Jump to content

Another blow for freedom of speech in Canada


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

out of your house for acting like a boor?

Profession is like "their house"? Like they own it, like the house, right? But you're up to something here, sitting in those chairs really easy to get confused about these things.

Yes my private space on the Internet. You have to choose and act consciously to find anything that is there. It's nobody else's choice and responsibility but yours.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Like Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker?

Yes, Canada has had dumb leaders on some issues.  Although I have never seen pictures or information about Diefenbaker cozying up to Fidel Castro the way Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret did and the way Justin Trudeau has affection for Communist systems.  The Liberals have cozied up to Communist dictatorships far more than our Conservative politicians. 

Sadly our Canadian governments have not stood strongly with our American neighbours against Communist dictatorships like Cuba. The Liberals have failed far more than the Conservatives.  Read the history of PIerre Trudeau's time in office.  It is shocking how Trudeau senior cozied up to the Communists.  He was one of the first to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China when Mao Tse Tung was leader in 1970.  I think many Canadian politicians somehow think Canada is a superpower in the world greater than the U.S.A. and can be totally independent.  This is very naive and dangerous for Canada.  We need to be strong allies of America and stand against authoritarian and Communist regimes.  We are not doing a very good job with the kind of leaders we have.

"Between 1960 and 1963, Diefenbaker defied the U.S. government in a display of stubborn nationalism. When Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower ordered a trade embargo on Cuba in 1960, Diefenbaker refused. Canada and Mexico became the only two countries in the western hemisphere to ignore the embargo. Diefenbaker believed that the Castro-led revolution that overthrew Fulgencio Batista deserved a chance to succeed. It also helped that he saw an opportunity to make a few dollars."

Castro cronies in Toronto, JFK vs. Diefenbaker and paper companies: Why CIA plotted to sabotage Canada | National Post

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, suds said:

2.b  Freedom of thought, opinion, blah blah blah, but you gotta be nice about it, or else!

Since there is nobody who is qualified or has the authority to make a judgment about what is nice or what is rude about Peterson's speech or anyone else's, it is ridiculous for any court or association to set themselves up as judges of people's comments on youtube or social media.   They should simply butt out and respect everyone's right to their freedom of speech.   Michael and the other liberals have completely lost the argument on that point.  They should quit trying to make Canada into an Orwellian system.

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

Just to prove how Orwellian Canada is becoming look at three thoughts or comments three of our political leaders have made.

1.  John Diefenbaker, a conservative PM, thought back around 1960 that the Communist government of Cuba should have a chance to succeed.  (consequently the U.S. CIA had an eye on Canada)

2.  NDP leader Jagmeet Singh reportedly stated that the Communist revolution in Cuba helped the people.

3.  Current PM Justin Trudeau expressed his admiration for the Chinese Communist system.

   Is there any hope for Canada?  Not much.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prohibition of profession, for conduct unrelated to the professional competence and record, is a form of severe punishment. A fine is a punishment, but in this one is denied the ability to earn living in the profession they trained for and have skills.

It is unbelievable that in a democratic state, severe punishments of citizens can be delegated to "associations" with no democratic legitimacy. How is it possible? Is it because the notions of democracy are some remote and superficial abstraction in the country that worships "good government"?

Why hasn't anyone looked at it from this perspective? How else can one look at it, except in China North? The restaurant is really good though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Since there is nobody who is qualified or has the authority to make a judgment about what is nice or what is rude about Peterson's speech or anyone else's, it is ridiculous for any court or association to set themselves up as judges of people's comments on youtube or social media.   They should simply butt out and respect everyone's right to their freedom of speech.   Michael and the other liberals have completely lost the argument on that point.  They should quit trying to make Canada into an Orwellian system.

Peterson asked the court to overturn the college's decision requiring him to take remedial training. Some suggest the court acted appropriately for what was brought before it. Still others suggest what Peterson should have put before the court is "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."  Peterson may have had good reasons for going about it the way he did, but certainly questioning the legal jurisdiction (of the college) to develop such a code of ethics in the first place would have gotten a lot closer to the heart of the matter.

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

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Yes, Canada has had dumb leaders on some issues.  Although I have never seen pictures or information about Diefenbaker cozying up to Fidel Castro the way Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret did and the way Justin Trudeau has affection for Communist systems.  The Liberals have cozied up to Communist dictatorships far more than our Conservative politicians. 

Sadly our Canadian governments have not stood strongly with our American neighbours against Communist dictatorships like Cuba. The Liberals have failed far more than the Conservatives.  Read the history of PIerre Trudeau's time in office.  It is shocking how Trudeau senior cozied up to the Communists.  He was one of the first to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China when Mao Tse Tung was leader in 1970.  I think many Canadian politicians somehow think Canada is a superpower in the world greater than the U.S.A. and can be totally independent.  This is very naive and dangerous for Canada.  We need to be strong allies of America and stand against authoritarian and Communist regimes.  We are not doing a very good job with the kind of leaders we have.

"Between 1960 and 1963, Diefenbaker defied the U.S. government in a display of stubborn nationalism. When Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower ordered a trade embargo on Cuba in 1960, Diefenbaker refused. Canada and Mexico became the only two countries in the western hemisphere to ignore the embargo. Diefenbaker believed that the Castro-led revolution that overthrew Fulgencio Batista deserved a chance to succeed. It also helped that he saw an opportunity to make a few dollars."

Castro cronies in Toronto, JFK vs. Diefenbaker and paper companies: Why CIA plotted to sabotage Canada | National Post

So you want Canada to be a vassal colony to the country that has attacked us, not once, but twice. 

Canada's overture to Red China was at the request of President Richard Nixon. President Nixon needed Prime Minister Trudeau to initiate the process. The crisis of the two Michaels was caused by Canada fulfilling its obligations by arresting a Chinese executive on behalf of the US.

The United States is an ally. But, they have no right to have any say in our affairs, anymore than we have in interfering in theirs. Neither China nor Cuba are our enemies any more than the US is. Currently, the only nation we can consider to be our adversary (God help us if that changes to enemy) is Russia. 

You seem to have forgotten what a nasty piece of work Batista was. Castro wasn't much better, but he was better. He got rid of the Mafia.  You say we should not ally with communists? How do you think the Second World War would have turned out without our close ally, Stalin?  In the Cuban missile crisis, who was it that prevented a nuclear war? It was Nikita Khrushchev. He had a clear view into hell and backed away. That you and I are here, alive and well, is thanks to the courage of that commie SOB. He paid a heavy price for that.

 

"Only Nixon could go to China." Cast. Spock Unsaid was that it took a Canadian to pave the way.

 

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Current PM Justin Trudeau expressed his admiration for the Chinese Communist system.

 

Perhaps you would like to give that some context. What was the question he was answering and what exactly did he say?

If Canada and the US had not opened up relations with china, that country would still be a Maoist Communist country. Now it is just a kleptocratic dictatorship.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Perhaps you would like to give that some context. What was the question he was answering and what exactly did he say?

If Canada and the US had not opened up relations with china, that country would still be a Maoist Communist country. Now it is just a kleptocratic dictatorship.

Communist China is still a Communist, totalitarian, one-party state.  It is not democratic and has no freedom.  You seem to believe in the extreme liberal ideology that thinks these kind of countries are ok to deal with.  They are not.  They are a growing menace in the world.  They do not believe in freedom or human rights for people. They have very cleverly infiltrated much of Canada through various levels of government and have enormous influence in Canada and other western countries.  They are a threat to the west.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totalitarian, yes; one-party state, yes; but it no longer fits the definition of communist. It is a kleptocratic republic now. 

49 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You seem to believe in the extreme liberal ideology that thinks these kind of countries are ok to deal with. 

Like I said, the Soviet Union was our close ally in WWII. Without them, the war would have been a lot worse for us.

Both Canada and the US have close relations with Saudi Arabia. Human rights are a foreign concept to that government.

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Current PM Justin Trudeau expressed his admiration for the Chinese Communist system.

You take that out of context. Mr. Trudeau was referring to the ability of a dictatorship to get things done expeditiously. An example is when Covid 19 exploded on the scene in 2020, China built two large hospitals dedicated to treating the disease. Both hospitals were up and running in just over a week. In a democracy, it takes years to do that. The fact that they are able to do that because of forced labour and intense coercion is understood. 

In a society like China, Professor Peterson would not have to take classes on ethics. They would just take him out and shoot him in the back of his head. To all those contributors out there who throw the word communist, nazi or dictator around to refer to any leading politician in Canada, get a brain. I've studied Soviet history under a professor who talked about Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Beria like he played poker with them every Saturday night.

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, suds said:

, but certainly questioning the legal jurisdiction (of the college) to develop such a code of ethics in the first place

And to assign severe punishment to citizens who came to think (because the pretty picture book said something) that they have a constitution protecting them from arbitrary and unjust punishment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

Like I said, the Soviet Union was our close ally in WWII. Without them, the war would have been a lot worse for us.

They were not in the slightest.  They were a severely dis-trusted ally who started the war on Germany's side and helped them take poland, and now were only 'allies' because their fight with germany was an opportunity.  And they backstabbed the west the second they got the chance.

Quote

You take that out of context. Mr. Trudeau was referring to the ability of a dictatorship to get things done expeditiously.

It's not out of context in the slightest - he very clearly, in context, praised china's dictatorship and said it was a thing to be envied.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Like I said, the Soviet Union was our close ally in WWII. Without them, the war would have been a lot worse for us.

Both Canada and the US have close relations with Saudi Arabia. Human rights are a foreign concept to that government.

You seem to think it is ok to be dealing with Communist or totalitarian dictatorships.  As I said, that stems from perverse liberal ideology.  Liberal politicians do not seem to have ever had a problem cozying up to dictatorships like Communist China or as you mentioned, Saudi Arabia.  We should never have had anything to do with them or with the USSR.  But former PM Pierre Trudeau had no problem cozying up to the USSR or China.  He was able to do it and still maintain strong support in Canada.  Very strange but it just proves many people in Canada are totally lacking in knowledge and discretion when it comes to Communist and other dictatorships.  They are responsible for dragging Canada in the mess it is in. 

Why you do not understand the difference between having a close relationship with the U.S. and one with Communist dictatorships is a mystery many of us will never understand.  The only conclusion I can see as a possible reason is you idolize liberalism as a kind of god.  Through that false god you have somehow come to believe America is not the best system and should not be a close ally.  You seem to believe China or other non-western countries are the equal of the U.S. or even better to have foreign relations with.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You seem to think it is ok to be dealing with Communist or totalitarian dictatorships.  As I said, that stems from perverse liberal ideology.  Liberal politicians do not seem to have ever had a problem cozying up to dictatorships like Communist China or as you mentioned, Saudi Arabia.  We should never have had anything to do with them or with the USSR.  But former PM Pierre Trudeau had no problem cozying up to the USSR or China.  He was able to do it and still maintain strong support in Canada.  Very strange but it just proves many people in Canada are totally lacking in knowledge and discretion when it comes to Communist and other dictatorships.  They are responsible for dragging Canada in the mess it is in. 

Why you do not understand the difference between having a close relationship with the U.S. and one with Communist dictatorships is a mystery many of us will never understand.  The only conclusion I can see as a possible reason is you idolize liberalism as a kind of god.  Through that false god you have somehow come to believe America is not the best system and should not be a close ally.  You seem to believe China or other non-western countries are the equal of the U.S. or even better to have foreign relations with.

Both Liberal and conservative governments have fostered good trade relationships with China. It is better to have peace than war. As a conservative, I cannot see a republic like the US as "the best system." It is the antithesis of conservative values. Yes, they are a valuable ally and as imperial powers go, they are unique in their generosity and good intentions. But, their system of government is incomapable with ours. If you are familiar with American history, you can see how American conservatives were treated in their Revolution. Fortunately the USA of the 18th and 19th century is not the USA of the 21st century.

Professor Peterson is not being prevented from publishing his mis-information. He is just not able to do it as a member of his profession. I can't say I am comfortable with that. The way to deal with a social media whore like him is the way Professor Suzuki dealt with Bill Shockley and his views on race. They engaged in a proper debate. Professor Suzuki refuted Mr. Shockley's hypothesis. Unfortunately, I suspect Professor Peterson lacks the figurative testicles to risk humiliation. I am of the opinion that he is only interested in the money he gets for being a person without any courtesy or decency.

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, myata said:

Are you just pretending or really that? We've been here already.

- Prohibition of profession is not some "company"

- Association cannot police expression of opinion in a democracy

- Opinion in own, private area is not necessarily "public"; your conversation at a restaurant can be overheard by public with all the consequences. Yes?

Twitter isn't private, and my question remains unanswered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, myata said:

And to assign severe punishment to citizens who came to think (because the pretty picture book said something) that they have a constitution protecting them from arbitrary and unjust punishment

Look it up, people have been sanctioned for public statements many times.  If you think it's unfair then you go to court...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Twitter isn't private,

It is a platform for expressing opinion. If there's nothing criminal in it, one cannot be a subject to severe punishment like prohibition of profession. In a democracy, doesn't apply to China North that understands it as a pretty coloring picture book.

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

sanctioned for public statements many times.

What "sanctioning"? Who sanctions? Do they have democratic legitimacy to assign severe punishments to citizens? Is there due process that ensures justice? Dunno but it just happens many times in the great China North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In a society like China, Professor Peterson would not have to take classes on ethics. They would just take him out and shoot him in the back of his head.

OK you said it, not me.  That is the reason why foreign relations with those kind of systems is totally wrong, but yet you still support Canada going in that direction?

So why associate with the Devil?  Why would you want any kind of relationship with a Communist system that has no respect for basic human rights?  Why would you even consider such a thing as an association with such evil systems or "foreign relations"?  You still don't get it.

Peterson has a youtube video called:  

Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe - Bing video

It is obvious why the authoritarian globalist supporters would hate Peterson and try to silence him.  These puffed up would-be dictators think they can form a team to control the world.  They know better than everyone else in every area and subject.  They say just trust us.  We have the answers.  Does that sound familiar in today's politics and especially in the climate change alarmist rhetoric?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, myata said:

1. It is a platform for expressing opinion.

2. If there's nothing criminal in it, one cannot be a subject to severe punishment like prohibition of profession.

3. In a democracy, doesn't apply to China North that understands it as a pretty coloring picture book.

4. What "sanctioning"? Who sanctions? Do they have democratic legitimacy to assign severe punishments to citizens?

5. Is there due process that ensures justice? Dunno but it just happens many times in the great China North.

1. Will you at least ACKNOWLEDGE that the 'overheard whispers in a restaurant' point you made, that I addressed, is now dead before pivoting to something else ?
2. Too low a bar, and not for you to say what an 'association' deems appropriate.
3. China North would likely want to intervene in private contracts between associations and their members amiright ?
4. No, not citizens but MEMBERS who are adult enough to enter into an agreement will have to honour the terms.
5. The process starts with complaints about behaviour, followed by a dialogue between the association and the member.  If the member doesn't agree and thinks an injustice has occurred then can go to the court.  "Many times" ?  Interesting, if true, but Peterson's throng are reacting (and I would say overreacting) to this one instance as though it's the Dreyfus Case.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Will you at least ACKNOWLEDGE that the 'overheard whispers in a restaurant' point you made, that I addressed, is now dead before pivoting to something else ?
2. Too low a bar, and not for you to say what an 'association' deems appropriate.

It is different, but not in an essential way. In a constitutional democracy, citizens have the right to express lawful opinion in private and where it is accessible to the public (note, it still takes a conscious act to subscribe to an account or follow it; it is not imposed on anyone). This right cannot be compromised by letting entities with zero democratic legitimacy undermine or negate it. That would be China North, in a thin disguise.

You could have said 'czar' or general secretary deems appropriate and why not?

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

China North would likely want to intervene in private contracts between associations and their members amiright ?

Where it relates to fundamental rights of citizens democratic state would indeed intervene. Violations of fundamental rights cannot be allowed "by contract" or any other crook. Freedom from unjust and arbitrary severe punishment is one. Slavery is another. Why would you arrest and charge human traffickers? Victims signed "contracts". Do you have the answer, in the China North?

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

complaints about behaviour,

Professional "behavior"? Problems with competence or quality of services? Or generally, behavior? Lawful expression of personal opinion, behavior? You may not know the difference, in China North.

Edited by myata
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
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

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