Jump to content

Another blow for freedom of speech in Canada


blackbird

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So anyone that speaks any truth to you or anything you disagree with is insulting you.  OK, we are learning more of how your mind works.  Anything is an insult.  You still haven't told where you came from in the world that might help explain your strong opposition to anything to do with God and truth.  But to even mention that is of course an insult to you.

Aha, so your insults are the truth and everyone else is just insulting???

We know how your mind works....full of religious BS

Also, your obsession of where people come from is frightening. Is that some sort of yardstick for you??? Just to please you, I am from Canada as are my parents and grandparents. We all despise fanaticism. such as what you exhibit.

I am exercising my freedom of speech. You don't have to like it and really, I do not care :)

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Most of whom are American, and a large percentage thereof being loser incels.  

I didn’t know feminist Naomi Wolf and Democrat Bill Maher are incels.  I guess Pierre Poilievre, Rex Murphy, and RFK Jr. are incels too?   Someone should tell their wives. 

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

24 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Aha, so your insults are the truth and everyone else is just insulting???

We know how your mind works....full of religious BS

Also, your obsession of where people come from is frightening. Is that some sort of yardstick for you??? Just to please you, I am from Canada as are my parents and grandparents. We all despise fanaticism. such as what you exhibit.

I am exercising my freedom of speech. You don't have to like it and really, I do not care :)

 

OK, Thanks for explaining you are not an immigrant.  It would be good if you could explain how you came to be such an opponent of religious beliefs such as Christianity or Bible belief.  You call it religious BS and fanaticism.  So anyone who simply believes in the Bible and God is somehow a "fanatic".  You seem to throw strong language against someone who simply has religious beliefs.  That is certainly not in agreement with respect of other people or their beliefs.  I was just wondering where you got those ideas.  Almost a kind of hostility toward other people with religious beliefs.  That kind of thinking is the kind of thinking that made a lot of people martyrs for their religious beliefs down through the centuries.  I thought Canadians were supposed to respect other people's right to hold religious beliefs.  Obviously you don't.  Just wondered how you came to hold such anti-Christian beliefs.  There must be a reason for it.  Did you have some experience in your life that led you to think like that?  Maybe you have a story to tell about something in your past.  Do you blame God for how your life has gone?  Perhaps in your childhood or later in life you had some bad experiences that you think is God's fault or religious people's fault.  Some first nations people that attended residential school had some bad experiences and were abused in different ways.  Since they were the victims of some religious institution, perhaps we can understand why some of them might be bitter against religion.  Maybe you had some kind of experience like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, myata said:

Are regulating bodies, as arms of the government allowed to violate fundamental rights of citizens, such as protection from arbitrary severe punishment? What was the coloring book for - pretty beavertale pictures, right?

All I can do is offer my opinion. In general, in a free liberal democracy, government (or the state) should not have the power to coerce any of its citizens to do something against their will unless they are breaking known laws. As an arm of government, regulating bodies that get their mandate by government decree, should be held to those same standards. It's why some legal experts have questioned "whether the college even has the legal jurisdiction to develop a code of ethics in the first place that prohibit the free expression of its members, unrelated to their clinical psychological practice, particularly if that free expression breached no laws — that is, wasn’t criminal nor defamatory."  Did Peterson break any laws? If he did then why wasn't he charged?  The regulator's duty is to serve the best interests of the public and it appears somehow felt that Peterson's speech was harmful to the public good. Is that good enough or is it government overreach? I would say the latter in this particular case.

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

On 9/4/2023 at 5:00 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Professor Suzuki refuted Mr. Shockley's hypothesis.

I don't know anything about Mr. Shockley and his beliefs, but Suzuki is an environmental extremist who worships Mother Earth.  He believes the government should take extreme action to fight climate change and shut down the energy industry, stop Canadians from using fossil fuels, which would turn Canada into a third world country of starving and poverty-stricken people.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I didn’t know feminist Naomi Wolf and Democrat Bill Maher are incels.  I guess Pierre Poilievre, Rex Murphy, and RFK Jr. are incels too?   Someone should tell their wives. 

I never said they were, genius.  Maybe read what you quoted and then re-evaluate this goof thought of yours. 

Pierre Poilievre's not an incel, but he knows he can tap the loser incel vote by channeling some JP.  

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, suds said:

Not as far as I know. He may have been intimidated or coerced into taking remedial training under threat of losing his license but that's about it.

You are correct. Sorry for my assertion.

"The college ordered Peterson to undergo social media training on professionalism f"

https://tnc.news/2023/08/23/peterson-appeal-tweets/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2023 at 10:53 AM, bcsapper said:

Why do so many people steadfastly refuse to understand what freedom of speech means?

Here, let me post it again.  Sheesh!

Free Speech

FYI that's got nothing to do with freedom of speech laws in Canada.

The government is not allowed to take an active role in preventing you from saying anything unless it falls within these general parameters. wiki:

Quote

Freedom of expression in Canada is not absolute; section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are "reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society".[2][3] Hate speech (which refers to the advocacy and incitement of genocide or violence against a particular defined racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, religious or other identifiable group),[4][5] and obscenity (a broad term referring to, among other things, literature that is unreasonable, dangerous or intensely inappropriate to society at large, such as child sexual abuse material or fraudulent medication intended to promote sexual virility),[6] are two examples that gain significant attention from the media and in public discourse.[3]

Those are just some examples, so that's not to say that the gov't can't prevent you from doing something else, like spreading dangerous medical disinformation (for example saying "This is a safe and effective vaccine against covid"), but the gov't is not allowed to prevent you from saying things that are demonstrably true.

In the case of internet forums, the case against sites like FB and Twitter is that they're given legal protection from the things that are posted there, and the content isn't policed by the same types of governmental agencies that regulate what TV stations are allowed to broadcast, because they're not considered to be content creators or editorial bodies.

So when they do decide to take a stance against the dissemination of inconvenient truths [the existence of a BSL4 lab in Wuhan] they actually do become editorial bodies/content creators, and at that point the case can be made that their legal protections should be curtailed.

What your cartoon says is basically "Yay! My brand of disinformation is allowed and other people can't even tell the truth!" 

7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I didn’t know feminist Naomi Wolf and Democrat Bill Maher are incels.  I guess Pierre Poilievre, Rex Murphy, and RFK Jr. are incels too?   Someone should tell their wives. 

Don't feed the trolls.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, suds said:

All I can do is offer my opinion. In general, in a free liberal democracy, government (or the state) should not have the power to coerce any of its citizens to do something against their will unless they are breaking known laws. As an arm of government, regulating bodies that get their mandate by government decree, should be held to those same standards. It's why some legal experts have questioned "whether the college even has the legal jurisdiction to develop a code of ethics in the first place that prohibit the free expression of its members, unrelated to their clinical psychological practice, particularly if that free expression breached no laws — that is, wasn’t criminal nor defamatory."  Did Peterson break any laws? If he did then why wasn't he charged?  The regulator's duty is to serve the best interests of the public and it appears somehow felt that Peterson's speech was harmful to the public good. Is that good enough or is it government overreach? I would say the latter in this particular case.

TBH I think the college has a point, as some of the things that Dr Peterson is saying can cause mental duress among people suffering from gender dysphoria. As a mental health expert he should be more aware of that. 

As far as that's concerned, Dr P could make the case that forcing our entire country to enable their delusions to the extent that we currently are is probably even more unhealthy/dangerous for them, and for others (little girls that now have to share a bathroom with mentally unstable adult males).

I think that the college is probably busier looking to see which way the wind blows than actually caring about people's mental health in this isntance though. Dr P is wildly unpopular among leftards and that hits them where it hurts.  

Before anyone rushes to the defence of psychs, just remember that it was "board-certified clinicians" who ran all the torture chambers in the world which were kindly referred to as "asylums" and "sanitariums" for the last 200 years, and most of the medical experts who created/approved/prescribed drugs like oxycontin... 

It would be a mistake to think that all the various licensing bodies are run by the purest of heart. 

I have no evidence nor suspicion that the Ont College Of Physicians and Surgeons, or whatever his association is called, is a bunch of evil hacks who got their kicks in sanitariums back in the day or that they're 'overprescribers' of the lowest order in general, but I personally think that they're just jealous of his status. They don't like that he towers over them and they want to rein him in. My two.1 cents.

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

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I find it hilarious that the most successful psychologist on social media is being required to take social media training.

He's a successful internet personality who echoes dumb people's views back to them, and cashes out on it.  That's about it.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

He's a successful internet personality who echoes dumb people's views back to them, and cashes out on it.  That's about it.  

 

He’s a truth teller who calls out hypocrites, anti democratic policies, dummies, and oppressors.

You must at least admit that he’s as entitled to his views as you are to yours.  If his views are contestable, I can assure you that so are yours.

This business of trying to banish people whose views you don’t like has to stop.  If you can’t defend free speech, don’t expect anyone to defend yours.

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

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

FYI that's got nothing to do with freedom of speech laws in Canada.

The government is not allowed to take an active role in preventing you from saying anything unless it falls within these general parameters. wiki:

Those are just some examples, so that's not to say that the gov't can't prevent you from doing something else, like spreading dangerous medical disinformation (for example saying "This is a safe and effective vaccine against covid"), but the gov't is not allowed to prevent you from saying things that are demonstrably true.

In the case of internet forums, the case against sites like FB and Twitter is that they're given legal protection from the things that are posted there, and the content isn't policed by the same types of governmental agencies that regulate what TV stations are allowed to broadcast, because they're not considered to be content creators or editorial bodies.

So when they do decide to take a stance against the dissemination of inconvenient truths [the existence of a BSL4 lab in Wuhan] they actually do become editorial bodies/content creators, and at that point the case can be made that their legal protections should be curtailed.

What your cartoon says is basically "Yay! My brand of disinformation is allowed and other people can't even tell the truth!" 

Don't feed the trolls.

Hahaha, next time just post the cricket scores or something. 

It'll have the same relevance to my post, but at least it'll be worth reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

He’s a truth teller who calls out hypocrites, anti democratic policies, dummies, and oppressors.

He's a charlatan - a smart man who at one time had a good and interesting academic argument to make about free speech. 

Then he realized how much more money he could earn by tapping the incoherent angst of losers and dressing that energy up in a more articulate package.  There there, incel, you're not the problem, it's SoCiEtY.  

I am all for his message of free speech and I was a fan of the man before he sold out.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

He's a charlatan - a smart man who at one time had a good and interesting academic argument to make about free speech. 

Then he realized how much more money he could earn by tapping the incoherent angst of losers and dressing that energy up in a more articulate package.  There there, incel, you're not the problem, it's SoCiEtY.  

I am all for his message of free speech and I was a fan of the man before he sold out.  

 

He’s not promoting misogyny or hate.  You don’t like that he tells it as it is because he doesn’t pander to the phoney woke ideologies that very few people actually believe in or want for their families or themselves.

Honesty requires bravery.  Bravery often requires sacrifice.  He is being sacrificed by the College to make a point to anyone who bucks the group think.

Do you really think the world is a better place without his voice and anyone to seriously criticize the radical ideologies that are literally being forced down everyone’s necks, from gender ideology to mandated EDI training?  Do you think the radical left should have greater sway?

You probably do because you, like Hardner, enjoy the cultural revolutionary messaging from elitists who want everyone else to make sacrifices that they don’t have to, perhaps because it alleviates guilt and takes attention off the people in charge.

Already we’re watching the false narratives about how Canada is systemically racist and genocidal get debunked, but it’s not about truth for some people.  Without honest criticism we lose our free speech and ability to hold governments and the powerful accountable.  The consequences of Orwellian cancel culture are real.  Taking down Peterson is yet another example.

  • 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
      10,692
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Gator
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Gator went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Gator went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fracnsis Moore earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Gator went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • admined earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

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