Beware of the liberal-left which, if they had the chance, would take away individual freedom and rights

[blackbird]

We have seen samples of the moves toward removing freedom from the people.  The liberal left political parties and movements are basically pagan in nature and therefore do not hold strong beliefs about the human rights and dignity of the individual.  Their ideology is man-made.  In the case of the NDP they believe it is evil for anyone to become more prosperous or wealthy than someone they deem as average or middle class.  They prove this by their repeated statements against corporate leaders or investors who own corporations and their willingness to confiscate their wealth.  Obviously they don't think the right to own private property exists.  In their mind, they are the arbiters of who owns what and they can confiscate property at any time if they ever get enough political power.

We see the ideology of disrespect for democracy and the will of the people in the B.C. NDP government with their recent Bill 7.  This bill gives absolute power to the cabinet or executive of the government to change laws and do things arbitrarily without the approval of the elected MLAs, that is, without the democratic right to debate and vote in the legislative assembly, which is the people's elected representatives.

 

[TreeBeard]

We know who wants to take away individual freedoms, and it’s you.  You want blasphemy laws and for people to be arrested when Christians feel insulted by speech. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

We know who wants to take away individual freedoms, and it’s you.  You want blasphemy laws and for people to be arrested when Christians feel insulted by speech. 

That may be true, but The work left definitely wants to take away every other right. The only right you will have if they have their way is the right to agree with them 100% or suffer the consequence

I don't approve of his Ridiculous blasphemy laws. But your whataboutism doesn't change the fact that he's absolutely right about the rest

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You want blasphemy laws and for people to be arrested when Christians feel insulted by speech. 

You want the right to insult and mock Christians and God.  The moment you take your last breath you'll REGRET your decision to reject God.

[blackbird]

News article:    quote Chris Selley: B.C.’s draconian Trump-emergency bill repeats lessons we failed to learn from COVID

British Columbia Premier David Eby says  he and his cabinet need sweeping new powers with which to be “nimble” in the face of economic threats from Washington. His NDP government’s  Bill 7 would allow it to make regulations  “addressing challenges” from abroad, or indeed for any purpose “supporting the economy of British Columbia and Canada.” These are things like tolling American trucks travelling through B.C. to Alaska — which Alaska is  not  happy about — and altering procurement rules to exclude American companies.

On the bright side, the bill promises to eliminate all trade barriers between B.C. and the rest of Canada. On the dark side: Under Bill 7, all of this can happen with no debate in the B.C. legislature. As a result, quite rightly, reviews have been worse than mixed.

“This bill appears to be an attempt to use the threat of economic crisis to justify a cynical power grab,” Josh Dehaas, counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation,  said in a statement .  Writing at The Line , veteran B.C. correspondent Rob Shaw called it “the most extraordinary piece of legislation tabled in this province since the Second World War” — and no, not in a good way.

No other Canadian governments have proposed anything like this, but it would be foolhardy to assume they won’t sit up, take notice and perhaps raise a jealous eyebrow. And one needn’t resort to hyperbole or conspiracy to imagine where it might end. One of the ultimate inconveniences in a time of crisis is going to the polls at all, and war is a pretty common reason for delaying elections in democracies —  from Ontario during the Second World War   to modern-day Ukraine ."

Chris Selley: B.C.’s draconian Trump-emergency bill repeats lessons we failed to learn from COVID

[herbie]

Quote

woke left

Need a "Godwins Law" for encountering this on the Internet, indicating the poster is an absolutely illiterate right wing sheep and any following words need to be completely ignored.

[Barquentine]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

British Columbia Premier David Eby says  he and his cabinet need sweeping new powers

Something similar happened in Nova Scotia recently. The gov't has a super majority and tried to take away the auditor-general's power to do its job. People spoke up, complained, petitioned, emailed and phoned mlas 'til they backed down. It can be done.

[TreeBeard]

53 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You want the right to insult and mock Christians and God.

I already have that right.  You want to remove my rights. 

 

53 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The moment you take your last breath you'll REGRET your decision to reject God.

My god understands how important freedoms are to the wellbeing of humans here on earth.  It understands that people going to jail for mocking Vishnu or Jesus or Allah does more harm than good.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You want the right to insult and mock Christians and God.  The moment you take your last breath you'll REGRET your decision to reject God.

Still his decision. If god doesn't like it god can whack him upside the head with a lightning bolt at any time. Man doesn't need to pass laws with regards to it.

You're right about many of the things you said you are dead wrong with regards to this religious twaddle about denying free speech, stick to the stuff that actually has validity. 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

 It understands that people going to jail for mocking Vishnu or Jesus or Allah does more harm than good.  

I never said someone needed to go to jail.  That is your idea with your extreme comments.

I don't think people in public places like coffee shops should be able to shout profanities and offend other people in the premises.  Maybe a small fine would be appropriate.  

"Causing a Disturbance: If you are in a public place such as a shopping mall or nightclub and you engage in disorderly conduct such as fighting, screaming, insulting people or using obscene language, you could be charged with causing a disturbance under s.175 (1) of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court has ruled your behaviour has to be more than annoying and it must have disrupted the peace enjoyed by others. Though this is a minor offence, you could be fined up to $5,000 or jailed for two years less a day."

According to this law, it is unlikely profanity would be enough to be charged for,  but it would depend on the circumstances and nature of it.  There may be an exception if it is causing a disturbance.

 

Edited March 21 by blackbird

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

My god understands how important freedoms are to the wellbeing of humans here on earth.  It understands that people going to jail for mocking Vishnu or Jesus or Allah does more harm than good.  

I don't think your god is the true God of the Bible.  

 

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't think people in public places like coffee shops should be able to shout profanities

What about movies or books that mock Jesus?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't think people in public places like coffee shops should be able to shout profanities and offend other people in the premises.  Maybe a small fine would be appropriate.  

Why doesn't God just strike them dead?

It's like she lays all these reasons and temptations for profanity everywhere, the pain of the hammer when you miss and hit your thumb, a rock cracking your windshield a week after you just had it replaced, Trump...if you figure a fine is all it takes does dropping another loony in the swear-jar prevent you from burning in hell?

BTW what happens to the swear-jar when it's full? Someone wins it, it's donated to charity or does it go towards popcorn and beer?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why doesn't God just strike them dead?

 

Careful.  Your side has a major hissy fit and wants to lock someone up for not using the right Pronoun   You haven't got a lot of room to mock here  

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why doesn't God just strike them dead?

God gave man freedom of choice.  But also gave man direction on how to live and what to believe.  Man will be held accountable in God's plan.

9 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What about movies or books that mock Jesus?

"

Topical Encyclopedia

Blasphemy, defined as the act of showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, is a grave sin in the biblical context. The Bible addresses the consequences of blasphemy in both the Old and New Testaments, underscoring its seriousness and the divine judgment it incurs.

Old Testament Context

In the Old Testament, blasphemy is explicitly condemned and is considered a capital offense. Leviticus 24:16 states, "Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD must surely be put to death. The whole congregation must stone him. Whether an alien or a native, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death." This severe penalty reflects the holiness of God's name and the seriousness with which the Israelites were to regard it.

The narrative of Naboth's vineyard in 1 Kings 21 illustrates the misuse of blasphemy accusations. Jezebel orchestrates false charges of blasphemy against Naboth to seize his property, leading to his unjust execution. This account highlights the potential for abuse of blasphemy laws and the moral corruption that can ensue when God's commandments are manipulated for personal gain.

New Testament Context

In the New Testament, the focus shifts from legal penalties to spiritual consequences. Jesus addresses blasphemy in Matthew 12:31-32 , saying, "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come." This passage introduces the concept of the unforgivable sin, emphasizing the gravity of attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to evil.

The Apostle Paul, in his letters, also warns against blasphemy. In 1 Timothy 1:20 , he mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." This disciplinary action underscores the need for correction and repentance in the face of blasphemous behavior.

Theological Implications

Blasphemy is not merely a verbal offense but a reflection of the heart's posture towards God. It signifies a willful rejection of God's authority and holiness. The consequences of blasphemy, therefore, extend beyond earthly punishment to spiritual alienation from God. The Bible consistently calls for reverence and respect for God's name, urging believers to uphold His holiness in thought, word, and deed.

Practical Considerations

For believers, the biblical teaching on blasphemy serves as a caution against irreverence and a reminder of the sanctity of God's name. It encourages a lifestyle of worship and respect, recognizing the power and majesty of the Creator. The community of faith is called to address blasphemy with both truth and grace, seeking restoration and repentance for those who have fallen into this sin."

Topical Bible: Consequences of Blasphemy

[Queenmandy85]

23 hours ago, blackbird said:

Obviously they don't think the right to own private property exists.  In their mind, they are the arbiters of who owns what and they can confiscate property at any time if they ever get enough political power.

Could you elaborate what you mean by private property? 

Edited March 22 by Queenmandy85

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Could you elaborate what you mean by private property? 

Generally any property such as income, saved money, investments, inheritance, real estate, or anything that a dictatorial or Marxist type government wishes to take.

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Generally any property such as income, saved money, investments, inheritance, real estate, or anything that a dictatorial or Marxist type government wishes to take.

Hmmm. Income and inheritance have always been subject to taxation. In Canada, you do not own real estate. You never have. What you have is a lease, usually a freehold lease, but a lease never-the-less. The owner of that land you lease has the right to revoke that lease. 

[BlahTheCanuck]

Beware of governments in general that would take away your individual freedom and rights if they had the chance, whether left or right - violating people's freedoms is not exclusive to left-liberals or any other ideology. Eg, The Trump admin's recent crackdown on the Palestinian activist in the US, or Doug Ford's pandemic-era expanded police powers.

Edited March 22 by BlahTheCanuck

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Hmmm. Income and inheritance have always been subject to taxation. In Canada, you do not own real estate. You never have. What you have is a lease, usually a freehold lease, but a lease never-the-less. The owner of that land you lease has the right to revoke that lease. 

Technically you may be correct on the lease subject.  However, that is not the common belief or way private property is viewed by most Canadians.  Most people believe they own their property and money or investments.  But we know a Marxist or Socialist type of government could take what ever they wanted through legislation.  

Canadians found out that their individual rights exist only at the whims of government.  They learned this during Covid and when the government declared the Emergencies Act invoked after the trucker's protest began.  What you say about not owning real estate also proves that when Pierre Trudeau brought in the Charter of Rights, he deliberately left out certain things like the ownership of property.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Hmmm. Income and inheritance have always been subject to taxation.

What? No they haven't! Income has but inheritance absolutely has not. Taxes have already  been paid on that money when it was earned, it's against the fundimental principles of 'tax once' to tax it again, only left wing and communist sources think that you owe taxes on property that was taxed when it was earned. 

Quote

In Canada, you do not own real estate. You never have. What you have is a lease, usually a freehold lease, but a lease never-the-less. The owner of that land you lease has the right to revoke that lease. 

You don't own the property but you DO own the freehold lease. Which means you do own the right of use and enjoyment of the property for yourself AND ALL DECENDENTS that you pass it on to. 

Lets not downplay that. You still own an interest in the property. 

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No they haven't! Income has but inheritance absolutely has not.

I was wrong. Thank you for the correction. However, (he wrote tap dancing out of this like mad) should the need arise for more revenue such as rebuilding the military, Parliament, in its wisdom could decide to tax inheritance, as did the Mother Country after the Great War...or do I have that wrong too?

Edited March 22 by Queenmandy85

[CdnFox]

On 3/22/2025 at 11:28 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

I was wrong. Thank you for the correction. However, (he wrote tap dancing out of this like mad) should the need arise for more revenue such as rebuilding the military, Parliament, in its wisdom could decide to tax inheritance, as did the Mother Country after the Great War...or do I have that wrong too?

It could legalize slavery and sell all the black people for that matter, or round up all the jews and slaughter them and pocket all their money and property to fund the military. But there's just some things that would be morally wrong.

 Taxing inheritance would be completely morally corrupt and about on par with those two things. Someone worked all their lives and already paid their taxes to acquire that stuff, the gov't already got its' share. And now that the person wants to pass their hard work on to people or orgs of their choice (and it's their money so why not) ) they're going to steal some of it?

It would be a horrible thing to do. 

[herbie]

What in the world makes you think you're owed the right to 'own' private property (land)?
The Divine Right of Kings? Dreams of passing the castle and estate on for endless generations?

OMG those ads about buying a home in your twenties are aimed at dreamers like you. That think $250K is a 'decent' salary for anyone over 25.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

What in the world makes you think you're owed the right to 'own' private property (land)?

Because i say  so.  Disagree? Come try and take it