why "especially" then?

So we have two identical behaviors with one of them judged as "more wrong" than the other. Is it still about equality and prevention of discrimination?

No, they never stop because there's no balance and no limits. Affirmation inevitably becomes self-righteous, preferential selection. A great talking point and a banner to waive, in the glaring absence of visible results in the job that was expected to be done. In today's Canada just cannot seem to have both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

But I’m still not sure enough Canadians are alert to what’s unfolded.  I used to think Americans were more inward looking and ignorant of the outside world, more ignorant in general than Canadians.  We brag about our more educated population, but what if the education system has gotten more into the business of indoctrination than educating students to be more literate, better at math, etc.?  What happens when much more of the school day consists of talking about how bad the country was in the past (when it was really better than most countries) and kids are sitting in circles talking about their identities, levels of privilege, and other clearly ideological content?

I venture to say that eventually you get unquestioning citizens.  Sprinkle in compelled speech legislation and other rules in the name of “equity, diversity, inclusion” and you get a strange new brew: woke authoritarianism.  Don’t forget to add climate fear for good measure, as fear works wonders for indoctrination.  Just think of Covid.

To be honest, i'm more concerned that they are aware to what's unfolded and are ok with it. I think that it's  not that many are being brainwashed to be authortarian. i think many are craving it and welcoming it when they see it. I think many think the gov't isn't moving towards a totalitarian state fast enough.

There is a strong sense especially on the left that we should eliminate any opposition to  what they deem as being 'correct' and if that means people must be forced to do 'the right thing' by force of law then so be it - lets get it over with so we can get on with our perfect society.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

lets get it over with so we can get on with our perfect society.

And by these glorious times the majority would be living in the low income slums while their deeply caring elites enjoying near-infinite (in comparison) benefits and pensions. Reminds of something? No beating the entropy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

there is only one way to save Canada

counterrevolution against these American ideologies

in the name of HM King

only British North America can stand against the tide of American republicanism

You know how to tug at the heartstrings, and of course I love all that stuff, but I’m not sure that Canada exists for most of the current electorate.  The Liberals have replaced those narratives with a highly charged divisive story about Canada as colonial and racist regime.  It doesn’t matter that slavery was almost non-existent before Confederation and banned from the beginning of Confederation.  It doesn’t matter that progressives pushed for education for Indigenous and not a single student’s body has been exhumed at a residential school.  It doesn’t matter that Canada was more accepting of immigrant and Indigenous cultures than just about any country.  The story now is of national shame and pitting races/groups against each other as oppressors and victims based on group identity rather than the acts of individuals.  Canadians have been taught these stories for several years now and it’s in the curriculum.

One cannot merely accept the variety of cultures today. One must promote certain groups.  2SLGBTQ flags must go up but not the Star of David. Some flags but not others.  The Canadian flag used to be enough.  Being Canadian isn’t enough anymore to make you acceptable.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But - the idea that i MUST is utterly wrong.

The fundamental idea and message that should be coming from the courts is that if you MUST be an arsehole about it you should face consequences.

There is a good reason why we seeing more signs everywhere telling people to be respectful and that rude abusive behaviour will not be tolerated.

If Kaitlyn Jenner decides to be an arsehole she should face consequences too.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The fundamental idea and message that should be coming from the courts is that if you MUST be an arsehole about it you should face consequences.

And that is wrong.  There have been many times i've thought something you've said is offensive - should you be cutting me a cheque for 30 grand?

The idea that we have a right to be not offended is wrong.

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There is a good reason why we seeing more signs everywhere telling people to be respectful and that rude abusive behaviour will not be tolerated.

Yes - the reason is authortarianism and a desire to supress any thought that is not 'approved' by an authority.. And that's wrong.

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This ruling will and should go beyond just gender bashing.

Probably/ Historically that's the case. The nazi's certainly did. 1984 spoke of 'good speak' and 'bad speak"

And then there will be a backlash. And people will find ways to 'get away' with prejudice and repression where they didn't before.. ANd white power groups will gain strength and violence will increase.

And we're already seeing all of that.

You can't successfully legislate someone from being an arsehole. It will just breed more and more clever arseholes. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The fundamental idea and message that should be coming from the courts is that if you MUST be an arsehole about it you should face consequences.

Not at all.  Misgender someone all you want in the public realm;  you have no responsibility to treat everyone with respect.  In this case, however, employers have certain responsibilities when they employ someone.  They have to treat their employees with a certain amount of respect.   Otherwise, there are consequences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Not at all.  Misgender someone all you want in the public realm;  you have no responsibility to treat everyone with respect.  In this case, however, employers have certain responsibilities when they employ someone.  They have to treat their employees with a certain amount of respect.   Otherwise, there are consequences.  

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

In this case, however, employers have certain responsibilities when they employ someone.

I want to understand how it works. Say, too cases, A and B. A is being bullied with "misgendering" due to physical or character trait or even some random episode; B has identity. So case A is OK in the workplace, while B is not? Or B is some notches "worse" bullying than A?

If A has damaged reputation of C they are liable for a defamation. Not B though if the topic included identification even in general way not at all related to B personally. Based on legislation, sure.

There's no good exit from such a conundrum. It'll go all the way to dictated good speech, and everything else first frowned upon then taboo. They don't know where to stop. There's no lines and no limits. And to me at least, it looks like they have little clue what they are doing and where it'll be going either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, myata said:

I want to understand how it works. Say, too cases, A and B. A is being bullied with "misgendering" due to physical or character trait or even some random episode; B has identity. So case A is OK in the workplace, while B is not? Or B is some notches "worse" bullying than A?

If A has damaged reputation of C they are liable for a defamation. Not B though if the topic included identification even in general way not at all related to B personally. Based on legislation, sure.

There's no good exit from such a conundrum. It'll go all the way to dictated good speech, and everything else first frowned upon then taboo. They don't know where to stop. There's no lines and no limits. And to me at least, it looks like they have little clue what they are doing and where it'll be going either.

Your word salad is difficult to parse through.  Maybe just stick with actual examples?   

I asked for examples of courts compelling speech, and I get an employer being taken to task for harassing their employee.  If that’s the worst we got, then Canada is right on track!   Yay us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, myata said:

I want to understand how it works. Say, too cases, A and B. A is being bullied with "misgendering" due to physical or character trait or even some random episode; B has identity. So case A is OK in the workplace, while B is not? Or B is some notches "worse" bullying than A?

If A has damaged reputation of C they are liable for a defamation. Not B though if the topic included identification even in general way not at all related to B personally. Based on legislation, sure.

There's no good exit from such a conundrum. It'll go all the way to dictated good speech, and everything else first frowned upon then taboo. They don't know where to stop. There's no lines and no limits. And to me at least, it looks like they have little clue what they are doing and where it'll be going either.

Exactly.  If I decide to be Shirley for this week and someone calls me by my male “dead name”, a law is broken, and if I as Shirley decide for a lark to take my time looking around the women’s changeroom at the gym, junk hanging out.  Maybe I enter a women’s running race, collect a medal.  All that is fine and don’t forget to call me Shirley.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2023 at 11:31 AM, Zeitgeist said:

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.

Give the judiciary time and we will have. The constitution is what they say it is, after all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I didn’t see that example as I have that user on ignore.  
 

In reference to that case, can an employer willfully, and constantly denigrate their employees?   No.  So, this is not a question of “free expression” at all, but the boss treating his employee like shit based on their gender.  That’s what they call, in legal terms, a “no-no”.  

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?

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes Canada is a Balkanized mess, not just by region but by ideology, but the country has shifted much further left and more authoritarian than it’s ever been.  Our government persists by taking on more debt to buy votes with spending programs and uses legislation and claims of national security to silence critics and justify secrecy. It’s old time Soviet with a creepy anti-science, anti-family destabilizing push for alternative gender exploration, state-assisted suicide, and provision of hard drugs as a solution to inadequate healthcare.  Question it and risk being called racist-misogynist-fringe.  Our government gaslights reasonable people who see the odd attention this government gives to identity politics as it brushes major concerns like foreign undermining of our democracy under the carpet.  Most Canadians aren’t impressed by a PM who lectures other heads of state about not being 2SLGBTQ+ enough while deflecting responsibility for scandals at home.

Absolutely agree.

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

People across North America are also questioning the costly distraction of war in Ukraine.  They may be wondering if culturally Russia is so much less aligned morally with their values than politicians like Trudeau.

Absolutely disagree.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, myata said:

" Especially for trans, non-binary, or other non-cisgender people, using the correct pronouns validates and affirms they are a person equally deserving of respect and dignity."

And why am I required to supply that? I don't respect them. I think most of them are either in desperate need of psychiatric treatment or are just going along with a fad as they seek attention and 'likes' from their peers.

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

The fundamental idea and message that should be coming from the courts is that if you MUST be an arsehole about it you should face consequences.

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.

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
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

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