4 ms·

"Marginalized"? Nonsense, they have absolute control even over an institution as important and famous as Evergreen College... everyone knows that's the stepping

by bbctol 9y ago

"Marginalized"? Nonsense, they have absolute control even over an institution as important and famous as Evergreen College... everyone knows that's the stepping stone to world domination

alacombe 9y ago
As a Canadian who refuses to comply with Bill C-16, the fringe left made me a thought criminal.
- mikeash 9y ago
  This Bill C-16? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... What's so bad about it?
  - d0lph 9y ago
    > the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression Seems vague, what counts as promoting hatred? If someone makes fun of the 1000+ genders and counting, do they go to jail? And from the bill: (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. [0] [0] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html#h-93 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.htm...
    - mikeash 9y ago
      So, what does actually count as promoting hatred, legally speaking?
      - d0lph 9y ago
        > In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were "vicious and dehumanizing". The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000 >In Warman v. Northern Alliance, 2009 CHRT 10, Edward Peter Lustig held that the respondent's website was in violation of s. 13(1) because the website carried controversial remarks about Roma, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, and others. The adjudicator made an order pursuant to s. 54(1)(a) to ensure that the impugned website, which is defunct, remained inactive I am cherry picking a bit, more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cases_under_the_Human_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cas...
        mikeash 9y ago
        That's rather vague. "Vicious and dehumanizing" could be anything from "I dislike you" to "we will murder your entire ethnic group." The remarks in Warman v. Winnicki, which I won't reproduce here, look to be much closer to the second. For example: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/2006/2006chrt20/2006chrt20.html#par70 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/2006/2006chrt20/2006ch... I'm having trouble finding the original material for Warman v. Northern Alliance, but according to http://www.richardwarman.ca/?page_id=6 http://www.richardwarman.ca/?page_id=6 it involved calls for murder and genocide. If that's the standard the law requires, it sounds like a good law. Free speech does not include death threats. Even the US does not go that far.
      - alacombe 9y ago
        As per C-16, calling someone "Sir" instead of "Xir" if the person addressed wants to be called "Xir". The incident between Ben Shapiro and Zoey Tur could have qualified if it had happened in Canada under the rule of the Human Rights Tribunal. Also, recently, a landlord got convicted by that so called "human right tribunal" for not having removed his shoes in a muslim tenant's apartment.
        api 9y ago
        Yes, this is insane. I just object to the idea that this insanity validates other kinds of insanity like neo-Nazi ideology. It's all bullshit.

by bbctol 9y ago

"Marginalized"? Nonsense, they have absolute control even over an institution as important and famous as Evergreen College... everyone knows that's the stepping stone to world domination

alacombe 9y ago

As a Canadian who refuses to comply with Bill C-16, the fringe left made me a thought criminal.

mikeash 9y ago
This Bill C-16? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... What's so bad about it?
- d0lph 9y ago
  > the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression Seems vague, what counts as promoting hatred? If someone makes fun of the 1000+ genders and counting, do they go to jail? And from the bill: (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. [0] [0] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html#h-93 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.htm...
  - mikeash 9y ago
    So, what does actually count as promoting hatred, legally speaking?
    - d0lph 9y ago
      > In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were "vicious and dehumanizing". The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000 >In Warman v. Northern Alliance, 2009 CHRT 10, Edward Peter Lustig held that the respondent's website was in violation of s. 13(1) because the website carried controversial remarks about Roma, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, and others. The adjudicator made an order pursuant to s. 54(1)(a) to ensure that the impugned website, which is defunct, remained inactive I am cherry picking a bit, more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cases_under_the_Human_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cas...
      - mikeash 9y ago
        That's rather vague. "Vicious and dehumanizing" could be anything from "I dislike you" to "we will murder your entire ethnic group." The remarks in Warman v. Winnicki, which I won't reproduce here, look to be much closer to the second. For example: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/2006/2006chrt20/2006chrt20.html#par70 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/2006/2006chrt20/2006ch... I'm having trouble finding the original material for Warman v. Northern Alliance, but according to http://www.richardwarman.ca/?page_id=6 http://www.richardwarman.ca/?page_id=6 it involved calls for murder and genocide. If that's the standard the law requires, it sounds like a good law. Free speech does not include death threats. Even the US does not go that far.
    - alacombe 9y ago
      As per C-16, calling someone "Sir" instead of "Xir" if the person addressed wants to be called "Xir". The incident between Ben Shapiro and Zoey Tur could have qualified if it had happened in Canada under the rule of the Human Rights Tribunal. Also, recently, a landlord got convicted by that so called "human right tribunal" for not having removed his shoes in a muslim tenant's apartment.
      - api 9y ago
        Yes, this is insane. I just object to the idea that this insanity validates other kinds of insanity like neo-Nazi ideology. It's all bullshit.