Free speech dies in Canada, Bill C-16 has passed the House of Commons (gender pronouns/hatespeech)

[Victorian Gray]

No weaseling out. Be specific. Just how am I victim, or claim to be one.

have fun bunky

 

[PrincessFrosty]

The sad thing about killing free speech off slowly is that it doesn't actually fix the problem they're attempting to fix. No one has ever changed their beliefs about trans people or gay people because it's illegal, all it has done is anger such people by threatening them with force unless they stop expressing an opinion. So those thoughts rather than being open where they're obvious and allow us to avoid them, simply go underground where they're harder to spot. And these people who feel they don't have free speech anymore just lash out at the people they dislike for taking that away from them.

How many transgender people might not get the job they want because businesses are less likely to hire them, because they've become a greater liability in the workplace as a potential point of conflict. Same thing happened in NYC where there's huge fines for using the wrong gender pronouns. A sensible person would ask why government and hanging huge warning signs around the necks of these people to avoid them at all costs.

All for what, to not hurt someones feelings? Not an acceptable trade off in my opinion. The idea that peoples rights end where other peoples feelings start is an extremely dangerous idea.

 

[jackstar7]

The sad thing about killing free speech off slowly is that it doesn't actually fix the problem they're attempting to fix. No one has ever changed their beliefs about trans people or gay people because it's illegal, all it has done is anger such people by threatening them with force unless they stop expressing an opinion. So those thoughts rather than being open where they're obvious and allow us to avoid them, simply go underground where they're harder to spot. And these people who feel they don't have free speech anymore just lash out at the people they dislike for taking that away from them.

How many transgender people might not get the job they want because businesses are less likely to hire them, because they've become a greater liability in the workplace as a potential point of conflict. Same thing happened in NYC where there's huge fines for using the wrong gender pronouns. A sensible person would ask why government and hanging huge warning signs around the necks of these people to avoid them at all costs.

All for what, to not hurt someones feelings? Not an acceptable trade off in my opinion. The idea that peoples rights end where other peoples feelings start is an extremely dangerous idea.

So many men of straw.

However will you stop them?!

 

[Commodus]

The sad thing about killing free speech off slowly is that it doesn't actually fix the problem they're attempting to fix. No one has ever changed their beliefs about trans people or gay people because it's illegal, all it has done is anger such people by threatening them with force unless they stop expressing an opinion. So those thoughts rather than being open where they're obvious and allow us to avoid them, simply go underground where they're harder to spot. And these people who feel they don't have free speech anymore just lash out at the people they dislike for taking that away from them.

How many transgender people might not get the job they want because businesses are less likely to hire them, because they've become a greater liability in the workplace as a potential point of conflict. Same thing happened in NYC where there's huge fines for using the wrong gender pronouns. A sensible person would ask why government and hanging huge warning signs around the necks of these people to avoid them at all costs.

All for what, to not hurt someones feelings? Not an acceptable trade off in my opinion. The idea that peoples rights end where other peoples feelings start is an extremely dangerous idea.

There's one major problem that invalidates what you've said: exposure.

When you let discrimination and harassment proliferate in public (note: not free speech itself, but active attempts to infringe on others' free speech), you give those ideas exposure and legitimacy. No, you won't make bigots disappear by making discrimination and harassment illegal, but you will make it clear to other, more rational people that those bigots' malicious actions are unacceptable in your society. Think of it like pulling weeds in a garden. You won't be completely free of weeds just because you've pulled out the ones you can see, but things will get much worse if you don't pull at least some of them out.

And to address your second paragraph: wouldn't a company that refuses to hire a transgender person based on that criteria be guilty of discrimination, and thus subject to the law regardless? Besides, it's predicated on a dodgy assumption that there will inevitably be conflict between transgender people and bigots, and that avoiding this conflict takes precedence over these sides learning to get along. You don't get to a point where transgender people are afforded respect if they're always kept away from less-than-compassionate groups.

And again, it's not about feelings. That Canadian law is about preventing discrimination and harassment. You will not go to prison or pay a fine if all you do is use a hateful slur in an argument. You will, however, be in trouble if you run a website that encourages people to use those slurs and identifies the neighborhoods where you can use them.

 

[0roo0roo]

Reason dies in Canada as it has passed the senate.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yet more alt-asshole bullshit. Fuck, does that bull never run dry?

Reason dies in Canada as it has passed the senate.

 

[0roo0roo]

Yet more alt-asshole bullshit. Fuck, does that bull never run dry?

Your ilk have destroyed free speech across the west and you still talk?

In 3 days another travesty comes up for judgement.
We shall see if the nazi pug results in jail time.

 

[Vic]

The thing that these alt-right douchebags will never understand is that the problem isn't that there is a law, but that there had to be a law.

 

[Commodus]

As always, 0roo is frightened by anyone who isn't white, straight and (clearly) male, and somehow interprets protecting fundamental human rights as an attack on free speech.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Alt-asshole propaganda parrot talks about "ilk". Funny parrot wear a brown shirt?

Your ilk have destroyed free speech across the west and you still talk?

In 3 days another travesty comes up for judgement.
We shall see if the nazi pug results in jail time.

 

[JSt0rm]

As always, 0roo is frightened by anyone who isn't white, straight and (clearly) male, and somehow interprets protecting fundamental human rights as an attack on free speech.

please dont kink shame other members.

 

[cytg111]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2JvW_nR0_E

Proud of my fellow human beings at how they handle these guys free speech with their own.. Thats is what its all about.

 

[sdifox]

Your ilk have destroyed free speech across the west and you still talk?

In 3 days another travesty comes up for judgement.
We shall see if the nazi pug results in jail time.

You are still talking freely no? Also, your Orangutan in Chief wants to change libel law so people can be sued more freely over their comments. Should you be fighting that attack on freedom of speech in your own country?

 

[ch33zw1z]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2JvW_nR0_E

Proud of my fellow human beings at how they handle these guys free speech with their own.. Thats is what its all about.

Hebrews 1:9 doesn't even say that.

http://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-9.htm

You have to wonder, does that guy even Christian?

 

[Meghan54]

Still not seeing how any of this destroys free speech. Anyone like Oroooroooo or that ilk care to explain how this destroys free speech.....without youtube videos? (In other words, in your own written words.)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Someone enlighten me on how this works. I would have to address someone by the prounoun they want or I have committed a criminal act?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Someone enlighten me on how this works. I would have to address someone by the prounoun they want or I have committed a criminal act?

No. If you repeatedly made a point of doing it to someone in a government workplace to be a dick then you may be subject to sanction. If you attempted to incite violence towards people through your words and actions then yes you'd be criminally liable.

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

Basically, it catches the federal government up with what pretty much every province already has on the books.

 

[Meghan54]

Someone enlighten me on how this works. I would have to address someone by the prounoun they want or I have committed a criminal act?

Like was just said, the answer to your question is no.
Here's what the legislation says: (I'm not putting it into quotes for readability....link to original source at end.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transgender and other gender-diverse people routinely experience discrimination, harassment and even violence because their gender identity or expression is different from those typically associated with their sex assigned at birth.

To help combat this, the Government of Canada has proposed legislation that would help ensure transgender and other gender-diverse persons can live according to their gender identity, be free from discrimination, and be protected from hate propaganda and hate crimes.


The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of:

• Race;
• National or ethnic origin;
• Colour;
• Religion;
• Age;
• Sex;
• Sexual orientation;
• Marital status;
• Family status;
• Disability; and
• Conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

The proposed legislation would add gender identity and gender expression to this list, making it very clear that transgender and other gender diverse persons have protection in the law.


If the legislation is passed, the Criminal Code will be updated in two ways:

1. Hate propaganda against an “identifiable group” is illegal in Canada. Identifiable groups are defined as sections of the public distinguished by:

• Colour;
• Race;
• Religion
• National or ethnic origin;
• Age
• Sex;
• Sexual orientation; and
• Mental or physical disability

The proposed legislation would add gender identity and expression to the list.

This means that it would be illegal to produce propaganda that promotes violence or hatred against persons based on their gender identity or gender expression.

2. When sentencing someone for having committed an offence, Canadian judges must consider aggravating circumstances, including if the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on:

• Colour;
• Race;
• Religion
• National or ethnic origin;
• Age
• Sex;
• Sexual orientation;
• Mental or physical disability; or
• Any other similar factor

The proposed legislation would add gender identity and expression to the list.

This means that sentences for certain offences could be more severe, if they were motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the victim’s gender identity or gender expression.


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/identity-identite/aboutleg-aproposleg.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what it says. Don't see anything about curtailing free speech, unless you really, really want to produce anti-gay, homophobic, anti-trans, anti-anything other than a traditional male/female role hate speech that promotes violence towards that group. If that's your definition, I really don't care if it muzzles you.

And......you can still do it. No govt. goon is going to arrest you before the fact, only after. So, one still has free speech, just now that speech may have consequences, which as far as I can ascertain, is what these dimwits who decry this seem to want.....speech with no consequences.

 

[justoh]

If you don't care about free speech, then, sure, you won't see the problem. Can't appreciate US protections (and its development) and still support the crap that goes on in europe and canada. At least it seems like those americans supporting these restrictions should also be arguing for the weakening of US law. Instead they're like, "the US const doesn't apply to canada, dummy!" "Only we get to have hate-speech protection, because we're so unique/nobody else could handle it."

 

[MomentsofSanity]

If you don't care about free speech, then, sure, you won't see the problem. Can't appreciate US protections (and its development) and still support the crap that goes on in europe and canada. At least it seems like those americans supporting these restrictions should also be arguing for the weaking of US law. Instead they're like, "the US const doesn't apply to canada, dummy!" "Only we get to have hate-speech protection, because we're so unique/nobody else could handle it."

If your complaint is you can't call for the extermination of people because it infringes on your freedom then you're the problem.

 

[Meghan54]

If you don't care about free speech, then, sure, you won't see the problem. Can't appreciate US protections (and its development) and still support the crap that goes on in europe and canada. At least it seems like those americans supporting these restrictions should also be arguing for the weaking of US law. Instead they're like, "the US const doesn't apply to canada, dummy!" "Only we get to have hate-speech protection, because we're so unique/nobody else could handle it."

So, what exactly is the problem......what speech does this legislation prevent you from exercising? Be as specific as possible.

 

[UNCjigga]

Well I won't expect the Westboro Baptist Church to be making many cross-border trips then...oh wait they're not government so they can still wear "God Hates ______" t-shirts?

 

[Iron Woode]

Someone enlighten me on how this works. I would have to address someone by the prounoun they want or I have committed a criminal act?

more or less, yes.

You will get hauled before a HRT (human rights tribunal) where you are always guilty. HRT have a 100% conviction rate. You will have to cover your legal costs while the plaintiff's costs are covered by the government. You will be ordered to pay a fine to offset the emotional harm of not using the correct pronoun.

This should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago. Pronouns are not a human right. This is just more PC garbage that needs to go.

 

[justoh]

If your complaint is you can't call for the extermination of people because it infringes on your freedom then you're the problem.

I thought that was your complaint... ?

 

[KMFJD]

Well I won't expect the Westboro Baptist Church to be making many cross-border trips then...oh wait they're not government so they can still wear "God Hates ______" t-shirts?

They've tried in the past and act shocked every time they are denied entry...