5 Armed Forces members disrupted Indigenous event on Canada Day

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,455
9,590
113
Washington DC
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
Yep, because the fact that they are whimpering doesn't mean you are not.

Logic clearly ain't your long suit.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
They haven't been executed, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't a free speech issue.

But having their careers crushed for holding an opinion is A-OK

Yep, because the fact that they are whimpering doesn't mean you are not.

Logic clearly ain't your long suit.

What do you really expect when you offer-up such a myopic and skewed opinion?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
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?
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
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?



Do you understand that in Canada, there is no such thing as the right to 'free speech'?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,455
9,590
113
Washington DC
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?
Exactly what I got. Your myopic, skewed, and butthurt opinion in response.

Ain't my first rodeo, son. I learned your moves.

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?
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?
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
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?

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.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
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?

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.

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
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,455
9,590
113
Washington DC
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.
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.

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.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
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.

Agreed and well put

So, nice try on the dodge, but it's a non-starter.

Dodging what?... You're reading way too much into my posts
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
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.

Remnants of one is still running yet today LINK

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.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
This disruption serves no good purpose.

Says who? Some liberal retards? We don't give a fuk what you think is a goor interruption. Liberals dont get to decide what is a good or bad interruption. Fuking dictator