@Old_Geezer, this is the second time you have posted an article that is not a news article. Matt Taibbi’s opinion columns are not news. If I find one more rule violation, you will be banned.
I’m still waiting for the Jordan Petersons of the world to be rounded up and hauled off to the compelled speech gulags after the last round of hysterical free speech panic.
Genuine political dissent would become logistically impossible, and virtual mob rule a certainty.
There’s a major difference between political dissent and hate speech.
You can say: “I don’t think transgender people should be allowed to choose which bathroom they go to”, that just makes you a shitty person with no compassion. But if you say “If I see a trans women in the mens bathroom I’ll beat them up out of there”, that is very clearly hate speech and threats of violence.
It’s not like it’s hard to treat people with basic respect. You can disagree without resorting to hateful comments and threats and name calling. If you don’t see the hate speech problem you’re probably part of the problem because surprise, it’s only conservatives you see online constantly spewing FUD and hate speech.
Why don’t you go and debate Matt then? For you young folks that don’t get it — The devil is always in the details. That’s why the law needs to be explicit and not open to loose interpretation. I’m worried about the bill because its intent is not child protection. Think a little deeper. Matt is a distinguished investigative reporter.
The thing is, Canada already has an established (and repeatedly courg-challenged) legal framework for hate speech and hate crimes. These terms are already clearly defined, and laws are free and even supposed to reference other established legislation and legal precedent rather than republish parts of the criminal code over and over again.
So no, the law does not need to be a capsule full of explicit definitions of things that are already well defined in law. It merely needs to make direct reference to those definitions and other relevant legislation.
And based off of those established legislation
“offence motivated by hatred,” in theory any non-criminal offense, as tiny as littering, committed with hateful intent;
is a bizarre twisting of things. The author is either ignorant of Canadian hate laws, while still choosing to report on them, or engaging in purposeful FUD for some reason.
is a bizarre twisting of things. The author is either ignorant of Canadian hate laws, while still choosing to report on them, or engaging in purposeful FUD for some reason.
Well, if hate is defined in Canadian Law, let’s stop making more laws about supposed harms. People need to be responsible for themselves and not have a nanny government telling us what is right. This is getting so ridiculous! Society takes generations to adapt to new customs.
This law is about the government regulating thought and speech. Not my government!
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but Canada has never embraced completely free speech, even with the caveat of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. You might be thinking of laws and a constitution originating a little farther south.
racket.news
Hot