4 ms·

The true test of any bill of this nature is to hand it over to your enemies to run. If you wouldn't be comfortable with the Trump administration defining "hate

The true test of any bill of this nature is to hand it over to your enemies to run. If you wouldn't be comfortable with the Trump administration defining "hate speech", you shouldn't be comfortable with Trudeau defining it either.

prvc 5y ago
There is already an asymmetry codified in the CCRF, as to which groups can be (putatively) protected by this legislation, so the gov't has little to worry about w.r.t. swapping places.
sellyme 5y ago
> If you wouldn't be comfortable with the Trump administration defining "hate speech", you shouldn't be comfortable with Trudeau defining it either. I disagree with this. I wouldn't trust the Trump administration with coming up with a list of human rights, that doesn't mean that the only acceptable compromise is that we shouldn't have any. Your first sentence is solid advice, but I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion from it. It's a totally reasonable stance to be more comfortable with someone who's at least vaguely competent being in charge when discussing a complex and delicate issue. Perhaps the point you were intending to make was that we shouldn't be comfortable with it being ambiguous enough that it's up to any particular government's definition, rather than being inherently uncomfortable with the definition itself?
- unishark 5y ago
  > I wouldn't trust the Trump administration with coming up with a list of human rights, that doesn't mean that the only acceptable compromise is that we shouldn't have any. The point remains the same. If you don't trust Trump (or the simple majority of voters in a given election) with the power to set rights, then you shouldn't give them such power. Rights are supposed to be restrictions on the govt. If the president can define hate speech then there is no right being protected from the govt.

4 ms·

The true test of any bill of this nature is to hand it over to your enemies to run. If you wouldn't be comfortable with the Trump administration defining "hate

by FreeSpeech 5y ago

prvc 5y ago
There is already an asymmetry codified in the CCRF, as to which groups can be (putatively) protected by this legislation, so the gov't has little to worry about w.r.t. swapping places.
sellyme 5y ago
> If you wouldn't be comfortable with the Trump administration defining "hate speech", you shouldn't be comfortable with Trudeau defining it either. I disagree with this. I wouldn't trust the Trump administration with coming up with a list of human rights, that doesn't mean that the only acceptable compromise is that we shouldn't have any. Your first sentence is solid advice, but I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion from it. It's a totally reasonable stance to be more comfortable with someone who's at least vaguely competent being in charge when discussing a complex and delicate issue. Perhaps the point you were intending to make was that we shouldn't be comfortable with it being ambiguous enough that it's up to any particular government's definition, rather than being inherently uncomfortable with the definition itself?
- unishark 5y ago
  > I wouldn't trust the Trump administration with coming up with a list of human rights, that doesn't mean that the only acceptable compromise is that we shouldn't have any. The point remains the same. If you don't trust Trump (or the simple majority of voters in a given election) with the power to set rights, then you shouldn't give them such power. Rights are supposed to be restrictions on the govt. If the president can define hate speech then there is no right being protected from the govt.