First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Canada has passed motion that targets Islamophobia - is this anti-blasphemy law?
11630 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

It's non-binding, so that means you can't face any charges. Any reasonable anti-discrimination bill is a good one.

Its not reasonable. Its just a discriminatory anti free speech movement designed to further protect an already protected class.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/

https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/7102002-quebec-man-charged-with-inciting-hate-as-police-note-surge-in-hate-related-complaints/

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/the-strange-twists-of-a-high-profile-quebec-hate-speech-arrest


FlyinDumpling wrote:

What school did you went that allows student to make racial insults without any consequences?


What school did you go to that locks children behind bars for saying 'racist insults'?





Dude.

What you're saying is demonstrably wrong.

it has been shown to you that it is wrong.

Stop saying it.
Banned
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

Rujikin wrote:

Such a thing is absurd. Imagine if the Catholic church in Europe implemented anti-blasphemy laws preventing people from criticizing the way they did things. If you speak out you get punished and "re-educated" by men in power. If you try to reform and fix some of the common complaints with the church you get labeled a christophobe and a racist.



I imagine it would result in a thirty-year war resulting in the deaths of a higher proportion of the world population than the second world war.

Luckily, christianity outgrew that silliness in the 17th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
Posted 3/24/17
Canada has begun it's decent into madness by attacking free speech and free thought. Canada has passed a bill that specifically targets anything that can be considered "islamophobia" and vaguely states that something should be done to condemn it, which could be used in the courts to do just about anything.

> I'm surprised looks like Canada going with a heavy hand on control of speech. Thread creator do you have more info
I would like to read more links.
11630 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

MysteryMiss wrote:

Canada has begun it's decent into madness by attacking free speech and free thought. Canada has passed a bill that specifically targets anything that can be considered "islamophobia" and vaguely states that something should be done to condemn it, which could be used in the courts to do just about anything.

> I'm surprised looks like Canada going with a heavy hand on control of speech. Thread creator do you have more info
I would like to read more links.


It's not a bill

It's not targeting "anyhing that can be considered islamophobia"

It can't "be used in courts to do just about anything"

And it is absolutely not doing anything to attack free thought and speech.

Stop spreading disreputable lies about other people.
540 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17
Well, just because I feel guilty for correcting Amyas_Leigh in the other thread, I'll say that I agree with some of what he is saying: that the unique freedoms people in the US enjoy for free speech are something that they are lucky to have. If only they were freedoms that could be enjoyed everywhere. In Canada, you can be prosecuted for hate speech. Canada, as part of human rights legislation, forbids certain kinds of political speech that would be tolerated in the US.

Here are two articles by Glenn Greenwald on why anti-hate speech laws are something he is glad are not in the United States.
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/22/canada_5/
http://www.salon.com/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/
47329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 3/24/17


I see history isn't your cup of coffee. But as someone who have studied history I can say that's exactly what the Catholic church DID in Europe.

Did you question Christianity and believed in science, well to the torture chamber where you'll get slapped to the back with ropes featuring a metal teeth for only 48 times (50 kills). Or have the fortune to become a public execution to display what happened to none believers.

I'm not for blind immigration like my socialist libtards leading my country wants, but what you're doing is just being plain uneducated...
5155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Cat Empire
Online
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17
OH MY GOD

OH NO

Its not longer ok to talk badly about people (muslims) just because of their religion!

HOW AWFUL



47329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/28/17

official-shinsengumi wrote:

OH MY GOD

OH NO

Its not longer ok to talk badly about people (muslims) just because of their religion!

HOW AWFUL





Muslim by definition are those who practice abramaic religions such as islam, it's not a race so criticize them how much and however you want. But with that said this thread is uneducated at best
runec 
36057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

mittemeyer wrote:

Well, just because I feel guilty for correcting Amyas_Leigh in the other thread, I'll say that I agree with some of what he is saying: that the unique freedoms people in the US enjoy for free speech are something that they are lucky to have. If only they were freedoms that could be enjoyed everywhere. In Canada, you can be prosecuted for hate speech. Canada, as part of human rights legislation, forbids certain kinds of political speech that would be tolerated in the US.

Here are two articles by Glenn Greenwald on why anti-hate speech laws are something he is glad are not in the United States.
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/22/canada_5/
http://www.salon.com/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/


It should be noted that those complaints were dismissed ( Ezra is a shitheel, but he has a right to be one. Least till he gets sued for libel yet again ) and that whole affair was pretty controversial for us. Even a number of prominent Muslim groups came out against it.

17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

What school did you went that allows student to make racial insults without any consequences?

What school did you go to that locks children behind bars for saying 'racist insults'?
Did you know that there are penalties associated with bullying in the US?

There are many things you can't do in US schools. You can't make offensive sexual advances for example (something you can really go to jail for) wear certain colored garments, or even saggy pants, which law makers are actually spending your tax dollars trying to make into a law for the public. I'm sure there are many problems with schools here, but I don't think teaching the real life consequences of harassment is one of them
13111 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 3/24/17
Canada government: "hey, maybe we should do something to stop people from harassing and physically attacking random people because of their religious beliefs. Canada is supposed to be a welcoming nation, afterall."
> "muh freedom of speech. muh rights! this is tyranny!"
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:
What school did you went that allows student to make racial insults without any consequences?


What school did you go to that locks children behind bars for saying 'racist insults'?



Interestingly enough, most of the schools I've been to have anti-discriminatory rules in their student handbook. In K-12, you could get up to 5 days suspension from yelling racist comments (like using "n****r" or "ch**k" ... or ... even, yes, you probably didn't see this one coming "crac**r"). This was during the 80's to 90's (I graduated in 2000). MIT had the same anti-discriminatory guidelines but have always admitted that any project that is supported by the DOD does not follow their internal rules regarding anti-discrimination (as the DOD projects followed their internal regulations). Failure to comply with the anti-discriminatory guidelines would result to anything from probation to expulsion from the school entirely.

Though, to be fair... when I went to University of Tennessee - there were those who were, shall I say.. extremely racist (multiple races racist against one another, not one particular race was "innocent"). Nothing really came of it. It wasn't until it became less accepting of these harsh views on a national scale that UT actually addressed these growing concerns (within the last few years, afaik).

So maybe nobody got locked behind bars but you would get into trouble for racist/sexist/sexual comments in public schools in general education (K-12) as long as I've been alive (and probably then some).


TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:
I see history isn't your cup of coffee. But as someone who have studied history I can say that's exactly what the Catholic church DID in Europe.

I'm not for blind immigration like my socialist libtards leading my country wants, but what you're doing is just being plain uneducated...


In his defense, his hypothetical was only to modern day society (I would assume). The problem is that we've experienced this level of "anti-blasphemous comments" in our history as humans several times; so the hypothetical isn't too far from what has occurred, as you've mentioned. I do think that there are some who are approaching this line of thought in an uneducated manner when addressing historical insight; which makes it more so an emotional proclaimation than a logical one.
Posted 3/24/17
Being suspended isn't exactly the same as being locked up behind bars for insults, as the cartoon suggests.
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17
As a Canadian citizen, I think what they are going for here is blatant racism in public (I've seen it myself first hand on public transit, there are a lot of french Canadians who really hate minority's), you cant go around calling Muslim people terrorists and say that is free speech.
lawdog 
44901 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17




I almost have to wonder if you wandered into a trap there. Because you essentially make his point as to "what it would be like", because, of course, it was indeed once upon a time like that centuries ago.

Several things:

-This isn't a law, at least in the sense of being binding upon anyone. It looks to be a resolution with the establishment of a study group. However, it is possible that this could lead to a law down the road.

-One thing I don't see is a definition of "Islamaphobia."
For example is it Islamaphobia to say: "Islam is a religion founded by a pedophile."
or
"By most accounts, the Prophet Muhammed, the founder of Islam, married his 3rd wife when she was 6-7 years of age, waiting until she was 9 or 10 before consummating the marriage, at which time he was about 53 years old."

-God bless America, land that I love. I am very much opposed to separate crimes for so-called Hate Speech & Hate Crimes. It is such a slippery slope, and once you open that door, the potential for abuse is tremendous, and as we see here, almost an inevitability. I do think that such actions should have a bearing in consideration for sentencing for crimes committed for hate: Burning down a church (and not as a false flag operation), as an example. But as an aggravation to an existing crime, not a crime in and of itself.

If you have Hate Crimes and penalties for Hate speech, you have to have Thought Police. Ask George Orwell to explain that to you.

-Irony. That someone is passing a law protecting the world's most intolerant religion from people saying mean things about it. We live in a world where in the UK, a survey showed 26% of UK Muslims want Sharia law, while 4% (sympathize/support/?; can't remember the exact word) with suicide bombers. And those are the ones who were willing to admit such things in a poll.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.