Jump to content

Another blow for freedom of speech in Canada


blackbird

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Calling a political position a place OR a direction demonstrates a pretty serious lack of understanding about politics.

Pointing out the litter of washed up righties you leave in your wake around here says otherwise. You obviously don't know when to stop and it's hilarious watching you in action. My understanding is more satirical in nature.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, myata said:

Let's just make sure we are talking about same thing.

1. You post some views in your own, private social media space

2. The post is legal, protected by the freedom of speech and not libelous, etc

3. Some woke maron reads it and feels offended by it. It's spread by maron media and gets resonance etc.

4. You are dragged before a professional tribunal that can dictate your behavior (any part of it that it deems relevant).

5. You complain to the court" but it laughs and claps its hands.

Now what does it look like? A great democracy? Or China North? Please.

How about...

You take an oath to support care of individuals, then start selling snake oil online?

You insist it's a miracle cure, but your professional org says it isn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jordon Peterson's appearance on social media with Pierre Poilievre in a six minute video highlighting Justin Trudeau's lack of meritocracy or educational qualifications to be PM was probably enough to have the liberal elite go after Peterson.  Pointing out the only reason Trudeau got elected and continues to have a 33% core support is because of his father's name, his looks, a bit of charisma and identifying with a certain liberal-progressive crowd  (such as marching in pride parades carrying a rainbow flag) would be enough to annoy liberal supporters and organizations that lean that way. This is an example of the kind of thing that would cause any liberal to try to deny Peterson his freedom of speech. Being together with Pierre Poilievre to comment on Trudeau would be enough to cause any liberal-oriented organization to try to silence Peterson.  Perhaps this was the political stance Peterson has held for a long time even though this particular video is more recent.  That would make him a target.

What Jordan Peterson JUST DID With Justin Trudeau Changes EVERYTHING! | Watch (msn.com)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You take an oath to support care of individuals, then start selling snake oil online?

What an outrageous bs is that? A professional can never express an opinion in public because of practicing the profession? Who said that? Who decided? Why do we have that funny picture book if any minor bureaucrat can send it flying with a strike of a pen?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I think Jordon Peterson's appearance on social media with Pierre Poilievre in a six minute video highlighting Justin Trudeau's lack of meritocracy or educational qualifications to be PM was probably enough to have the liberal elite go after Peterson. 

Jordan Peterson has been a joke for close to 10 years now.  Pierre Poilievre doing a video with him couldn't be less interesting or surprising.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is finally and almost daily shows itself for what it is and probably has been from day one: a little backwater authoritarian paradise. Nothing is what it looks and nothing works as it should in a real democracy. It has a thin guise of quasi-democracy and nobody ever cared to check what's behind, why? There are bears and mountains and that's pretty much all there is. Salmon is going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

1. I think Jordon Peterson's appearance on social media with Pierre Poilievre in a six minute video highlighting Justin Trudeau's lack of meritocracy or educational qualifications to be PM was probably enough to have the liberal elite go after Peterson. 

2. Pointing out the only reason Trudeau got elected and continues to have a 33% core support is because of his father's name, his looks, a bit of charisma and identifying with a certain liberal-progressive crowd  (such as marching in pride parades carrying a rainbow flag) would be enough to annoy liberal supporters and organizations that lean that way. This is an example of the kind of thing that would cause any liberal to try to deny Peterson his freedom of speech.

3. Being together with Pierre Poilievre to comment on Trudeau would be enough to cause any liberal-oriented organization to try to silence Peterson.  Perhaps this was the political stance Peterson has held for a long time even though this particular video is more recent.  That would make him a target.

1. Riiiiight... the College of Psychologists or whatever it's called feels the need to go beyond to protect Trudeau right ?  Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

2. And yet Peterson had and still has said Freedom as has been pointed out forever.

3. Why is Poilievre jumping on this train exactly ?  Is he going to force the courts to overturn the rights of professional orgs to pass judgment on their members, in other words the government restraining... speech ?

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

4. How is opposing liberal ideology or opposing Trudeau online the same as selling snake oil?  Time to admit you are a real liberal.

4. The devil is in the details.  The College didn't ostensibly discipline Peterson for opposing Trudeau, the action indicates that he trespassed on professional standards of practice.  If you want to argue that the College shouldn't have standards on how to address/treat transgenderism that's a different matter than their right to discipline people.  My advice is get some counter studies published...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

professional standards of practice. 

So the college / company can understand and interpret those as having full control over an opinion expressed in the private setting. And the happy courts" happily looking away, only another prerogative what? I wonder where this happy bandwagon is heading? Interested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, myata said:

So the college / company can understand and interpret those as having full control over an opinion expressed in the private setting. And the happy courts" happily looking away, only another prerogative what? I wonder where this happy bandwagon is heading? Interested?

They can reject membership in their association based on comments made.  

The courts didn't look away, they ruled.  

Try to find an example where you would agree with a Professional Group discharging someone based on expressed opinions - I'm sure you can come up with one if you try.  How about one of Poilievre's caucus pointing out that he's a fake working-man with no serious vision for Canada ?

Certainly people try to fire me from conservatism because they don't like my opinions.. happens on here every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They can reject membership in their association based on comments made.  

Wth? Why couldn't they stop earning living and buy brioches? Who said that the price of being able to do what you like and trained for in China North is giving up the right for independent opinion on any matter? Who decided that? When and how has this happened? Anybody interested?

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The courts didn't look away, they ruled

No they clapped to absurdity failing their duty to protect the rights of the citizens against obvious abuse. The word is the the same, but it doesn't have same meaning. You can say "car", draw it even live size but try going anywhere in it. A facade. An empty shell with no substance inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Pointing out the litter of washed up righties you leave in your wake around here says otherwise. You obviously don't know when to stop and it's hilarious watching you in action. My understanding is more satirical in nature.

Awww muffin - butthurt to the point of incoherent insults already :)  Poor thing.

I love that whenever you say something stupid it's somehow MY fault :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, myata said:

No they clapped to absurdity failing their duty to protect the rights of the citizens against obvious abuse. 

Easy logic.  When the courts don't do what you want them to, they FAIL, and when they do something you agree with, they do GOOD WORK.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moonbox said:

When the courts don't do what you want them to, they FAIL

Not me: the pretty picture book called what was it, consti-- pation? no? Can any minor bureaucrat claim to relieve you of your constitutional right only because they thought it could do something? Who gets to oversee such cases that will happen regularly in a bureaucratic paradise? Who had the duty and paid outrageously by the citizens for performing it diligently and impartially?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If you can't realize why that's an issue - then perhaps we should start banning any athlete who takes a knee (or any other controversial left wing position) from participating in sports.  Any teacher that speaks out on social issues out of school curriculum should be fired.  Are you ok with that?

Isn't that what's happening in Florida? 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-teachers-start-school-year-uncertainty-new-policies-take-effec-rcna99243

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Wth? Why couldn't they stop earning living and buy brioches? Who said that the price of being able to do what you like and trained for in China North is giving up the right for independent opinion on any matter? Who decided that? When and how has this happened? Anybody interested?

2. No they clapped to absurdity failing their duty to protect the rights of the citizens against obvious abuse. The word is the the same, but it doesn't have same meaning. You can say "car", draw it even live size but try going anywhere in it. A facade. An empty shell with no substance inside.

1. It has ALWAYS been so.  You can fire Bud Light and Bud Light can fire you.  
2. No, you keep saying it's freedom of speech but your right to join an association is dependent on their conditions.  JP agreed to them so .... tough luck being him and not being able to read I guess.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, Boges said:

This is the state telling people what they can teach in the classroom.  Also not exactly the same thing but definitely open to court challenge.... The State does seem to have the right to define curriculum but the individual boards should/do manage mandates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

JP agreed to them so

You agreed to become a slave. Signed a contract. Did that make slavery legal in China North? To the judge" smiling and clapping, happily ? What consti-- what was it? It has been this way since the time of Adam!

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boges said:

No, it's not.   That's taking action INSIDE your work - not being prosecuted for your position OUTSIDE of work.

If Jorden Petersen was doing something with his PATIENTS that was considered controversial or the like, then that would ENTIRELY be within the board's authority to take action on. Absolutely.

This would be more like firing a teach for READING A BOOK OFF CAMPUS.   Hey - if you say you LIKE 50 shades of grey at a book club, we're going to fire you for being a teacher".

Are you ok with that?  Prosecuting people at their work for things they do outside of work? That's whats happening here.

If you ARE ok with it think carefully - because if it's fair for the left then it's fair for the right to do the same thing  when they're in power and it'll be too late to complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, it's not.   That's taking action INSIDE your work - not being prosecuted for your position OUTSIDE of work.

If Jorden Petersen was doing something with his PATIENTS that was considered controversial or the like, then that would ENTIRELY be within the board's authority to take action on. Absolutely.

This would be more like firing a teach for READING A BOOK OFF CAMPUS.   Hey - if you say you LIKE 50 shades of grey at a book club, we're going to fire you for being a teacher".

Are you ok with that?  Prosecuting people at their work for things they do outside of work? That's whats happening here.

If you ARE ok with it think carefully - because if it's fair for the left then it's fair for the right to do the same thing  when they're in power and it'll be too late to complain.

People get fired for their conduct on Social Media all the time. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Boges said:

People get fired for their conduct on Social Media all the time. 

You're spending a lot of time dodging the question. So i take it you've realized you're in the wrong and are afraid to address it? Is that why you repeatedly dodge a simple question?   Nobody's arguing that bad things happen elsewhere - just answer the question.

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...