Share Political Videos
20 Feb 2019, 8:49 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I started to watch the video on Jordan Petterson, but gave up after about six minutes. It was just too frustrating to watch! First, the commentator gets it wrong right out of the gate, stating the JP rose to prominence opposing a Canadian bill that was intended to protect the rights of transgender people. No mention of why he opposed it, which is very important. He opposed it because the law would mandate that transgender people are to be referred to by a specific set of gender pronouns. He opposed it on the grounds it was an assault of free speech. Intellectually disingenuous from the start. It only gets worse from there.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
The bill was an anti-discrimination bill, JP is the one claiming it is a free speech issue. We have laws against hate speech and discrimination in Canada, we're not so gung-ho about free speech as Americans so ours has more limits and we're cool with that. You can't discriminate against people and claim it is your right to do so under the free speech clause in the Charter in Canadian law, which is why Peterson isn't getting much support except from the right-wing fringe for his claim the bill is "anti-free speech".
I'm not surprised the claim to open-mindedness is hypocritical in so many here that won't even give consideration to facts that challenge their opinions. Disappointed, but not surprised.
I've given quite a lot of consideration to all opinions. Here's one website I recently came across regarding this law:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and- ... d-pronouns
This sentence is a little concerning: The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their identity and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
What does that mean, exactly? Could a person be held legally accountable for not referring to a transgender persons by the pronouns they prefer? It does seem to be a free-speech issue to me.
This kind of social engineering via legislation is something I don't agree with at all. I think Dr. Peterson makes some very valid points.
It very simply means that if you find out someone's pronouns (usually by asking I believe is the polite way to find out, asking which pronouns they use) and refuse to refer to them by those pronouns once you have been informed about them, you are discriminating against that person. So if you're in a position of authority like a professor and one of your students tells you their pronouns are "she/her" and you continue to refer to them as "he/him" after being informed of that, you can be disciplined by the school you teach at for discriminating against your student. And the same goes for places of employment. It's really not that hard to navigate or understand at all.
20 Feb 2019, 8:59 pm
Canadian Scientists Explain Exactly How Their Government Silenced Science
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180961942/
Half of Canada’s government scientists still feel muzzled
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02 ... oogle.com/
They are trying to combat the situation, it was apparently pretty hectic for Canadian scientists in 2013 and still an issue today yet improving.
20 Feb 2019, 9:51 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I started to watch the video on Jordan Petterson, but gave up after about six minutes. It was just too frustrating to watch! First, the commentator gets it wrong right out of the gate, stating the JP rose to prominence opposing a Canadian bill that was intended to protect the rights of transgender people. No mention of why he opposed it, which is very important. He opposed it because the law would mandate that transgender people are to be referred to by a specific set of gender pronouns. He opposed it on the grounds it was an assault of free speech. Intellectually disingenuous from the start. It only gets worse from there.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
The bill was an anti-discrimination bill, JP is the one claiming it is a free speech issue. We have laws against hate speech and discrimination in Canada, we're not so gung-ho about free speech as Americans so ours has more limits and we're cool with that. You can't discriminate against people and claim it is your right to do so under the free speech clause in the Charter in Canadian law, which is why Peterson isn't getting much support except from the right-wing fringe for his claim the bill is "anti-free speech".
I'm not surprised the claim to open-mindedness is hypocritical in so many here that won't even give consideration to facts that challenge their opinions. Disappointed, but not surprised.
I've given quite a lot of consideration to all opinions. Here's one website I recently came across regarding this law:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and- ... d-pronouns
This sentence is a little concerning: The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their identity and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
What does that mean, exactly? Could a person be held legally accountable for not referring to a transgender persons by the pronouns they prefer? It does seem to be a free-speech issue to me.
This kind of social engineering via legislation is something I don't agree with at all. I think Dr. Peterson makes some very valid points.
It very simply means that if you find out someone's pronouns (usually by asking I believe is the polite way to find out, asking which pronouns they use) and refuse to refer to them by those pronouns once you have been informed about them, you are discriminating against that person. So if you're in a position of authority like a professor and one of your students tells you their pronouns are "she/her" and you continue to refer to them as "he/him" after being informed of that, you can be disciplined by the school you teach at for discriminating against your student. And the same goes for places of employment. It's really not that hard to navigate or understand at all.
I just can't understand passing legislation that defines correct speech. Where does that end? Language is an organic thing, it evolves. And how, exactly, is it "discrimination" to refer to a transgender person as a him or a her, when said person prefers a specific pronoun. Do we really want to continue down this path?
It may not be hard to navigate, but I oppose these kinds of laws on principle. What's next? A law that prohibits any kind of speech that isn't deemed politically correct? I'm all for laws that prohibit true discrimination against individuals, i.e. not hiring someone because of their sexual orientation or race. But this is just absurd! This is basically mandating politeness. How did we get to this point?
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
20 Feb 2019, 10:04 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I started to watch the video on Jordan Petterson, but gave up after about six minutes. It was just too frustrating to watch! First, the commentator gets it wrong right out of the gate, stating the JP rose to prominence opposing a Canadian bill that was intended to protect the rights of transgender people. No mention of why he opposed it, which is very important. He opposed it because the law would mandate that transgender people are to be referred to by a specific set of gender pronouns. He opposed it on the grounds it was an assault of free speech. Intellectually disingenuous from the start. It only gets worse from there.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
The bill was an anti-discrimination bill, JP is the one claiming it is a free speech issue. We have laws against hate speech and discrimination in Canada, we're not so gung-ho about free speech as Americans so ours has more limits and we're cool with that. You can't discriminate against people and claim it is your right to do so under the free speech clause in the Charter in Canadian law, which is why Peterson isn't getting much support except from the right-wing fringe for his claim the bill is "anti-free speech".
I'm not surprised the claim to open-mindedness is hypocritical in so many here that won't even give consideration to facts that challenge their opinions. Disappointed, but not surprised.
I've given quite a lot of consideration to all opinions. Here's one website I recently came across regarding this law:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and- ... d-pronouns
This sentence is a little concerning: The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their identity and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
What does that mean, exactly? Could a person be held legally accountable for not referring to a transgender persons by the pronouns they prefer? It does seem to be a free-speech issue to me.
This kind of social engineering via legislation is something I don't agree with at all. I think Dr. Peterson makes some very valid points.
It very simply means that if you find out someone's pronouns (usually by asking I believe is the polite way to find out, asking which pronouns they use) and refuse to refer to them by those pronouns once you have been informed about them, you are discriminating against that person. So if you're in a position of authority like a professor and one of your students tells you their pronouns are "she/her" and you continue to refer to them as "he/him" after being informed of that, you can be disciplined by the school you teach at for discriminating against your student. And the same goes for places of employment. It's really not that hard to navigate or understand at all.
I just can't understand passing legislation that defines correct speech. Where does that end? Language is an organic thing, it evolves. And how, exactly, is it "discrimination" to refer to a transgender person as a him or a her, when said person prefers a specific pronoun. Do we really want to continue down this path?
It may not be hard to navigate, but I oppose these kinds of laws on principle. What's next? A law that prohibits any kind of speech that isn't deemed politically correct? I'm all for laws that prohibit true discrimination against individuals, i.e. not hiring someone because of their sexual orientation or race. But this is just absurd! This is basically mandating politeness. How did we get to this point?
You didn't get to this point, Canada did. And just because you can't understand how to do something doesn't mean other countries won't and haven't figured out how to implement laws that are apparently beyond your comprehension. There are European countries with similar restrictions on hate speech and speech that incites violence. If you don't like it and don't agree, you aren't subject to our laws so you needn't worry about it.
20 Feb 2019, 10:09 pm
Crimadella wrote:
Canadian Scientists Explain Exactly How Their Government Silenced Science
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180961942/
Half of Canada’s government scientists still feel muzzled
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02 ... oogle.com/
They are trying to combat the situation, it was apparently pretty hectic for Canadian scientists in 2013 and still an issue today yet improving.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180961942/
Half of Canada’s government scientists still feel muzzled
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02 ... oogle.com/
They are trying to combat the situation, it was apparently pretty hectic for Canadian scientists in 2013 and still an issue today yet improving.
Yes, the former conservative government trying to prevent scientists from talking to the media about things like climate change was a big problem that many of our scientists were and are still concerned about. It has nothing to do with hate speech legislation though, it has to do with the government trying to protect it's oil and gas interests by not letting scientists talk about climate change science that makes the oil and natural gas industries look bad. The government wasn't using laws against discrimination and the dissemination of hate speech to prevent those scientists from talking to the media, however, so it's not related to hate speech and discrimination legislation.
Our previous government before Trudeau was very bible-thumpy and anti-science and tried to dismantle and torpedo many governmental bodies designed to protect and promote scientific discovery and research. Thank God Harper is gone though and we can start to undo some of the damage his government did to our national institutions.
20 Feb 2019, 10:36 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I started to watch the video on Jordan Petterson, but gave up after about six minutes. It was just too frustrating to watch! First, the commentator gets it wrong right out of the gate, stating the JP rose to prominence opposing a Canadian bill that was intended to protect the rights of transgender people. No mention of why he opposed it, which is very important. He opposed it because the law would mandate that transgender people are to be referred to by a specific set of gender pronouns. He opposed it on the grounds it was an assault of free speech. Intellectually disingenuous from the start. It only gets worse from there.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
The bill was an anti-discrimination bill, JP is the one claiming it is a free speech issue. We have laws against hate speech and discrimination in Canada, we're not so gung-ho about free speech as Americans so ours has more limits and we're cool with that. You can't discriminate against people and claim it is your right to do so under the free speech clause in the Charter in Canadian law, which is why Peterson isn't getting much support except from the right-wing fringe for his claim the bill is "anti-free speech".
I'm not surprised the claim to open-mindedness is hypocritical in so many here that won't even give consideration to facts that challenge their opinions. Disappointed, but not surprised.
I've given quite a lot of consideration to all opinions. Here's one website I recently came across regarding this law:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and- ... d-pronouns
This sentence is a little concerning: The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their identity and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
What does that mean, exactly? Could a person be held legally accountable for not referring to a transgender persons by the pronouns they prefer? It does seem to be a free-speech issue to me.
This kind of social engineering via legislation is something I don't agree with at all. I think Dr. Peterson makes some very valid points.
It very simply means that if you find out someone's pronouns (usually by asking I believe is the polite way to find out, asking which pronouns they use) and refuse to refer to them by those pronouns once you have been informed about them, you are discriminating against that person. So if you're in a position of authority like a professor and one of your students tells you their pronouns are "she/her" and you continue to refer to them as "he/him" after being informed of that, you can be disciplined by the school you teach at for discriminating against your student. And the same goes for places of employment. It's really not that hard to navigate or understand at all.
I just can't understand passing legislation that defines correct speech. Where does that end? Language is an organic thing, it evolves. And how, exactly, is it "discrimination" to refer to a transgender person as a him or a her, when said person prefers a specific pronoun. Do we really want to continue down this path?
It may not be hard to navigate, but I oppose these kinds of laws on principle. What's next? A law that prohibits any kind of speech that isn't deemed politically correct? I'm all for laws that prohibit true discrimination against individuals, i.e. not hiring someone because of their sexual orientation or race. But this is just absurd! This is basically mandating politeness. How did we get to this point?
You didn't get to this point, Canada did. And just because you can't understand how to do something doesn't mean other countries won't and haven't figured out how to implement laws that are apparently beyond your comprehension. There are European countries with similar restrictions on hate speech and speech that incites violence. If you don't like it and don't agree, you aren't subject to our laws so you needn't worry about it.
Yeah, thankfully the U.S. hasn't gotten to that point yet. Thankfully, the First Amendment is still respected enough that nobody has tried to implement such insidious legislation. But that could change. So, yeah, I do worry about it to some degree. Whether or not you understand it, "hate speech" is protected speech for a very good reason. I am all for laws that prohibit true discrimination, i.e., firing someone for their sexual orientation or race. But the law we're talking about is a quantum leap toward outlawing any speech that is deemed politically incorrect.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
20 Feb 2019, 10:55 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I started to watch the video on Jordan Petterson, but gave up after about six minutes. It was just too frustrating to watch! First, the commentator gets it wrong right out of the gate, stating the JP rose to prominence opposing a Canadian bill that was intended to protect the rights of transgender people. No mention of why he opposed it, which is very important. He opposed it because the law would mandate that transgender people are to be referred to by a specific set of gender pronouns. He opposed it on the grounds it was an assault of free speech. Intellectually disingenuous from the start. It only gets worse from there.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
The bill was an anti-discrimination bill, JP is the one claiming it is a free speech issue. We have laws against hate speech and discrimination in Canada, we're not so gung-ho about free speech as Americans so ours has more limits and we're cool with that. You can't discriminate against people and claim it is your right to do so under the free speech clause in the Charter in Canadian law, which is why Peterson isn't getting much support except from the right-wing fringe for his claim the bill is "anti-free speech".
I'm not surprised the claim to open-mindedness is hypocritical in so many here that won't even give consideration to facts that challenge their opinions. Disappointed, but not surprised.
I've given quite a lot of consideration to all opinions. Here's one website I recently came across regarding this law:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and- ... d-pronouns
This sentence is a little concerning: The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their identity and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
What does that mean, exactly? Could a person be held legally accountable for not referring to a transgender persons by the pronouns they prefer? It does seem to be a free-speech issue to me.
This kind of social engineering via legislation is something I don't agree with at all. I think Dr. Peterson makes some very valid points.
It very simply means that if you find out someone's pronouns (usually by asking I believe is the polite way to find out, asking which pronouns they use) and refuse to refer to them by those pronouns once you have been informed about them, you are discriminating against that person. So if you're in a position of authority like a professor and one of your students tells you their pronouns are "she/her" and you continue to refer to them as "he/him" after being informed of that, you can be disciplined by the school you teach at for discriminating against your student. And the same goes for places of employment. It's really not that hard to navigate or understand at all.
I just can't understand passing legislation that defines correct speech. Where does that end? Language is an organic thing, it evolves. And how, exactly, is it "discrimination" to refer to a transgender person as a him or a her, when said person prefers a specific pronoun. Do we really want to continue down this path?
It may not be hard to navigate, but I oppose these kinds of laws on principle. What's next? A law that prohibits any kind of speech that isn't deemed politically correct? I'm all for laws that prohibit true discrimination against individuals, i.e. not hiring someone because of their sexual orientation or race. But this is just absurd! This is basically mandating politeness. How did we get to this point?
You didn't get to this point, Canada did. And just because you can't understand how to do something doesn't mean other countries won't and haven't figured out how to implement laws that are apparently beyond your comprehension. There are European countries with similar restrictions on hate speech and speech that incites violence. If you don't like it and don't agree, you aren't subject to our laws so you needn't worry about it.
Yeah, thankfully the U.S. hasn't gotten to that point yet. Thankfully, the First Amendment is still respected enough that nobody has tried to implement such insidious legislation. But that could change. So, yeah, I do worry about it to some degree. Whether or not you understand it, "hate speech" is protected speech for a very good reason. I am all for laws that prohibit true discrimination, i.e., firing someone for their sexual orientation or race. But the law we're talking about is a quantum leap toward outlawing any speech that is deemed politically incorrect.
You seem unfortunately fond of that slippery slope logical fallacy. Hate speech is not protected elsewhere for good reason too, hence the laws many other developed nations than America have on the issue. Somehow Canada and Germany and other states have managed to not fall into autocracies where people are jailed for thought crimes while managing to implement hate speech legislation. It doesn't become curtailed free speech because our countries also have courts where if the government were trying to curtail someone's right to speak non-hateful speech citizens can fight them in court and challenge the application of the law. Yay for the democratic process!
20 Feb 2019, 11:25 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I started to watch the video on Jordan Petterson, but gave up after about six minutes. It was just too frustrating to watch! First, the commentator gets it wrong right out of the gate, stating the JP rose to prominence opposing a Canadian bill that was intended to protect the rights of transgender people. No mention of why he opposed it, which is very important. He opposed it because the law would mandate that transgender people are to be referred to by a specific set of gender pronouns. He opposed it on the grounds it was an assault of free speech. Intellectually disingenuous from the start. It only gets worse from there.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
The bill was an anti-discrimination bill, JP is the one claiming it is a free speech issue. We have laws against hate speech and discrimination in Canada, we're not so gung-ho about free speech as Americans so ours has more limits and we're cool with that. You can't discriminate against people and claim it is your right to do so under the free speech clause in the Charter in Canadian law, which is why Peterson isn't getting much support except from the right-wing fringe for his claim the bill is "anti-free speech".
I'm not surprised the claim to open-mindedness is hypocritical in so many here that won't even give consideration to facts that challenge their opinions. Disappointed, but not surprised.
I've given quite a lot of consideration to all opinions. Here's one website I recently came across regarding this law:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and- ... d-pronouns
This sentence is a little concerning: The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their identity and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
What does that mean, exactly? Could a person be held legally accountable for not referring to a transgender persons by the pronouns they prefer? It does seem to be a free-speech issue to me.
This kind of social engineering via legislation is something I don't agree with at all. I think Dr. Peterson makes some very valid points.
It very simply means that if you find out someone's pronouns (usually by asking I believe is the polite way to find out, asking which pronouns they use) and refuse to refer to them by those pronouns once you have been informed about them, you are discriminating against that person. So if you're in a position of authority like a professor and one of your students tells you their pronouns are "she/her" and you continue to refer to them as "he/him" after being informed of that, you can be disciplined by the school you teach at for discriminating against your student. And the same goes for places of employment. It's really not that hard to navigate or understand at all.
I just can't understand passing legislation that defines correct speech. Where does that end? Language is an organic thing, it evolves. And how, exactly, is it "discrimination" to refer to a transgender person as a him or a her, when said person prefers a specific pronoun. Do we really want to continue down this path?
It may not be hard to navigate, but I oppose these kinds of laws on principle. What's next? A law that prohibits any kind of speech that isn't deemed politically correct? I'm all for laws that prohibit true discrimination against individuals, i.e. not hiring someone because of their sexual orientation or race. But this is just absurd! This is basically mandating politeness. How did we get to this point?
You didn't get to this point, Canada did. And just because you can't understand how to do something doesn't mean other countries won't and haven't figured out how to implement laws that are apparently beyond your comprehension. There are European countries with similar restrictions on hate speech and speech that incites violence. If you don't like it and don't agree, you aren't subject to our laws so you needn't worry about it.
Yeah, thankfully the U.S. hasn't gotten to that point yet. Thankfully, the First Amendment is still respected enough that nobody has tried to implement such insidious legislation. But that could change. So, yeah, I do worry about it to some degree. Whether or not you understand it, "hate speech" is protected speech for a very good reason. I am all for laws that prohibit true discrimination, i.e., firing someone for their sexual orientation or race. But the law we're talking about is a quantum leap toward outlawing any speech that is deemed politically incorrect.
You seem unfortunately fond of that slippery slope logical fallacy. Hate speech is not protected elsewhere for good reason too, hence the laws many other developed nations than America have on the issue. Somehow Canada and Germany and other states have managed to not fall into autocracies where people are jailed for thought crimes while managing to implement hate speech legislation. It doesn't become curtailed free speech because our countries also have courts where if the government were trying to curtail someone's right to speak non-hateful speech citizens can fight them in court and challenge the application of the law. Yay for the democratic process!
The "slippery slope" argument isn't always invalid. Sure, the checks and balances of Democracy usually provide a tilt mechanism to keep governments from becoming authoritarian regimes. But do we really want to clog our court systems with unnecessary cases of impolite speech, masquerading as hate crimes? I don't think so.
We may or may not evolve into a race that is tolerant of each other and treats each other the way we want to be treated. I just don't think it's government's job to further that along with drastic measures that threaten the basic principle of freedom of speech.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
20 Feb 2019, 11:45 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I started to watch the video on Jordan Petterson, but gave up after about six minutes. It was just too frustrating to watch! First, the commentator gets it wrong right out of the gate, stating the JP rose to prominence opposing a Canadian bill that was intended to protect the rights of transgender people. No mention of why he opposed it, which is very important. He opposed it because the law would mandate that transgender people are to be referred to by a specific set of gender pronouns. He opposed it on the grounds it was an assault of free speech. Intellectually disingenuous from the start. It only gets worse from there.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
Short soundbites from JP taken out context abound, after that. A waste of time!
I have my issues with JP, but I agrees with his opposition to the proposed bill, now a law.
The bill was an anti-discrimination bill, JP is the one claiming it is a free speech issue. We have laws against hate speech and discrimination in Canada, we're not so gung-ho about free speech as Americans so ours has more limits and we're cool with that. You can't discriminate against people and claim it is your right to do so under the free speech clause in the Charter in Canadian law, which is why Peterson isn't getting much support except from the right-wing fringe for his claim the bill is "anti-free speech".
I'm not surprised the claim to open-mindedness is hypocritical in so many here that won't even give consideration to facts that challenge their opinions. Disappointed, but not surprised.
I've given quite a lot of consideration to all opinions. Here's one website I recently came across regarding this law:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and- ... d-pronouns
This sentence is a little concerning: The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their identity and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
What does that mean, exactly? Could a person be held legally accountable for not referring to a transgender persons by the pronouns they prefer? It does seem to be a free-speech issue to me.
This kind of social engineering via legislation is something I don't agree with at all. I think Dr. Peterson makes some very valid points.
It very simply means that if you find out someone's pronouns (usually by asking I believe is the polite way to find out, asking which pronouns they use) and refuse to refer to them by those pronouns once you have been informed about them, you are discriminating against that person. So if you're in a position of authority like a professor and one of your students tells you their pronouns are "she/her" and you continue to refer to them as "he/him" after being informed of that, you can be disciplined by the school you teach at for discriminating against your student. And the same goes for places of employment. It's really not that hard to navigate or understand at all.
I just can't understand passing legislation that defines correct speech. Where does that end? Language is an organic thing, it evolves. And how, exactly, is it "discrimination" to refer to a transgender person as a him or a her, when said person prefers a specific pronoun. Do we really want to continue down this path?
It may not be hard to navigate, but I oppose these kinds of laws on principle. What's next? A law that prohibits any kind of speech that isn't deemed politically correct? I'm all for laws that prohibit true discrimination against individuals, i.e. not hiring someone because of their sexual orientation or race. But this is just absurd! This is basically mandating politeness. How did we get to this point?
You didn't get to this point, Canada did. And just because you can't understand how to do something doesn't mean other countries won't and haven't figured out how to implement laws that are apparently beyond your comprehension. There are European countries with similar restrictions on hate speech and speech that incites violence. If you don't like it and don't agree, you aren't subject to our laws so you needn't worry about it.
Yeah, thankfully the U.S. hasn't gotten to that point yet. Thankfully, the First Amendment is still respected enough that nobody has tried to implement such insidious legislation. But that could change. So, yeah, I do worry about it to some degree. Whether or not you understand it, "hate speech" is protected speech for a very good reason. I am all for laws that prohibit true discrimination, i.e., firing someone for their sexual orientation or race. But the law we're talking about is a quantum leap toward outlawing any speech that is deemed politically incorrect.
You seem unfortunately fond of that slippery slope logical fallacy. Hate speech is not protected elsewhere for good reason too, hence the laws many other developed nations than America have on the issue. Somehow Canada and Germany and other states have managed to not fall into autocracies where people are jailed for thought crimes while managing to implement hate speech legislation. It doesn't become curtailed free speech because our countries also have courts where if the government were trying to curtail someone's right to speak non-hateful speech citizens can fight them in court and challenge the application of the law. Yay for the democratic process!
The "slippery slope" argument isn't always invalid. Sure, the checks and balances of Democracy usually provide a tilt mechanism to keep governments from becoming authoritarian regimes. But do we really want to clog our court systems with unnecessary cases of impolite speech, masquerading as hate crimes? I don't think so.
We may or may not evolve into a race that is tolerant of each other and treats each other the way we want to be treated. I just don't think it's government's job to further that along with drastic measures that threaten the basic principle of freedom of speech.
Our courts aren't currently clogged with such cases--one guy challenged his case and lost because the material he was publishing and sending to people's homes through the postal service was very clearly hateful and promoting violence and therefore breaking the law against hate speech and the government could clearly demonstrate that to the court. That's not a clogged system, that's a system that implements justice pretty effectively.
21 Feb 2019, 9:57 am
My personal take on free speech as a right is it's important to protect because once you let governments, which do get corrupted, start policing speech due to popular vote it often leads to oppression of ideas, views, scientific discoveries & speech. The basics of how you define what hate speech is, is changeable as popular belief changes . Take religious views for one example, to challenge a religious person intellectually can be considered offensive to the religious person and vice versa. Hate speech is speech which offends another, where do you draw the line, by popular vote? Imagine the radical left making a huge fuss and getting many other words restricted, political views restricted, scientific research the majority may be against(disbelief/hateful).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
Last edited by Crimadella on 21 Feb 2019, 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
21 Feb 2019, 12:16 pm
Crimadella wrote:
My personal take on free speech as a right is it's important to protect because once you let governments, which do get corrupted, start policing speech due to popular vote it often leads to oppression of ideas, views, scientific discoveries & speech. The basics of how you define what hate speech is changeable as popular belief changes . Take religious views for one example, to challenge a religious person intellectually can be considered offensive to the religious person and vice versa. Hate speech is speech which offends another, where do you draw the line, by popular vote? Imagine the radical left making a huge fuss and getting many other words restricted, political views restricted, scientific research the majority may be against(disbelief/hateful).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
Well said!
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
21 Feb 2019, 5:02 pm
Crimadella wrote:
My personal take on free speech as a right is it's important to protect because once you let governments, which do get corrupted, start policing speech due to popular vote it often leads to oppression of ideas, views, scientific discoveries & speech. The basics of how you define what hate speech is, is changeable as popular belief changes . Take religious views for one example, to challenge a religious person intellectually can be considered offensive to the religious person and vice versa. Hate speech is speech which offends another, where do you draw the line, by popular vote? Imagine the radical left making a huge fuss and getting many other words restricted, political views restricted, scientific research the majority may be against(disbelief/hateful).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
Your personal opinion is based on the slippery slope fallacy. It's very common. None of those minority groups had their speech curtailed in my country because of our hate speech laws, because allowing for the banning of speech that promotes violence doesn't automatically mean all kinds of other types of speech will be banned too. That is the slippery slope fallacy. My government has not passed any more laws further curtailing free speech since writing the laws that ban hate speech and the promotion of violence, and the government has not tried to expand on those laws or expand on how they are implemented in the time since they were passed, so your argument is null and void as the slippery slope fallacy almost always is a null useless argument that doesn't apply to reality.
21 Feb 2019, 5:11 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
My personal take on free speech as a right is it's important to protect because once you let governments, which do get corrupted, start policing speech due to popular vote it often leads to oppression of ideas, views, scientific discoveries & speech. The basics of how you define what hate speech is, is changeable as popular belief changes . Take religious views for one example, to challenge a religious person intellectually can be considered offensive to the religious person and vice versa. Hate speech is speech which offends another, where do you draw the line, by popular vote? Imagine the radical left making a huge fuss and getting many other words restricted, political views restricted, scientific research the majority may be against(disbelief/hateful).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
Your personal opinion is based on the slippery slope fallacy. It's very common. None of those minority groups had their speech curtailed in my country because of our hate speech laws, because allowing for the banning of speech that promotes violence doesn't automatically mean all kinds of other types of speech will be banned too. That is the slippery slope fallacy. My government has not passed any more laws further curtailing free speech since writing the laws that ban hate speech and the promotion of violence, and the government has not tried to expand on those laws or expand on how they are implemented in the time since they were passed, so your argument is null and void as the slippery slope fallacy almost always is a null useless argument that doesn't apply to reality.
It does apply, no system is infinitely protected from corruption, not even the US. Define hate speech.
21 Feb 2019, 5:54 pm
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
My personal take on free speech as a right is it's important to protect because once you let governments, which do get corrupted, start policing speech due to popular vote it often leads to oppression of ideas, views, scientific discoveries & speech. The basics of how you define what hate speech is, is changeable as popular belief changes . Take religious views for one example, to challenge a religious person intellectually can be considered offensive to the religious person and vice versa. Hate speech is speech which offends another, where do you draw the line, by popular vote? Imagine the radical left making a huge fuss and getting many other words restricted, political views restricted, scientific research the majority may be against(disbelief/hateful).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
Your personal opinion is based on the slippery slope fallacy. It's very common. None of those minority groups had their speech curtailed in my country because of our hate speech laws, because allowing for the banning of speech that promotes violence doesn't automatically mean all kinds of other types of speech will be banned too. That is the slippery slope fallacy. My government has not passed any more laws further curtailing free speech since writing the laws that ban hate speech and the promotion of violence, and the government has not tried to expand on those laws or expand on how they are implemented in the time since they were passed, so your argument is null and void as the slippery slope fallacy almost always is a null useless argument that doesn't apply to reality.
It does apply, no system is infinitely protected from corruption, not even the US. Define hate speech.
It does not apply because no other speech has been curtailed since we passed those laws, they haven't been added to nor has the definition of hate speech been expanded in our laws. How hate speech is defined in our laws is easy for you to look up (you can start here), and our courts make sure that definition is applied accurately by allowing people to challenge them if they think their speech has been curtailed when it was not hateful. If they can prove their speech was not hateful by how the law defines it, then their case is thrown out and they are not prevented from speaking. If the law can be reasonably applied and The Crown argues that effectively in court then the law stands and the person's hate speech is curtailed (as in the example I gave of the guys publishing that terrible "newsletter" full of violence against women and anti-semitism who were banned from sending their "newsletter" around by Canada Post, our federal mail service).
The slippery slope is considered fallacious for a reason--because it almost never describes how things really work, as it doesn't describe how hate speech laws have been written and implemented in my country.
21 Feb 2019, 6:11 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
My personal take on free speech as a right is it's important to protect because once you let governments, which do get corrupted, start policing speech due to popular vote it often leads to oppression of ideas, views, scientific discoveries & speech. The basics of how you define what hate speech is, is changeable as popular belief changes . Take religious views for one example, to challenge a religious person intellectually can be considered offensive to the religious person and vice versa. Hate speech is speech which offends another, where do you draw the line, by popular vote? Imagine the radical left making a huge fuss and getting many other words restricted, political views restricted, scientific research the majority may be against(disbelief/hateful).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
Your personal opinion is based on the slippery slope fallacy. It's very common. None of those minority groups had their speech curtailed in my country because of our hate speech laws, because allowing for the banning of speech that promotes violence doesn't automatically mean all kinds of other types of speech will be banned too. That is the slippery slope fallacy. My government has not passed any more laws further curtailing free speech since writing the laws that ban hate speech and the promotion of violence, and the government has not tried to expand on those laws or expand on how they are implemented in the time since they were passed, so your argument is null and void as the slippery slope fallacy almost always is a null useless argument that doesn't apply to reality.
It does apply, no system is infinitely protected from corruption, not even the US. Define hate speech.
It does not apply because no other speech has been curtailed since we passed those laws, they haven't been added to nor has the definition of hate speech been expanded in our laws. How hate speech is defined in our laws is easy for you to look up (you can start here), and our courts make sure that definition is applied accurately by allowing people to challenge them if they think their speech has been curtailed when it was not hateful. If they can prove their speech was not hateful by how the law defines it, then their case is thrown out and they are not prevented from speaking. If the law can be reasonably applied and The Crown argues that effectively in court then the law stands and the person's hate speech is curtailed (as in the example I gave of the guys publishing that terrible "newsletter" full of violence against women and anti-semitism who were banned from sending their "newsletter" around by Canada Post, our federal mail service).
The slippery slope is considered fallacious for a reason--because it almost never describes how things really work, as it doesn't describe how hate speech laws have been written and implemented in my country.
I'll read the laws. I must say though, you have the upmost faith in the Canadian system, all systems are subject to corruption, Canada is not the miracle system incapable of corruption. Most free speech folks consider bans of hate speech as the first step that never ends, I will read it tomorrow. I'm going to read it off of Wikipedia, do you feel that will suffice?
21 Feb 2019, 8:47 pm
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
My personal take on free speech as a right is it's important to protect because once you let governments, which do get corrupted, start policing speech due to popular vote it often leads to oppression of ideas, views, scientific discoveries & speech. The basics of how you define what hate speech is, is changeable as popular belief changes . Take religious views for one example, to challenge a religious person intellectually can be considered offensive to the religious person and vice versa. Hate speech is speech which offends another, where do you draw the line, by popular vote? Imagine the radical left making a huge fuss and getting many other words restricted, political views restricted, scientific research the majority may be against(disbelief/hateful).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
If you let speech be guided by popular opinion then minority groups can be oppressed. Like forced diversity, people who believe in that may get challenged, then all of a sudden the challenger is considered to be hateful, hate speech. If these people became the majority then you wouldn't be able to point out how they are actually the ones discriminating on others, and with a governing body voted in to police those kinds of arguments a person could be imprisoned for intellectually challenging that very flawed point of view. Minority groups like gays and people speaking out for gay rights could have been potentially silenced if it weren't for the right of free speech. Black's rights, women's rights, religious beliefs over ruling study and science(If religious beliefs came back as popular belief).
All of these things could have been permanently oppressed or the length of time they were oppressed could have been dramatically lengthened without free speech as a right. Even in Canada, information has been suppressed, that still occurs to some extent and can always resurface simply by popular vote. That is why the US has it stated as a natural right in our constitution, so the majority can't oppress a minority. (That's my take on why free speech is very important to have as a right that can't be removed(But of course that will not stop some people from trying to remove that right anyway).
Your personal opinion is based on the slippery slope fallacy. It's very common. None of those minority groups had their speech curtailed in my country because of our hate speech laws, because allowing for the banning of speech that promotes violence doesn't automatically mean all kinds of other types of speech will be banned too. That is the slippery slope fallacy. My government has not passed any more laws further curtailing free speech since writing the laws that ban hate speech and the promotion of violence, and the government has not tried to expand on those laws or expand on how they are implemented in the time since they were passed, so your argument is null and void as the slippery slope fallacy almost always is a null useless argument that doesn't apply to reality.
It does apply, no system is infinitely protected from corruption, not even the US. Define hate speech.
It does not apply because no other speech has been curtailed since we passed those laws, they haven't been added to nor has the definition of hate speech been expanded in our laws. How hate speech is defined in our laws is easy for you to look up (you can start here), and our courts make sure that definition is applied accurately by allowing people to challenge them if they think their speech has been curtailed when it was not hateful. If they can prove their speech was not hateful by how the law defines it, then their case is thrown out and they are not prevented from speaking. If the law can be reasonably applied and The Crown argues that effectively in court then the law stands and the person's hate speech is curtailed (as in the example I gave of the guys publishing that terrible "newsletter" full of violence against women and anti-semitism who were banned from sending their "newsletter" around by Canada Post, our federal mail service).
The slippery slope is considered fallacious for a reason--because it almost never describes how things really work, as it doesn't describe how hate speech laws have been written and implemented in my country.
I'll read the laws. I must say though, you have the upmost faith in the Canadian system, all systems are subject to corruption, Canada is not the miracle system incapable of corruption. Most free speech folks consider bans of hate speech as the first step that never ends, I will read it tomorrow. I'm going to read it off of Wikipedia, do you feel that will suffice?
I said my government is corrupted by money and needs reform like many other governments too. Mostly I feel like we need election reform. But I also understand how laws are written and how the courts can act as a check against laws that are unfair or implemented unfairly, because that is how a democratic system works. It's not perfect, but it's what we have. I have faith in it because for the most part it works, as evidenced by the example I provided earlier in the thread of the law being applied fairly and faithfully and adjudicated by the court system.
Wikipedia is only a first stop for resources--there should be better sources cited in the Wikipedia article at the end where you can read further if you are interested. You can also go directly to a Canadian government website and read the laws and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from there.
EDIT: Also, the word is "utmost". I don't mean to be pedantic but those things bother me until I say something.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Science Videos |
13 Jul 2025, 8:07 pm |
| Why the new political right is bad news for autism |
01 May 2025, 11:17 am |
