Canadian Money Forum banner
2541 - 2560 of 2682 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,213 Posts
The point of the legislation is to provide clarity on what constitutes "hate speech" rather than leaving the decision to individuals, politicians, or media.
I have yet to see an acceptable definition of hate speech.

In most cases truth or factual accuracy of the statement is not a defense, that is very problematic.

For example one could argue that it is hate speech to say 'I am concerned that pedophiles are more likely to engage in sex crimes against children.'
I think it is a legitimate point of discussion.

What about the fact that some medical issues present differently based on race and gender? Is it hate speech to acknowledge that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
Freedumb convoy leaders to PM Trudeau....we demand discussions on the immediate resignation of your government to turn all power over to us.

Trudeau.......**** off you dummies.

Alt right conservatives to the media......Trudeau refuses to engage in discussions with the people.

Rest of Canada to the alt right conservatives......**** off you dummies.

In Canada.......[email protected] convoy has been trending on Twitter for days.
You can't be serious? Using twitter reference?
You must have missed #blackfaceHitler trending worldwide for a full month

Twitter is not a reference.

The facts are simple here.
Liberals are doing a full-frontal assault on democracy.
Interference in legal system - done
Censorship - done
State sponsored media - done
Censorship online - done
Government choosing who can run in elections - in progress
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
Maybe, but what are they supposed to do? Would rather have a party work on destroying democracy?
If that's the case then Canadians didn't deserve democracy in the first place - so now they are losing it.

Politicians shouldn't destroy democratic process, civil liberties, right to protest, right to vote, and free speech just to remain in power.
If not destroying those values means not getting power - so be it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
The facts are simple here.
Liberals are doing a full-frontal assault on democracy.
Interference in legal system - done
Censorship - done
State sponsored media - done
Censorship online - done
Government choosing who can run in elections - in progress
Calm down.

Freedom House's Global Freedom score (US is far down with a score of 83)
Font Rectangle Parallel Number Screenshot


Freedom House's Internet Freedom score:
Rectangle Font Slope Parallel Screenshot


Human Freedom Index 2021:
Font Screenshot Number Pattern Parallel


Democracy Index 2021:
Font Pattern Screenshot Number Parallel



The only complaint you can have is that Canada dropped from 5th to 12th on the Democracy Index, where most argue it's due to the bad influence from the US (which is 2 positions below Spain on my screenshot). But then, look at the countries above and below Canada. We're pretty well positioned, I'd say.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Beaver101

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,213 Posts
The only complaint you can have is that Canada dropped from 5th to 12th on the Democracy Index, where most argue it's due to the bad influence from the US (which is 2 positions below Spain on my screenshot). But then, look at the countries above and below Canada. We're pretty well positioned, I'd say.
I agree that our functioning of government and political culture needs work (Democracy index graph)

I'm very concerned with the governments attack on free speech, and that so many people don't understand why free speech is important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
Yeah, it is not like those ranking are subjective.....

Here are objective and verifiable facts:
Interference in legal system - done
Censorship - done
State sponsored media - done
Censorship online - done
Government choosing who can run in elections - in progress

Other than interference in legal system (SNC-Lavalin happened in 2019), all of those facts have happened in late 2021, early 2022 so are not including in any of these rankings you have posted.
The full-frontal assault on democracy is mostly 2021-2022.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
I'm very concerned with the governments attack on free speech, and that so many people don't understand why free speech is important.
Well, because the issue is not whether free speech is important or not, we'll all agree that free speech is important, we simply don't agree on the limits of free speech.

I guess this story in Quebec is not well known outside of Quebec, but there has been a very long story which started in 2015 because the comedian Mike Ward mocked Jérémy Gabriel in his shows for years, Jérémy who was a child singer (child celebrity) diagnosed with Treacher Collins syndrome. Their parents filed a complaint against Mike Ward and 7 years later still haven't won. Even now in 2022, they filed a new complaint for defamation and it was rejected.

So even in the so-called socialist and left-wing Quebec, debates about free speech still stand and free speech still wins even in highly controversial stories, highly mediatised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,213 Posts
Well, because the issue is not whether free speech is important or not, we'll all agree that free speech is important, we simply don't agree on the limits of free speech.
1. I believe that direct calls for violence should not be permitted.

2. I believe it should ALWAYS be legal to make truthful statements about a political issue.
3. I think it should almost always be legal to make honestly held, or believed to be true statements about a political issue.

I would be very hard-pressed to support any legislation that restricts debate.

The problem is that people want to use criminal law to stop debates on 2 &3, and that is the scariest part.
They are specifically targetting what you can say in a political debate, and that is horrificially scary.

But my question is do you agree with those 3 points, if not, when should they be infringed upon, as I think the standard to infringe on 2 &3 should be extremely high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
But my question is do you agree with those 3 points, if not, when should they be infringed upon, as I think the standard to infringe on 2 &3 should be extremely high.
Well, 2 & 3 both use the word "true", and that's exactly the issue we're having in today's world of information and disinformation, easily spread all around the world.

You've defined what you believe should be part of free speech, now define what is "true"? How do you very that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
Which is precisely why point 1 is only reasonable limit on free speech.
Government giving itself a right to unilaterally decide what is 'true' and to censor everything else is anti-democratic.
That's precisely the power they are currently giving themselves.
And now they will also give themselves power to disband political opposition if the opposition doesn't agree with what government considers to be 'the truth'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
Here are objective and verifiable facts:
Interference in legal system - done
Censorship - done
State sponsored media - done
Censorship online - done
Government choosing who can run in elections - in progress
You've just dismissed some worldwide recognized freedom indicators and democracy indicators.

And then you've stated some broad concepts as "done" and objective and verifiable facts.

For instance, "censorship", I can tell you that censorship in Canada and elsewhere in the world is definitely not at the same level. Same for "online censorship". Same for everything you've pointed out. You're simply overreacting way too much and totally missing out the nuances.

Start everything with "level of" (level of censorship, for instance) and now compare to every other country, including the Canada of past years. That's why I said your only valid complaint is that Canada dropped from 5th to 12th on the democracy index, so not in the right direction, even though being 12th is still pretty much at the top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
And you ignored the fact that the rankings you have provided happened before:
  • online censorship bill
  • government increasing funding of the media
  • government introducing a bill to give themselves rights to choose who can run in elections
The only point that I have mentioned that was in time period covered by the rankings you have provided was interference in legal system

Wait for democracy indicators 2023 to see whether they change - the ones that consider newly introduced changes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,213 Posts
Well, 2 & 3 both use the word "true", and that's exactly the issue we're having in today's world of information and disinformation, easily spread all around the world.

You've defined what you believe should be part of free speech, now define what is "true"? How do you very that?
Well I think people should be able to express their opinion, even if it's wrong, but I think that it is a much easier ask to say that we should not criminalize statements that are generally regarded, or proven to be factually correct.

The argument that the censors need to make is under what circumstances is it reasonable to prevent people from expressing their opinion.
I'll accept that direct calls for physical violence, should be restricted.

But I'm not prepared to prohibit discussion of topics, unless there is a really good reason, could you propose one?
I honestly have trouble thinking of stuff that should be banned, or articulating such bans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
I have yet to see an acceptable definition of hate speech.

In most cases truth or factual accuracy of the statement is not a defense, that is very problematic.

For example one could argue that it is hate speech to say 'I am concerned that pedophiles are more likely to engage in sex crimes against children.'
I think it is a legitimate point of discussion.

What about the fact that some medical issues present differently based on race and gender? Is it hate speech to acknowledge that?
if you are a Liberal it is hate speech if it hurts someone's feelings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
if you are a Liberal it is hate speech if it hurts someone's feelings.
That's one thing.

The problem is that it is a hate speech to disagree with the government and your views should not be tolerated, and you are not worth the space you take up if you question the PM. It was posted here before. The law is modeled after Venezuela. Go above and see the wikipedia link that shows what kind of 'hate speech' gets prosecuted under this law

Looks like increasing amount of Canadians don't want to kill democracy.
Hopefully by the time 2025 comes, the election will still be relatively free
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,213 Posts
if you are a Liberal it is hate speech if it hurts someone's feelings.
No, hate speech is if it is against your political goals.

They saw lots of things that hurt feelings that they don't consider hate speech.
Heck saying "All lives matter" is hate speech is deeply offensive and hurtful to me.
The idea that equality is offensive and even hateful is absurd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,213 Posts
Roe v Wade overturned. So much for “it’s the law of the land”.
Based on my understanding it was a horribly bad ruling based on privacy rights.
The idea that your right to privacy extends to the point of killing another human being is absurd.

Now if the argument that a genetically distinct individual isn't a person, or that an unborn fetus doesn't have rights, or the rights of the mother overrule that of the parasite, fine, have the debate.

Remember slavery was the law of the land, it's a GOOD thing that bad law is fixed. Yes court rulings are law in this context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,534 Posts
Nah......the Conservatives are setting themselves on fire.........electorally speaking.
It would seem that the CPC are masters of self immolation. And they continue down that road with an extremely divided caucus that has little or no representation from Canada's major urban centers.

I caught up on some reading yesterday. One was the recent poll that indicated the number of voters who were/are against the Freedom Convoy. It was in the high eighties.

Next I read that 25 or so CPC MP's. about a fifth of their caucus, met and attended a presentation from Freedom Convoy organizers and some US anti vax folks about covid restrictions in Canada and about a planned Freedom Convoy event in Ottawa on July 1. CPC Leader Candice Bergen was aware of it. She did not attend. Leslyn Lewis did attend...and stayed for the entire prestation.

This is the team that believes they are ready and able to form a Government? I don't think so.
 
2541 - 2560 of 2682 Posts
Top