... Because free speech only exists for approved opinions and messages
They haven't been executed, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't a free speech issue.
... Because free speech only exists for approved opinions and messages
Yep, because the fact that they are whimpering doesn't mean you are not.Ironic isn't it?... A protest in which accusations are made re: discrimination, genocide residential schools, etc and whatever else, screamed in the broadest possible terms against a group that has no capacity to defend that position (as they are all dead) is respectfully considered by society at large... Yet, even the slightest questioning of these cry babies is nothing short of (more) genocide.
.. And you talk of whimpering
But wait, you said there was not point to what they did, so why aren't you calling for their heads?
They haven't been executed, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't a free speech issue.
Yep, because the fact that they are whimpering doesn't mean you are not.
Logic clearly ain't your long suit.
But having their careers crushed for holding an opinion is A-OK
Yabut, you know, not executed an all.
... And yeah, I do understand the concept of free speech... Do you have any idea that attaching a tangible consequence to an opinion (read: free speech) stifles said free speech?
Exactly what I got. Your myopic, skewed, and butthurt opinion in response.But having their careers crushed for holding an opinion is A-OK
What do you really expect when you offer-up such a myopic and skewed opinion?
Do you understand that you don't have a right to a job? And that if you say something your employer doesn't like, you can be fired with no "free speech" implications?Yabut, you know, not executed an all.
... And yeah, I do understand the concept of free speech... Do you have any idea that attaching a tangible consequence to an opinion (read: free speech) stifles said free speech?
I was listening to the "Proud Boys" talking at the demonstration and I'm not sure that I heard "hate". They were saying or asking why Canadians should be responsible for something that happened 250+ years ago. It that hate?
Why ARE we supposed to be responsible for the behaviour of Cornwallis and the rest of Hanoverian British?
Do you understand that you don't have a right to a job? And that if you say something your employer doesn't like, you can be fired with no "free speech" implications?
Excellent. Always good to start with a statement of the obvious. That's actually not sarcasm, one does well to remember that "rights" are not only not absolute, they are created by each society and changed regularly. I get annoyed when people use the term as if they are immutable and have objective existence.Truth is, rights are an intangible construct that may or may not exist depending where you are and who you are talking with... They are ultimately a figment of society's imagination and are as fluid as water in a creek... As a lawyer, i figured that you'd have been the first to point this out.
It is hardly meaningless, rather it is the key to the question. In this particular time and place, the legal systems of both Canada and the U.S. agree that, generally, one's right to free speech exists vis-a-vis the government, not vis-a-vis your employer. Your employer can fire you for "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all," subject to certain narrow exceptions (e.g., your employer cannot fire you for your race, sex, religion, national origin, &c.). And before you object that in this case it IS government action, the law in both countries long ago worked out that generally when the government is your employer, it is treated at law as an employer, not as the government (i.e., the government can fire you for things it would not be able to jail or fine you for). Generally, the government is no more required to retain you in your job when it finds your conduct or speech objectionable than Tim Hortons would be required to do so if you paraded outside the shop in your off-duty hours holding a sign saying "Tim Hortons sucks."As far as your employer/employee analogy goes, it is meaningless as the discussion relates to the relative ease of free speech, or if you prefer, society's acceptance of the message/subject matter. As this example demonstrates, there is a clear division of what is considered an acceptable message and being on the wrong side of that equation has negative consequences
It is hardly meaningless, rather it is the key to the question. In this particular time and place, the legal systems of both Canada and the U.S. agree that, generally, one's right to free speech exists vis-a-vis the government, not vis-a-vis your employer. Your employer can fire you for "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all," subject to certain narrow exceptions (e.g., your employer cannot fire you for your race, sex, religion, national origin, &c.). And before you object that in this case it IS government action, the law in both countries long ago worked out that generally when the government is your employer, it is treated at law as an employer, not as the government (i.e., the government can fire you for things it would not be able to jail or fine you for). Generally, the government is no more required to retain you in your job when it finds your conduct or speech objectionable than Tim Hortons would be required to do so if you paraded outside the shop in your off-duty hours holding a sign saying "Tim Hortons sucks."
The government is entitled to impose requirements upon you as a condition of employment that it cannot impose upon a citizen under threat of legal sanction.
So, nice try on the dodge, but it's a non-starter.
I'm a remarkably perceptive fellow. Comes from all those years as a hunter-gatherer. It is the way. . . Of My People!Dodging what?... You're reading way too much into my posts
Hmmm... the last residential school shut its doors in 1996. They might not have expressed hate, but they certainly expressed some ignorance of the history of their own country. 1996 is hardly 250 years ago.
In the summer of 1970, members of the Saddle Lake community occupied the building and demanded the right to run it themselves. More than 1,000 people are believed to have participated over the course of the 17 day sit-in, which lasted from July 14 to July 31.[29]:89-90 Their efforts resulted in Blue Quills becoming the first Indigenous-administered school in the country.[57] It continues to operate today as University nuhelot’įne thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills, the first Indigenous-governed university in Canada.[58][59] Following the success of the Blue Quills effort the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB) released the 1972 paper Indian Control of Indian Education that responded, in part, to the Canadian Government's 1969 White Paper calling for the abolishment of the land treaties and the Indian Act. The NIB paper underscored the right of Indigenous communities to locally direct how it's children are educated and served as the integral reference for education policy moving forward.
This disruption serves no good purpose.