Freedom of Speech to be Returned!!!

[petros]

China’s newest export: Internet censorship | David Rohde

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, states that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

Making sure people are allowed to be offended on the tweeters or over the phone doesn't do much for your examples. And there is no indication that it would act as a domino effect for other forms of censorship.

This is a charade - pure theater - by the government to make themselves look like free speech advocates, but this particular section has never been a threat to anyone, especially not those who could actually enforce some sort of punishment for F--- you posts in the first place.

[5] Noam Chomsky has said about the section, "I think it's outrageous, like the comparable European laws. It's also pure hypocrisy. If it were applied the media and journals would be shut down. They don't expose current enemies of the state to hatred or contempt?"[6]

Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can quote Noam Chomsky til the cows come home. That doesn't change the fact that the HRC has been perverted into a quasi-judicial entity that can be used toi exact revenge on behalf of someone who has had their feelings hurt. I'm not going to bother listing examples, you can check em out if you like.

Icksnay on the Chomsky point. I actually agree with him on this.

 

[mentalfloss]

You can quote Noam Chomsky til the cows come home. That doesn't change the fact that the HRC has been perverted into a quasi-judicial entity that can be used toi exact revenge on behalf of someone who has had their feelings hurt. I'm not going to bother listing examples, you can check em out if you like.

Dude.. Chomsky agrees with both me and you in that this legislation is silly. (Just caught your edit and duly acknowledged.)

This isn't the time for cheering the government for some great success. They could have done this a long, long time ago - even when we had a Conservative minority. This is theater my friend, plain and simple and you're all suffering from a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.

They're throwing bones for pity when they could be enacting real legislature that could enhance freedom of speech. Don't congratulate them for what should have been done a long, long time ago.

 

[petros]

You can quote Noam Chomsky til the cows come home. That doesn't change the fact that the HRC has been perverted into a quasi-judicial entity that can be used toi exact revenge on behalf of someone who has had their feelings hurt. I'm not going to bother listing examples, you can check em out if you like.

Icksnay on the Chomsky point. I actually agree with him on this.

I can think of a great example. I have a friend who sits on an HRC panel. That person is the last person I'd ever trust to give an honest non-opinionated judgement.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Dude.. Chomsky agrees with both me and you in that this legislation is silly. (Just caught your edit and duly acknowledged.)

This isn't the time for cheering the government for some great success. They could have done this a long, long time ago - even when we had a Conservative minority. This is theater my friend, plain and simple and you're all suffering from a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.

They're throwing bones for pity when they could be enacting real legislature that could enhance freedom of speech. Don't congratulate them for what should have been done a long, long time ago.

This is real legislation. I'm not touting the Government as the be all end all, but let's give em some props when they do the right thing. Then we can kick their asses for not doing enough. I have a pretty big list for that as well by the way.

Thanks for catching my edit. I was just going to strip the statement, but figured an add on would have explained the misunderstanding better.

 

[TenPenny]

Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, states that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

Would that not make it impossible to report on politics?

Much of political reporting is 'likely to expose a person to contempt'.

 

[mentalfloss]

Would that not make it impossible to report on politics?

Much of political reporting is 'likely to expose a person to contempt'.

That's why this is all theater.

The real deal happens when Harper decides to finally abandon his socially conservative constituents.

 

[CDNBear]

That's why this is all theater.

Yes we're all aware that whatever the Harper gov't does is irrelevant theater.

Alas if this was only done by your party of choice. Then it would be a truly tremendous day for free speech...:roll:

The real deal happens when Harper decides to finally abandon his socially conservative constituents.

Hmmm....

Still have gay marriage.
Still have abortions.
Still have social safety nets.
Still have public healthcare.

Ya, he's really doing all he can for his social conservatives puppet masters...:roll:

Someones ideology is showing.

 

[Goober]

Why I voted Conservative......

Ezra Levant on C-304 (repeal Section 13) - freedom of speech to be restored? - YouTube#!

Hate to rain on the parade, though I agree this section should repealed. Once an HRC issues and order not to continue with this or that behavior etc. You are now required to adhere to this ruling unless you have appealed this to the courts. So HRC rulings on hate speech have the force of Law until overturned by a Superior Court. Now we have added an extra level to the Judicial process. How many can afford that??????

 

[VanIsle]

Not once in writing my six books or the thousands of posts on this forum have I considered whether or not what I wrote would offend someone. Most of the time I do not intend to offend, but there are rare occasions. If someone is offended, that is their problem. Also, I have nothing to lose if I get called up before the HRC. They can kiss my hairy butt. They can't get blood from a stone.

But - there is a difference in the way in which people are offended and in how a person is offensive. A difference of opinion should not call for anyone to feel offended. Calling someone you know (don't know) horrible, vile names on here is offensive and it's meant to be. Cannuck mentions that in his opinion there are too many people with thin skin on here. Anyone with "thick" skin has no reason to feel proud and anyone who offends someone just to offend them has no reason to feel proud either. It's stupid to feel offended because someone's opinion is different than yours but quite another sense of feeling occurs with personal un-provoked attacks which are not supposed to be okay here.
Does this change mean that this forum will become an "anything" goes place to be. For some people, it does seem to be that way already.

 

[In Between Man]

My lack of defence? I said no. You asked me a question. I answered it. You provided no evidence for your accusation. What am I supposed to defend against? Your unproven case?

Well it turns out that I can only look at your posts as far as May, 2011. Terry Jones pulled his book burning stunt in April, so I wasn't able to find the post of yours that I was referring to.

So you're off the hook for now.

 

[Corduroy]

Well it turns out that I can only look at your posts as far as May, 2011. Terry Jones pulled his book burning stunt in April, so I wasn't able to find the post of yours that I was referring to.

So you're off the hook for now.

Using the forum search function, I can find posts of mine as far back as my first one

Canadian Content Forums - Search Results

So get searching! Have fun!

 

[In Between Man]

Using the forum search function, I can find posts of mine as far back as my first one

Canadian Content Forums - Search Results

So get searching! Have fun!

Sweet! But at 1:30 in the morning I'm not going to start searching now...

How bout I just ask you a few questions about freedoms and determine your level of patriotism the easy way, k? ....

This is going to be fun! Ready?!

Question 1) Should born-again evangelical Christians be allowed, during the month of Ramadan, to preach Jesus Christ being the only way, truth, and life in public places?

Question 2) Do people who advertise images of Mohammad, who fully know they will offend Muslims, bear any responsibility for violence caused by those infuriated?

Question 3) When someone denies your freedom of speech, on what STANDARD do you base your objection on? Where does your "freedom of speech" come from basically? A piece of paper? The government? A cultural norm? Your opinion?

I look forward to reading your answers!

 

[Corduroy]

Sweet! But at 1:30 in the morning I'm not going to start searching now...

I did some searching for you.

In a thread on the Westboro Baptist Church

When talking about rights and freedoms, I usually like to point out that freedom of thought, conscience, belief and opinion are useless freedoms. The government has no power over your mind. You can go on thinking and believing whatever you want without any possibility of state intervention. When you choose to express what you think, you're covered under free expression.

Hate crime, however, is the state attempting to do what should be impossible. Hate crime is thought crime.

In a thread on the Quran burning

I refuse to allow anyone other than the US Supreme Court to censor me or any other American in the exercise of free speech.

You shouldn't even allow them :wink:

Big difference between free speech and hate speech.

Mmhmm, the former is a category the latter should belong to.

Most of my posts in that thread argue that burning a Quran is not an incitement to riot and an incitement to riot is not murder.

You can search every one of my posts and you will not find a single one advocating the criminalization of speech.

Question 1) Should born-again, evangelical Christians be allowed, during the month of Ramadan, to preach Jesus Christ being the only way, truth and life in public places?

Yes.

Question 2) Do people who advertise images of Mohammad, who fully know they will offend Muslims, bear any responsibility for violence caused by those infuriated?

No.

Question 3) When someone denies your freedom of speech, on what STANDARD do you base your objection on? Where does your "freedom of speech" come from basically? A piece of paper? The government? A cultural norm? Your opinion?

Logical argument.

 

[In Between Man]

You got 2 out of 3! Not bad!

 

[Corduroy]

John Stuart Mill

 

[In Between Man]

John Stuart Mill

... is not God, which is where your freedom comes from (the highest authority).

 

[Corduroy]

... is not God, which is where your freedom comes from (the highest authority).

Prove it.

 

[Colpy]

John Stuart Mill

I'd give you 4379 thumbs up for your responses on this thread if that were possible.

Excellent!

Bravo!

Are there any other lefties like you out there?????!!

lol

 

[In Between Man]

Prove it.

Okay.