First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Quebec ‘hate speech’ law
6038 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / UNITED STATES
Online
Posted 9/7/15
The fact that Quebec leadership will endorse this law just sticks them into a dictatorship (or communism if you prefer). It's a shame that they are following China in it's attempt to control people.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 9/7/15 , edited 9/7/15

VZ68 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

Really how so are we not a nation of laws which are defined by the Constitution? All military power this include militias fall under civilian authority at no time are they a power unto themselves if they are they are in rebellion and should be dealt with swiftly and effectively. The statement you keep making is flawed in it's logic the belief that a private individual can create a militia that is outside of the control of the civilian authority is false all of them fall under the control of the government at no time are they not under civilian control. A private militia that refuses control of the civil authority is in rebellion and should be treated as such.




I see nothing new here just mindless drivel that disagrees with the point of view.

As to the original topic as I stated Canada doesn't have freedom of speech the same way we do this is something that is unique to the United States; however, this speech can be regulated in certain areas such as a movie theater or the airport. As for hate speech I suspect at some point in time there will be some smart attorney that figurers out how to get it regulated as well since it is harmful to the public and to the individual as well.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/7/15 , edited 9/7/15

gvblackmoon wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

Really how so are we not a nation of laws which are defined by the Constitution? All military power this include militias fall under civilian authority at no time are they a power unto themselves if they are they are in rebellion and should be dealt with swiftly and effectively. The statement you keep making is flawed in it's logic the belief that a private individual can create a militia that is outside of the control of the civilian authority is false all of them fall under the control of the government at no time are they not under civilian control. A private militia that refuses control of the civil authority is in rebellion and should be treated as such.






I see nothing new here just mindless drivel that disagrees with the point of view.

As to the original topic as I stated Canada doesn't have freedom of speech the same way we do this is something that is unique to the United States; however, this speech can be regulated in certain areas such as a movie theater or the airport. As for hate speech I suspect at some point in time there will be some smart attorney that figurers out how to get it regulated as well since it is harmful to the public and to the individual as well.


Good thing I'm right and you're wrong.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 9/7/15 , edited 9/7/15

VZ68 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

Really how so are we not a nation of laws which are defined by the Constitution? All military power this include militias fall under civilian authority at no time are they a power unto themselves if they are they are in rebellion and should be dealt with swiftly and effectively. The statement you keep making is flawed in it's logic the belief that a private individual can create a militia that is outside of the control of the civilian authority is false all of them fall under the control of the government at no time are they not under civilian control. A private militia that refuses control of the civil authority is in rebellion and should be treated as such.




I see nothing new here just mindless drivel that disagrees with the point of view.

As to the original topic as I stated Canada doesn't have freedom of speech the same way we do this is something that is unique to the United States; however, this speech can be regulated in certain areas such as a movie theater or the airport. As for hate speech I suspect at some point in time there will be some smart attorney that figurers out how to get it regulated as well since it is harmful to the public and to the individual as well.


Good thing I'm right and you're wrong.


You haven't proven that nor will you be able to since you aren't providing facts to back up your statements. I would love to know where you get this fanciful ideas from since they aren't based on facts of law or reality. This nation is governed by rule of law and as such there are laws regulating many aspects of life. These laws are derived from the Constitution and I have provide both current law for militia now while Heller does disconnect the private owner ship from militias this ruling did not say the state couldn't regulate firearms in fact it stated that they could. Since this form of regulation includes things such as licenses for firearms. So until someone actually manages to litigate that and best of luck with it since the court is now turning down gun cases. This isn't going to change.

So please point to the law or the court ruling that states firearms can not be regulated and that militias are not part of the military. You will find in both instances that the first can be regulated and that the second is part of the military. Until you can provide proof otherwise you are blow smoke. Best of luck finding the proof since it doesn't exist.

As for your argument in the picture it is an argument by question. The question at hand is do you have a right to regulate firearms the answer is yes the question is are militias part of the military the answer is yes. Prove it otherwise don't use false arguments.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 9/7/15

KishiTora wrote:

The fact that Quebec leadership will endorse this law just sticks them into a dictatorship (or communism if you prefer). It's a shame that they are following China in it's attempt to control people.


Not really since as I have stated a couple times now Canada doesn't enjoy the same freedom of speech that we do in America this is something that is unique to this country. The idea of regulating forms of speech has been around forever and comes in several forms mostly in America it comes in the form of public shaming since there isn't a legal means by which to prosecute these people since the form of free speech allows for it. As I have stated there are some forms of speech that are regulated and will land you in jail yelling fire in an movie theater and bomb in an airport leap to mind for this.

As for following China not even close this is to stop a growing problem which is the scapegoating of those that follow the Islamic faith and the continued conflating of those that commit acts of terror with those that have nothing to do with it. This would be similar to attacking the Irish for the IRA bombings and attacks rather then just blaming the IRA which did the attack. So why do we blame the religion and simply not draw the line at blaming those that actually cause the problem? To do so would be the correct choice since the former is a fallacy and provably so.

This fear mongering and scapegoating are driven by a minority that wish to divide people and there by control them. Personally I will judge a person by there own actions not by the groups. To judge by the group blinds you and creates strife where there doesn't need to be any.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.