Nope- He was in violation of the Law at that time. Lougheed was cleaning up the Conservative Party. And he was big on human rights.
Despite Supreme Court hate speech ruling, anti-gay activist plans to continue pamphle
- Thread starter SLM
- Start date
Nope- He was in violation of the Law at that time. Lougheed was cleaning up the Conservative Party. And he was big on human rights.
So........ in a free country you can spout your racist/hateful garbage with impunity from lawful prosecution, but you can get fired for it......ummmmmmmm....ok
If there's nothing wrong with disseminating your personal beliefs, no matter how outrageous, why can you get fired? Wouldn't that be discrimination on it's own?
If the law was wrong in charging him and finding him guilty, then the school board was wrong in firing him for the same thing. Right?
Actually, yes.
Because the work place is not a democracy.
In a way, yes.
Not necessarily.
I think the bottom line that it comes down to, from my point of view anyway, is that we can't legislate someone to be a better human being.
The guy in the OP, were he to stuff my mailbox with his hate filled propaganda, I'd run the son of a bitch off my property. Were he handing out, or attempting to hand out his literature on a street corner, I'd simply ignore him. Because that way, although his "point of view" is loathesome to me, at least we would have equal footing as far as our own personal choices. Anyway, that's where that line gets drawn for me.
The guy in the OP, were he to stuff my mailbox with his hate filled propaganda, I'd run the son of a bitch off my property. Were he handing out, or attempting to hand out his literature on a street corner, I'd simply ignore him. Because that way, although his "point of view" is loathesome to me, at least we would have equal footing as far as our own personal choices. Anyway, that's where that line gets drawn for me.
But that's what all of these finely detailed rules and regs are attempting to do when you come right down to it. Believe me, I wish guys like that didn't exist. That is to say, I wish what I consider to be the stupidity of their attitude and beliefs, didn't exist. But pretending it doesn't by making them silent doesn't achieve that goal.
I do however think we can look at reasonable limits for things even as far as rights go but we need to do so very judiciously.
I'd have to be able to relate before I could engage with anyone. In some circumstances I can, but absolute bigotry is hard for me to wrap my head around. While each of us does have our own bias and prejudices, having that much animosity for an entire group of people is quite unfathomable to me. I just can see no logic in it nor any emotional path that does not involved pure blind hatred. I just don't get it.
So do I when it comes right down to it.
I respect the concept of free speech, that is to say I'd never participate in shutting anyone down purposely. And I can completely respect those who are able to engage in discourse in a calm manner with these individuals, but I cannot myself. I do get too riled up, to the point where I can and very often will, challenge or call them on their bigoted behaviour. Perhaps that's a form or engaging but in the end that, in my mind, doesn't do any real good except make me feel a little better for having vented, lol.
Not that I'm some kind of angelic never looked down on anyone in my life kind of person, but even as a child if I would encounter or hear of that kind of thing, it always made me really uncomfortable. I've always had a lot of empathy and I mean a lot. Even now, if someone is to bitch, moan, scream and yell at me, it honestly doesn't bother me that much, I can shake it off most of the time. But if I see or hear that being done to someone else, I feel it, in a way I can't describe. It just hurts more. Maybe that's just a part of my makeup that overshadows those inevitable notions like prejudice or bias that we all have. I don't know.
If it's true ignorance that I can understand a bit, you can follow the logic/thought patterns somewhat and see where it "goes wrong" so to speak. But there is the other level of blind hatred that goes beyond even that. I suppose that's ignorance too, just taken to an extreme level.
No. What Keegstra did was abuse of the authority the school board, trustees and parents placed in him. He had a professional obligation and responsibility to teach the curriculum set forth by Alberta Education, not embark on his own crusade of indoctrination in support of his revisionist view of history.
Keegstra had and does have the right to believe what he chooses and to espouse those views in various forums, however the classroom was not and is not the place, especially without any source of rebuttal and also especially where he is the final arbiter of correct vs incorrect in determining the grades for the students.
Now you are getting the idea.
Nobody hates Holocaust deniers more than I, but they have a right to express their views. In whatever terms they wish, short of directly inciting violence.
What they do not hate the right to do is collect wages from the state for declaring that 2 plus 2 equals 5. The Holocaust is an accepted part of our history, the teaching of the Holocaust is part of the curriculum requirement of social studies education. You agree to teach that curriculum when you are hired......and failure to do so is reasonable cause to fire you for incompetence.
What Keegstra did NOT agree to do is believe and limit his expression of his beliefs to those deemed acceptable by the state.
Therefore, firing was not just OK, but very necessary.
Criminal prosecution is a violation of his rights.
Or you know, impugning someone's reputation.
Wait, how does that not cover hate speech?
Far from it, community standards of obscenity mean I can legally produce pornography in California and then be put in jail by a court in Louisiana when they are able to buy my vanilla porn online. The supreme court will uphold this. In the words of George Bernard Shaw:
"Comstockery is the world's standing joke at the expense of the United States. Europe likes to hear of such things. It confirms the deep-seated conviction of the Old World that America is a provincial place, a second-rate country-town civilization after all."
It is a criminal offense to lie to or mislead a federal agent. People have been imprisoned for sarcasm.
They too have problematic libel laws, and the ease with which lawsuits can be launched in the US makes it all the worse. At the very least truth is a defense.
+1000
But that clear and present threat "demonstrably justifies" the supreme court in sodomizing the hell out of Canadians' free-speech rights.
Sadly, so true, but so funny!!!