Where's the Free Speech Outrage?

[herbie]

Vancouver Police just arrested a woman for shouting "long Live Oct 7th" through a loudspeaker at a Pro Palestine rally. Charges as a Hate Crime are being investigated.

So where's the outrage over someone you hate's Free Speech being violated? (sound of crickets)

The sick thing is a number of people can be heard shouting it back. Round them up too please.

[Michael Hardner]

I always think that argument is over-used.  I still do.  Not sure about the rest of them who drop that term a lot.

[WestCanMan]

49 minutes ago, herbie said:

So where's the outrage over someone you hate's Free Speech being violated? (sound of crickets)

I've said these things here before and they still remain true:

1. as many from both sides of the aisle here have noted, "Freedom of Speech" doesn't include saying "bomb" in an airport
2. one of the great things about freedom of speech, and allowing "the people we hate" to have a megaphone, is that once people get going, they eventually say the inside part out loud, as was the case here. It also helps us identify the people who need to be on our radar. Birds of a feather flock together, and we need to know who all these birds are.

Now that the cat's outta the bag, and Canadians know exactly what pro-"Palestinians" are supporting [Hamas, terrorism, and genocide], it will be interesting to see how these protests go, and what sort of counter-protests spring up. 

[Moonlight Graham]

Apparently the woman isn't a Canadian citizen, she's an American living here.  Fine her then deport her and bar her entry forever.

Your free speech ends at glorifying and calling for violence and genocide against civilians.

[CdnFox]

14 hours ago, herbie said:

Vancouver Police just arrested a woman for shouting "long Live Oct 7th" through a loudspeaker at a Pro Palestine rally. Charges as a Hate Crime are being investigated.

So where's the outrage over someone you hate's Free Speech being violated? (sound of crickets)

The sick thing is a number of people can be heard shouting it back. Round them up too please.

With the tiny bit of information you've provided (which based on your previous posts probably is missing some important data)  i wouldn't support charges against the woman. She's clearly a disgusting person but that's her right in a free country.

What IS hilarious is you bring it up and then demand to know where the outrage is before anyone's even had a chance to reply or finish reading what you wrote    First i've heard of it.

The cops are investigating - so if there's more to the story then we'll find out but as is i don't think she SHOULD be charged.

Don't worry little guy - if you've told the truth then your heroine won't be going to jail   I mean - celebrating the death of thousands of innocent people in an act of criminal violence isn't NEARLY as bad as misgendering someone, which your side feels deserves jail time right  

[herbie]

21 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Apparently the woman isn't a Canadian citizen, she's an American living here

Which has sweet f*ck all to do with anything. Asides from she might have a distinctly American interpretation of 'free speech' and thought cheering terrorists was a 'right'.

Edited May 4 by herbie

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Which has sweet f*ck all to do with anything. Asides from she might have a distinctly American interpretation of 'free speech' and thought cheering terrorists was a 'right'.

Well no it means we can deport the nutjob.

[Zeitgeist]

On 5/2/2024 at 7:40 PM, herbie said:

Vancouver Police just arrested a woman for shouting "long Live Oct 7th" through a loudspeaker at a Pro Palestine rally. Charges as a Hate Crime are being investigated.

So where's the outrage over someone you hate's Free Speech being violated? (sound of crickets)

The sick thing is a number of people can be heard shouting it back. Round them up too please.

She can spew such evil, but that’s what it is.  The bigger issue isn’t whether her right to say such things should be removed.  It shouldn’t.  We must protect free speech. She can be criticized and have the public turn against her, thankfully. The issue is that some evil speech is considered acceptable, including speech promoting terrorist murder, while speech that merely gives an honest account of history that certain lobby groups and our own government don’t like is silenced. The truth about so-called mass graves of murdered and neglected residential school children is a prime example. Truth isn’t okay in Canada if it exposes current Liberal narratives as wrong.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-10

 

Edited May 4 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

She can spew such evil, but that’s what it is.  The bigger issue isn’t whether her right to say such things should be removed.  It shouldn’t.  We must protect free speech. She can be criticized and have the public turn against her, thankfully. The issue is that some evil speech is considered acceptable, including speech promoting terrorist murder, while speech that merely gives an honest account of history that certain lobby groups and our own government don’t like is silenced. The truth about so-called mass graves of murdered and neglected residential school children is a prime example. Truth isn’t okay in Canada if it exposes current Liberal narratives as wrong.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-10

 

I agree with you 100% as long as you agree that the epistemic crisis crosses political boundaries. In other words, there is more unprincipled analysis than principled analysis across the board.

How many people criticize protests based on the makeup of the attendees, including our current prime minister? 

If you have to break down the people making the argument, in order to analyze the validity of the argument, you legitimize ad hominem.

[Michael Hardner]

And this also points to the lack of leadership in our public sphere. If we had true conservative liberal and left thinkers framing The discussion then we wouldn't waste so much bandwidth flinging mud. 

 

[Dougie93]

Canada is a monarchy under the rule of the British Crown

thus, there is no American style first amendment in Canada

free speech in Canada is constrained by the constitutional mandate to maintain the King's Peace therein

note that the person arrested is not even a Canadian, but rather an American citizen residing in Canada

welcome to British North America

God save the King

 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

She can spew such evil

in America perhaps

but not under the rule of the British Crown in North America

thanks to Major-General Brock & the Grand River Mohawks

upon the Heights of Queenston, 13 October 1812

; Canada is not a republic

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

in America perhaps

but not under the rule of the British Crown in North America

thanks to Major-General Brock & the Grand River Mohawks

upon the Heights of Queenston, 13 October 1812

; Canada is not a republic

My sensibilities are more American these days on the rights and speech front, because Canadians, who are the best educated population in the English speaking world, have become docile and unquestioning to an extent I never imagined possible — well many have.  We’re heavily reliant on the few brave opponents of censorship and government overreach.  It’s almost always those who can afford the risk the most  — like Conrad Black or Jordan Peterson. Most people are in the unfortunate position of going along to get along to protect their incomes and reputations.

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

My sensibilities are more American these days on the rights and speech front

as a dual citizen, my sensibilities are overwhelming American these days on that front

none the less, I choose to remain in British North America

thus I am bound by solemn oath to the Commander-in-Chief to defend & uphold the King's Peace

you are the one after all, whom invoked the Vimy Myth to me

a "cultural protectorate", you called it, IIRC

[Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

as a dual citizen, my sensibilities are overwhelming American these days on that front

none the less, I choose to remain in British North America

thus I am bound by solemn oath to the Commander-in-Chief to defend & uphold the King's Peace

you are the one after all, whom invoked the Vimy Myth to me

a "cultural protectorate", you called it, IIRC

I’ll stand by that.  Canada is worth protecting, but it means expelling the woke-green totalitarian internationalists. People have to be brave and exercise — and supplement — their Charter rights.  I think some of this problem is due to our being a young country, but some of it is our Loyalist calm revisionist nature, a blessing until the government stops serving the people. Hopefully our constitutional monarchy holds up in the next election and these traitors are sent packing.  

Edited May 4 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’ll stand by that.  Canada is worth protecting, but it means expelling the woke-green totalitarian internationalists.

the law of the King;s Peace will turn against the radical left in the end, as it has in this instance

they have the tiger by the tail

Canada is counterrevolutionary by nature

the radical left will reap what they sow therein, as the traitors to the Crown that they are

Nemo Me Impune Lacesssit

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

... it means expelling the woke-green totalitarian internationalists. 

So you want to deport people whose views you don't agree with? I hope you haven't stood up for free speech elsewhere in this forum?

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If we had true conservative liberal and left thinkers framing The discussion then we wouldn't waste so much bandwidth flinging mud. 

 

Liberal and left thinkers are the problem in Canada.  They have too much influence in everything and the education system is breeding them.

[Michael Hardner]

53 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Liberal and left thinkers are the problem in Canada.  They have too much influence in everything and the education system is breeding them.

So... debate them... if you can.  Instead of complaining about them.  

[blackbird]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So... debate them... if you can.  Instead of complaining about them.  

Generally they don't listen.  

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Generally they don't listen.  

Then you win.  But at least you're engaging with them and not saying they should be deported or "stamped out" as some on here do.

[herbie]

Using the fire in a theater example, tell me how the intent to spread panic is worse than the intent to spread hatred.

And give up with this shit that the King is anything other than one face to stamp on coins and someone to wave at. The system's a hell of a lot preferable with a powerless head than electing your own tyrant every 4 years.

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, herbie said:

Using the fire in a theater example, tell me how the intent to spread panic is worse than the intent to spread hatred.

 

Depends what you mean by 'hatred'.    It could well be argued that saying something like " i don't think we should be letting palatinates into our country during these volatile times"  is not promoting hatred at all and is a reasonable position - others would suggest it's encouraging "hatred' of another group.

The 'fire' example (which isn't quite accurate btw) is more cut and dry as the intent is obviously to create a specific dangerous reacton, whereas something like 'we shouldnt' let them in'  has a less clear motivation.

Was Trudeau's saying that the unvaxed were 'wastes of space' and we'd have to decide 'whether to tolerate them'  hate speech? Many felt it was. Trudeau says it wasn't.

I would argue the line gets crossed when there is a clear suggestion that illegal actions should be taken.  "kill all jews" -  pretty cut and dry. "we should't 'tolerate' this group we disagree with -  Hmmm. Preaching intolerance is pretty damn close to that line.  "we should restrict entry from conflict zones especially given the demonstrations here" -  nahhh.  That's a call for legal action not illegal.

So - you have to have a definition before you can answer the question.

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So you want to deport people whose views you don't agree with? I hope you haven't stood up for free speech elsewhere in this forum?

There is no thing as absolute free speech, according to our laws,our speech has limitations....  and while it is covered in our rights in the constitution it does not mean it does not have consequences...IE walking up to a women with her husband next to her and say complimenting her huge boobs in a rude manner..or calling a black man the N word... etc etc...

In the case of protestors crossing the line, they should be charged with hate or inciting violence, and yes if the behavior continues then why would we not consider deportation.. Maybe before all this gets to this point we should have improved screening measures prior to them getting into the country...or perhaps at least look at the cultures we are getting new immigrants from and find better sources . 

[cannuck]

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

There is no thing as absolute free speech, according to our laws,our speech has limitations....  and while it is covered in our rights in the constitution it does not mean it does not have consequences...IE walking up to a women with her husband next to her and say complimenting her huge boobs in a rude manner..or calling a black man the N word... etc etc...

In the case of protestors crossing the line, they should be charged with hate or inciting violence, and yes if the behavior continues then why would we not consider deportation.. Maybe before all this gets to this point we should have improved screening measures prior to them getting into the country...or perhaps at least look at the cultures we are getting new immigrants from and find better sources . 

IMHO there are a few things that should apply to "protesters" and those related to same.  

First of all, IDENTICAL headscarfs, tent cities and verbatim chants appearing in dozens of places around the continent is not "spontaneous".  Someone is organizing and financing this activity, and they should be fined for restitution and if not legal citizens deported after their finances are tapped.

Peaceful protesting is certainly something that western countries should and DO support, but disrupting institutions, causing property damage and spewing hate speech is well beyond peaceful.  Those arrested or even identified by police on campus' who don't belong there need to be handed their share of the cleanup, investigation and peacekeeping costs - and just as with organizers if not legally citizens deported after collecting whatever they have against their fines.   Students participating should be handed their share of the bill and be told they will not be graduated until they  pay up.  Staff is much easier:  their share of the bill just gets deducted from their pension or if not adequate paycheques.

The most valuable lesson the campus lot needs to learn is that your actions have consequences and you need to be accountable.   To do any less would be denying them and excellent educational opportunity..

Remember the reaction to Western Truckers who drove into Ottawa to protest FOR Canadians?   We need to have AT LEAST that strong a reaction to those protesting for Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthis/Al Queida, etc.

 

Edited May 4 by cannuck