Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The purpose of Bill C-16 in Canada would expand the human rights act and criminal code to protect gender identity as well and to protect people from "gender identity based hate propaganda", and the surrounding policies would essentially criminalize "misgendering" someone to which a person could face criminal charges for using the wrong pronoun.

Here is a link to Canada's open parliament page for the bill:
https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

And here is a link to the full text of the bill:
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/third-reading

And here is a video of the Senate hearing on the bill:
KnIAAkSNtqo

Canadian Fascism! It is almost CUTE!

rofl

This shit is ridiculous.

EDIT: Also a good example of SJWs causing very real harm.

Discrimination based on gender identity is bad so... support?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Discrimination based on gender identity is bad so... support?
No, but making hurting someone's feelings a crime is bad.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
NoI wonder why the idea of giving human rights to trans people is "ridiculous" to you then. mmm

And it's not, turns out to nobody's surprise DMB in his trigger-happy ignorance has misconstrued the law entirely.

FYI:
For those compelled to speak and act in truth, however unpopular, truth is included in those defences. Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most "extreme manifestations" with the intention of promoting the "level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection" that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups.

Those concerned that they could be criminalized for their repugnant or offensive ideas fail to understand a crucial distinction in the law. As the Supreme Court of Canada has explained:
This law is not criminalising free speech, and it is not criminalising hurting people's feelings, but giving trans people the same human rights as everybody else.

And if you prefer facts to silly narratives I suggesting reading that statement in full.

First of all, trans people already have human rights in Canada. Secondly, this bill is too vague and arbitrary. For example, this line: "as long as they are not used in their most "extreme manifestations"". What's an "extreme manifestation"? If someone says "**** trannies", is that extreme enough to warrant jail time? If a priest or an imam, or whatever proclaims that transsexuals are living in horrible sin and that makes a transsexual person feel like they are being "abhorred, delegitimized and rejected"(quoting directly from the bill here), which would not even be a wrong way to interpret the wording of the bill, should the priest/imam/rabbi/whatever be jailed?

And there are many, many other examples of potential confusion being caused this ambiguous and unnecessary bill.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
First of all, trans people already have human rights in Canada.True, which means there is no reason why they shouldn't have those rights enshrined in Canada's human rights act. Though prior to this bill, prejudice-incited crimes against trans people were not explicitly considered to be hate crimes.

The most you can get from violating the human rights code in Canada is a fine, so whether or not X or Y warrants jail time is irrelevant. Nonetheless what constitutes an "extreme manifestation" was clearly defined i.e. something that "advocates genocide publicly incites hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promote hatred against them." Saying "f*ck trannies" in most cases is probably not going to do this. And given the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to get away with marching around shouting "God hate f*gs" I'm willing to bet the rabbis & friends needn't be worried. Certainly you won't be facing criminal charges for using the wrong pronoun.

Which is why we have courts to examine and rule on them. This being an amendment to a preexisting human rights act that affords the same protections to people on the basis of race, religion, sex, age etc. there is no reason to exclude trans people from this list.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
True, which means there is no reason why they shouldn't have those rights enshrined in Canada's human rights act. Though prior to this bill, prejudice-incited crimes against trans people were not explicitly considered to be hate crimes.

The most you can get from violating the human rights code in Canada is a fine, so whether or not X or Y warrants jail time is irrelevant. Nonetheless what constitutes an "extreme manifestation" was clearly defined i.e. something that "advocates genocide publicly incites hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promote hatred against them." Saying "f*ck trannies" in most cases is probably not going to do this. And given the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to get away with marching around shouting "God hate f*gs" I'm willing to bet the rabbis & friends needn't be worried.

Which is why we have courts to examine and rule on them. This being an amendment to a preexisting human rights act that affords the same protections to people on the basis of race, religion, sex, age etc. there is no reason to exclude trans people from this list.

It's redundant and adds unnecessary confusion. Sexual minorities were already protected by Canadian law.

Only a fine? That's still too much. Once again, openly calling for violence/genocide was already illegal in Canada(Hell, it's illegal even in the First Amendment-happy US). Again, more redundancy. The point is, the bill mentions more than inciting violence. Once again, the bill states "promoting the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection". This is very distinct from inciting actual violence. So someone saying "**** trannies" or "God hates ****", or that transsexualism is an abomination and a sin could easily be accused of abhorring, delegitimizing or rejecting. Speaking of Westboro Baptist Church, I'm pretty sure the group has been deemed illegal in Canada, but don't quote me on that.

Why encumber the courts with this arbitrary nonsense, though? Canada already affords all human rights to sexual minorities(transsexuals included). Or at the very least, they should get rid of ambiguous wording like the above example.

No, the only thing that's being added is gender identity to the list of things protected by the Canadian human rights act and criminal code. What you're quoting are extracts from pre-existing human rights rulings that predate this bill, made in regards to the definition of hate crimes and hate speech in general. FYI, the complete definition is: " incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects." (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc11/2013scc11.html) So again saying mean things isn't enough, it actually has to cause provable harm to the person, and that's already in effect for other groups.

And once again if gays, straights, blacks, whites etc. are afforded these protections per the act, there is no reason to trans people shouldn't be included either. The fact that they already possess many of this rights only make it less of an issue. And in general, your complaints seem to be inclusive of the human rights act as a whole, as none of these issues or approaches are exclusive to trans people.

Is it redundant and unnecessary to have a human rights act on top of pre-existing laws? I wouldn't say so, codes that like this act as a guideline for the law to follow, and an extra element of rigidity to ensure those laws already in effect aren't overturned.

You're right about the WBC though, seems they were banned after they tried to stage a protest at a funeral. I assume anti-trans groups would receive similar treatment, though I can't say I'd lose any sleep over it.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No, the only thing that's being added is gender identity to the list of things protected by the Canadian human rights act and criminal code. What you're quoting are extracts from pre-existing human rights rulings that predate this bill, made in regards to the definition of hate crimes and hate speech in general. FYI, the complete definition is: " incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects." (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc11/2013scc11.html) So again saying mean things isn't enough, it actually has to cause provable harm to the person, and that's already in effect for other groups.

And once again if gays, straights, blacks, whites etc. are afforded these protections per the act, there is no reason to trans people shouldn't be included either. The fact that they already possess many of this rights only make it less of an issue. And in general, your complaints seem to be inclusive of the human rights act as a whole, as none of these issues or approaches are exclusive to trans people.

Is it redundant and unnecessary to have a human rights act on top of pre-existing laws? I wouldn't say so, codes that like this act as a guideline for the law to follow, and an extra element of rigidity to ensure those laws already in effect aren't overturned.

You're right about the WBC though, seems they were banned after they tried to stage a protest at a funeral. I assume anti-trans groups would receive similar treatment, though I can't say I'd lose any sleep over it.

But how do you prove harm or assess the risk of it causing harm? If you said a mean thing about someone and they became depressed or even suicidal, is that proof enough? What if a priest denounces transsexualism in front of his congregation and one of the attendants decides to go out there and do "God's work" and beat the crap(or worse) out of some transsexuals, is that proof enough to get the priest in trouble(who, remember, never outright called for violence)? It's still way too fudgy.

Ahh yes, now it makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem it being an addition to an already existing act, but I do indeed take issue with the wording of the act in general.

I really think that depends on the attitude of the public in general. If the people of a country are educated, tolerant and accepting, then such an act is merely the icing on the cake. If the people are benighted bigots, a whole mountain of human rights acts isn't going to change anything. The law is what matters in the end.

I can understand them being barred from showing up at a funeral, but banning them altogether seems heavy-handed to me.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
True, which means there is no reason why they shouldn't have those rights enshrined in Canada's human rights act. Though prior to this bill, prejudice-incited crimes against trans people were not explicitly considered to be hate crimes.
"Hate crimes" are bullshit. A crime is a crime. What a person feels deep on the inside when murdering a person doesn't change the fact that they murdered a person and I don't see why the law should address this in any special way.

And these laws are so often abused with double standards. In Canada, people protesting a Mosque were arrested for hate speech, but iirc law enforcement was rather apathetic once they realized the reason they were protesting the mosque because the Imam was saying "I hope Allah kills all the Jews and Christians" and "those filthy Jews." And in the US the four black people who tortured that one white disabled kid who repeatedly said "**** white people" and "**** Donald Trump" and the Chicago Police chief tried to deny that it was a hate crime and claimed it was not racially or politically motivated. Not to mention the founder of BLM Toronto who tweeted out that she wanted to kill white people who as far as I know faced no repercussions for that.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
was clearly defined i.e. something that "advocates genocide publicly incites hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promote hatred against them." Saying "f*ck trannies" in most cases is probably not going to do this.
No it was very vaguely defined.

And yes, saying "**** trannies" is going to do this considering one of the Senators defending this bill claimed and defended that knowingly using the wrong pronoun or name for someone could be dealt with by the court system, and since "**** trannies" quote on quote "promotes hatred against them."

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And given the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to get away with marching around shouting "God hate f*gs" I'm willing to bet the rabbis & friends needn't be worried. Certainly you won't be facing criminal charges for using the wrong pronoun.
Yes because they are not in Canada, they are in America Beni. We'll fight for their right to say what they want to say even if we vehemently disagree with the content of what they are saying because in America freedom of speech is rightly considered a basic and valued human right.

The Canadian government however barred the Church's members from entering the country lmfao.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Which is why we have courts to examine and rule on them. This being an amendment to a preexisting human rights act that affords the same protections to people on the basis of race, religion, sex, age etc. there is no reason to exclude trans people from this list.
Yes and this "humans right act" has done bullshit things like get people arrested for protesting a mosque that was calling for the deaths of "those filthy Jews"

"hate speech" is bullshit Beni. Just because it is already legislated for some groups doesn't even mean it should be legislated into law because it shouldn't. Arresting someone for saying something that hurts your feelings is beyond childish and is an inexcusable violation of their rights.


Originally posted by Beniboybling
C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression

Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.

Hate Crimes and Freedom of Expression

For hate crimes, Bill C-16 adds "gender identity or expressions" to the identifiable groups protected from those who advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promote hatred against them. The Supreme Court of Canada found subsection 319(2) (wilful promotion of hatred) to be
quote:
...a narrowly confined offence which suffers from neither overbreadth nor vagueness... the provision possesses a stringent mens rea requirement, necessitating either an intent to promote hatred or knowledge of the substantial certainty of such, and is also strongly supported by the conclusion that the meaning of the word "hatred" is restricted to the most severe and deeply-felt form of opprobrium. Additionally, however, the conclusion that s. 319(2) represents a minimal impairment of the freedom of expression gains credence through the exclusion of private conversation from its scope
Yeah and people got arrested for protesting a mosque that said all Jews need to die, these laws in Canada, and in virtually every other part of the world that has hate speech laws, are abused to the detriment of their own citizens. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the youtuber Count Dankula who had his dog Nazi salute and respond to "gas the Jews" to troll his girlfriend AS A JOKE who is now facing criminal charges and potentially a year of Jail time for "hate speech." Hell my friend in Scottland told me his teachers warned a friend about jokingly making a nazi salute cause he could face legal trouble for that. Or that there was a private facebook group in Germany discussing the detriment of the immigration crisis on Germany and German citizens that was shut down for hate speech. These laws get abused all the ****ing time.

And "deeply felt"? I'm glad that's an objective and unvauge measurable criteria for the government to take legal action out of

Both of the Senators defending the Bill in the Senate hearing responded to the claim that it was a compelled use of pronouns by saying that instead of using the disagreed with pronoun you could use "they/them" pronouns or their name in supposition for their pronoun but still arguing knowingly using the wrong name or pronoun was "knowingly hurting them" and something the law should be able to address. In defense of this bill's implications for free speech the people defending this bill never denied that this bill would be used against those using the wrong pronouns or names, in fact they actively reaffirmed that this is how the bill would be used, and the opposition to this bill that has spent a lengthy amount of time studying it and the surrounding policies have pointed out its threats to free speech as well. Nobody in the entire senate hearing denied that this is how the bill would be used in practice.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
For those compelled to speak and act in truth, however unpopular, truth is included in those defences. Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most "extreme manifestations" with the intention of promoting the "level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection" that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups.

Those concerned that they could be criminalized for their repugnant or offensive ideas fail to understand a crucial distinction in the law. As the Supreme Court of Canada has explained:
quote:
The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions. Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have.
quote:
Human rights legislation and freedom of expression

For human rights legislation, the CHRA prohibits denying or differentiating adversely in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public, commercial or residential accommodation, or, employment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Act applies to federal and federally regulated entities.
quote:
The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens. Nor will it hamper the evolution of academic debates about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, nature and culture, and other genuine and continuing inquiries that mark our common quest for understanding of the human condition The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.
Yes, the Senators in defense of this bill argued that it does not pose a threat to ideological discussion, and that you are free to discuss those ideas just that you have to not address the person in an offensive way, and they argued this does not constitute compelled speech because the government isn't forcing you to say something if you have multiple options for what you are going to say (they argued it's not compelled speech since you aren't being forced to use a pronoun you disagree with since you could also address them with their preferred name in place of their pronoun or "they/them" pronouns).

In a bill as vaguely worded in some places and specifically worded in others like this, the potential definitely exists for abuse, and the Canadian senators have made no denial of how this bill will be used and in fact support the bill being used to prosecute people who knowingly use the wrong name or pronoun, and have defended this with really shitty arguments, but arguments that nonetheless don't contradict the statements of the Bar association you have posted.

I think someone is mentally ill if they get upset over being called the wrong pronoun.

That would explain the mass majority of SJW issue then.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
"Hate crimes" are bullshit. A crime is a crime. What a person feels deep on the inside when murdering a person doesn't change the fact that they murdered a person and I don't see why the law should address this in any special way.The motivations of the criminal shouldn't be taken into account when judging a crime? That strikes me as absurd.

Regardless you are wrong, a hate crime intrinsically differs from other crimes in the respect that instead of targeting a specific person and/or resulting in persons being collateral damage, it targets a group of people, and in that respect, has a broader impact, which arguably warrants a harsher or at least different response.

However that's besides the point. The point was that the bill is in some respects putting trans people or equal footing with everyone else where they were previously not. Disagree with the rights in principle if you like, but that doesn't justify giving them to some people while barring them from others.

As many laws are, I would say that's cause for reform, be it of the laws themselves or those enforcing them, not doing away with this kind of legislation altogether.

And BLM is an excellent example of what happens when hate speech goes unregulated. Encouraging a culture in which its OK to denigrate, abuse and even kill "white people" has real, dangerous repercussions on society, and shouldn't go unpunished.

Compelling argument.

Not seeing how this is relevant, especially given the Senate are not those responsible for enforcing the legislation. And no, saying "f*ck trannies" does not necessarily promote hatred per the Supreme Court definition. If I go out into a public park and shout "F*CK DA TRANNIE" I am not lending my support or encouragement to a particular act of hatred, and shouldn't expect the Canadian gestapo to come out of the bushes and nab me.

Already addressed in my convo with Artificial, which FYI, you were never invited too. sneer

But sure, America is the land of the brave and free yada yada yada, no doubt you're handing out copies of the Dabiq at this very moment.

Uhuh. You keep bringing up this incident so I looked into it. My understanding is that a bunch of protestors calling for a ban on Islam picketed a mosque in which it was later revealed had held "inappropriate supplications" in 2016. The preacher in question was then subsequently sacked and apologised for. This seems like rather a non-issue considering 1. having apologised and sack the anti-Semitic preacher the mosque would be cleared of charges 2. whether or not the mosque was partisan to anti-semitic preaching is no justification for an anti-Islam protest 3. law enforcement can't possible be aware of an incident that happened a year ago and had yet to be reported. A messy situation certainly but not nearly as damning as you're making it out to be.

Hate speech is bullshit? Oh please. Hate speech is what radicalises people into terrorists, which just so happens to be one of the greatest threats facing the Western world today and claimed thousands of lives across the bloody planet. I've already raised the matter of BLM and it stands, and if you think hatred and discrimination directed towards trans people has nothing to do with their extortionate rates of suicide then you are royally of your rocker.

To liken the impact of hate speech to "hurting people's feelings" is strawman in the extreme, and as far as I'm concerned anything that can be deemed to directly incite violence, terroism, discrimination, suicide etc. should be taken deadly seriously. But no, of course, it would be entirely childish to take action against some for encouraging others to blow themselves up, kill white people, kill trans people or get them to kill themselves, these are private citizens and should be left alone.

It should be fairly easy to distinguish between what's harmless and harmful yeah, numerous f*ck-ups non-withstanding.

Right yeah, and according to you this totally isn't contradictory to the CBA statement, apart from the bit where it explictly states that the bill "will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable" to be "a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation."

Those Senators may think that misgendering a person constitutes "the most severe and deeply-felt approbrium", but clearly the legal-experts do not. And once again, the Senate are not involved in carrying out the legislation.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
But how do you prove harm or assess the risk of it causing harm? If you said a mean thing about someone and they became depressed or even suicidal, is that proof enough? What if a priest denounces transsexualism in front of his congregation and one of the attendants decides to go out there and do "God's work" and beat the crap(or worse) out of some transsexuals, is that proof enough to get the priest in trouble(who, remember, never outright called for violence)? It's still way too fudgy.I think if you are inciting anyone into depression or suicide on the basis of their gender, race or whatever, you are a problem, and if a priest started telling his congregation that trans people should be beaten or killed, he should stop preaching. On the other hand simply expression your view than transsexuals are sinful simply because that is your religious belief, then you'd be hard pressed to argue that that person is deliberating inciting hatred. I think its only "fudgy" if you don't think it through, and act on trigger-happy emotion, which unfortunately does happen.

Fair enough. Though the reality is its a mixed bag.

Amazes me how angry people get about issues that have never and in all likelihood will never affect them ever.

Yeah, it is always silly when people try and stand up to those that just want to Slowly Chip away at their Freedoms.

Originally posted by jaden101
Amazes me how angry people get about issues that have never and in all likelihood will never affect them ever.

Good, people can stop caring about climate change then.

Originally posted by Surtur
Good, people can stop caring about climate change then.

https://media.giphy.com/media/26AHLBZUC1n53ozi8/giphy.gif

Originally posted by Beniboybling
The motivations of the criminal shouldn't be taken into account when judging a crime? That strikes me as absurd.

Regardless you are wrong, a hate crime intrinsically differs from other crimes in the respect that instead of targeting a specific person and/or resulting in persons being collateral damage, it targets a group of people, and in that respect, has a broader impact, which arguably warrants a harsher or at least different response.
If a crime is motivated by unprovoked malicious intent it's motivated by unprovoked malicious intent.

I don't see the need to draw a difference in punishment between some sadistic **** who kills some guy on the street because they get a thrill out of it, someone who kills somebody else cause they're black, and somebody who kills somebody because they're a political activist. All of this is maliciously intended unprovoked murder.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
However that's besides the point. The point was that the bill is in some respects putting trans people or equal footing with everyone else where they were previously not. Disagree with the rights in principle if you like, but that doesn't justify giving them to some people while barring them from others.
No I disagree with them in principle and in practice, and think it would be better to remove "hate speech" laws altogether to put everyone on equal footing instead of making the problems even greater by introducing more of this harmful legislation becuz equality!

Originally posted by Beniboybling
As many laws are, I would say that's cause for reform, be it of the laws themselves or those enforcing them, not doing away with this kind of legislation altogether.
What is a crime like violence, vandalism or murder is already a crime and hate speech laws shouldn't exist. If all these laws due is add an additional harshness in sentencing for pre-existing crimes motivated by prejudice at the expense of introducing restrictions to freedom of speech and creating legislation which can and has been abused before, then it's not a worthy tradeoff and this legislation shouldn't exist.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And BLM is an excellent example of what happens when hate speech goes unregulated. Encouraging a culture in which its OK to denigrate, abuse and even kill "white people" has real, dangerous repercussions on society, and shouldn't go unpunished.
Saying kill white people and kill cops is a direct incitement of violence which shouldn't be protected, however if they just want to **** around and say "**** white people, white people are literally Hitler" then I'll oppose the content of their speech since I find it morally disgusting but I'd also take a moral stance in standing up for their legal right to say that kinda shit even if I fundamentally disagree with it.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Not seeing how this is relevant, especially given the Senate are not those responsible for enforcing the legislation. And no, saying "f*ck trannies" does not necessarily promote hatred per the Supreme Court definition. If I go out into a public park and shout "F*CK DA TRANNIE" I am not lending my support or encouragement to a particular act of hatred, and shouldn't expect the Canadian gestapo to come out of the bushes and nab me.
You're arguing this type of shit happening is so outlandishly absurd that it wouldn't happen, however someone in London shouted "Oi Bruce get your dick out" and the police are currently investigating this as if it's some crime that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement, and the guy in the UK facing court for making nazi jokes with his dog.

These laws are abused all the time, so why you continue to defend them is beyond me.

And hatred is defined with what is quote on quote "deeply felt" which is once again not a firmly defined objective criteria, it's rather vague. One of the senators said that to a transgendered person the wrong pronoun or name can be harmful so if you are knowingly using the wrong pronoun or name, that would be "knowingly hurting" someone, and plenty of transactivists have complained that not acknowledging them as their self-identified gender is a very painful thing. The wording of this bill could be so easily manipulated to include "knowingly causing someone deeply felt turmoil" or some such shit when put into practice.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Already addressed in my convo with Artificial, which FYI, you were never invited too. sneer
Well it was a shitty defense.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
But sure, America is the land of the brave and free yada yada yada, no doubt you're handing out copies of the Dabiq at this very moment.
I'm not some ultranationalist who believes where I'm born or live makes me a better human being than anyone else, and I'm willing to acknowledge that America has its flaws, however it appears to be the only Western nation willing to take a principled stand on freedom of speech and actually protecting it for those whose ideas are considered offensive, and that's something I have a lot of respect for and firmly wished other countries took a note from.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Uhuh. You keep bringing up this incident so I looked into it. My understanding is that a bunch of protestors calling for a ban on Islam picketed a mosque in which it was later revealed had held "inappropriate supplications" in 2016. The preacher in question was then subsequently sacked and apologised for. This seems like rather a non-issue considering 1. having apologised and sack the anti-Semitic preacher the mosque would be cleared of charges
Was the mosque ever charged with anything to begin with, and more importantly was the preacher charged with anything? If the preacher wasn't charged with anything, then people protesting Islam being punished while they let the internal mosque community deal with a guy literally calling for the death of Christians and Jews is insanely hypocritical

Originally posted by Beniboybling
2. whether or not the mosque was partisan to anti-semitic preaching is no justification for an anti-Islam protest
You can argue an anti-Islam protest is immoral, but if they want to protest Islam, it should be within their legal right to protest Islam. If they are not inciting violence or public panic (such as shouting fire in a crowded movie theater) then they should be entitled to say and express whatever the **** they believe and it shouldn't be the government's prerogative to tell them what is and isn't government approved speech.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
3. law enforcement can't possible be aware of an incident that happened a year ago and had yet to be reported. A messy situation certainly but not nearly as damning as you're making it out to be.
It's their apparent lack of action after the fact that concerns me once they discovered this. Regardless of whether or not the Mosque washed it's hands clean by firing the anti-semite by the standards of hate speech the man himself should've faced legal prosecution according to the law.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Hate speech is bullshit? Oh please. Hate speech is what radicalises people into terrorists, which just so happens to be one of the greatest threats facing the Western world today and claimed thousands of lives across the bloody planet. I've already raised the matter of BLM and it stands, and if you think hatred and discrimination directed towards trans people has nothing to do with their extortionate rates of suicide then you are royally of your rocker.
Yes and BLM shouldn't be allowed to say "kill cops" or "kill white people" but they should be perfectly protected by the law in expressing their ideological contempt for cops and or white people even if the public finds such ideological stances abhorrent, and organizations should not be allowed to tell people to commit acts of violence and terror against civilians and the government.

If some racist wants to express his hatred for white people but he isn't calling for violence or terrorism, then that's none of the government's business.

The only suicide rate comparable to the transgender suicide rate is the suicide rate of Jews in Nazi Germany, even the suicide rate of black slaves in America wasn't this bad, so this notion that they have such a suicide rate because society hates them is preposterous.

I think the suicide rate of trans people is horrible and we should look for solutions to it, but this issue is not worth inviting the government to regulate and police what people are and aren't allowed to express or say, violating a fundamental right in everyone in the country is not a price worth paying, especially not when you don't have evidence that this legislation would noticeably reduce the suicide rate of trans people to begin with.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
To liken the impact of hate speech to "hurting people's feelings" is strawman in the extreme, and as far as I'm concerned anything that can be deemed to directly incite violence, terroism, discrimination, suicide etc. should be taken deadly seriously. But no, of course, it would be entirely childish to take action against some for encouraging others to blow themselves up, kill white people, kill trans people or get them to kill themselves, these are private citizens and should be left alone.
You're the one strawmanning Beni. I never defended direct incitement of violence or terrorism. If BLM wants to chant "**** white people" or "white people are evil" or "white people are hitler" they would be morally abhorrent pricks but it's not the government's place to censor them.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
It should be fairly easy to distinguish between what's harmless and harmful yeah, numerous f*ck-ups non-withstanding.
I'm not actually suggesting people are going to deal with law enforcement for accidental ****-ups, I don't believe even Canada's commitment to diversity is that depraved, however you still aren't answering the notion that a person knowingly using the wrong pronoun or name could be considered to be "knowingly hurting" somebody else.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right yeah, and according to you this totally isn't contradictory to the CBA statement, apart from the bit where it explictly states that the bill "will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable" to be "a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation."

Those Senators may think that misgendering a person constitutes "the most severe and deeply-felt approbrium", but clearly the legal-experts do not. And once again, the Senate are not involved in carrying out the legislation.
Oh my God, you didn't even listen to what I said. There is a very easy work-around to that wording that I've picked up on, the senators have picked up on and defended, and that I've pointed out to you but you for some reason refuse to get it.

A person being punished by law enforcement for using the wrong name or pronoun does not constitute the bill forcing individuals to use specific pronouns since as the Senators have pointed out there would still be more legally acceptable ways to refer to a person than a specific set of pronouns, such as they/them pronouns or use of their chosen name in place of these pronouns. Just to repeat myself to make sure you actually grasp the concept, the Senators asserted that punishing someone for using the wrong pronouns is not the same thing as compelling them to use a specific set of pronouns. Thus punishing someone for using the wrong pronoun is not in opposition to that part of the bill.

Originally posted by jaden101
Amazes me how angry people get about issues that have never and in all likelihood will never affect them ever.
If you're taking a stand on an issue that doesn't personally effect you because of your principles, I'd say that's a good sign that your political activism isn't purely motivated by self-interest and that you are actually willing to stand by your principles even when there's no harm to you if you don't.

I mean shit you could levy this exact same criticism tenfold towards the passionately activist people in favor of this bill since less than 1% of the population is transgender and thus transgender hate shit isn't something that will likely effect a lot of the people passionately pushing this bill. I disagree with this bill on principle, and think the supporters of this bill have weak arguments that don't justify the violation of freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I would or should dismiss their arguments or concerns as "oh this doesn't personally effect you so stfu." As misguided as their goals in regards to free speech are, I can at least respect the non trans people who are activists in favor of this bill for acting out of a concern other than self-interest.

That is the funny thing about the Left. Some "People" are just MORE EQUAL then others.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I think if you are inciting anyone into depression or suicide on the basis of their gender, race or whatever, you are a problem, and if a priest started telling his congregation that trans people should be beaten or killed, he should stop preaching. On the other hand simply expression your view than transsexuals are sinful simply because that is your religious belief, then you'd be hard pressed to argue that that person is deliberating inciting hatred. I think its only "fudgy" if you don't think it through, and act on trigger-happy emotion, which unfortunately does happen.

Fair enough. Though the reality is its a mixed bag.
My problem is that the preacher doesn't have to literally tell the transsexual person in question to go and kill himself/herself for them to feel abhorred or delegitimized. Simply denouncing transsexualism as a sin and an abomination in front of the congregation can definitely make a transsexual person feel depressed or even suicidal and very much abhorred, delegitimized and hated, especially if the rest of the congregation agrees. Following the wording of the bill, merely expressing your religious beliefs can be deemed a crime.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
https://media.giphy.com/media/26AHLBZUC1n53ozi8/giphy.gif

It's true, most people in this country will suffer zero ill effects from climate change.

Of course this "this never happened to you" attitude really needs to be applied to SJW's, tired of seeing whites whine about racism.

If global warming keeps progressing, then everyone on the planet will suffer ill effects.

Originally posted by Surtur
Good, people can stop caring about climate change then.

Savage ownage

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
If global warming keeps progressing, then everyone on the planet will suffer ill effects.

That will effect the Grandkids and this is why Leftists don't have children anymore....SO LETS HAVE A POLLUTE THE PLANET PARTY CAUSE WE JUST DON'T CARE!!!! WWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-03/13/14/enhanced/webdr05/anigif_enhanced-2299-1426273174-20.gif

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
If global warming keeps progressing, then everyone on the planet will suffer ill effects.

Not in our lifetime though. So you're safe bro, unless we really really just purposely tried to destroy the environment...you won't suffer from climate change.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not in our lifetime though. So you're safe bro, unless we really really just purposely tried to destroy the environment...you won't suffer from climate change.
I already kind of suffered from it, the summers over the last 15 years have become noticeably hotter to the point I had to install AC.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I already kind of suffered from it, the summers over the last 15 years have become noticeably hotter to the point I had to install AC.

Lol, well I guess you got me there. AC ain't cheap.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I already kind of suffered from it, the summers over the last 15 years have become noticeably hotter to the point I had to install AC.

That aint climate change. It is just You getting to be an Old Fart.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
That aint climate change. It is just You getting to be an Old Fart.
Well, that hits uncomfortably close to home.

Sometimes the truth hurts.. Now go sit in the shade and enjoy a nice Cole Ice Tea. We will come get you when its time for your pill and bed time Old Timer.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Sometimes the truth hurts.. Now go sit in the shade and enjoy a nice Cole Ice Tea. We will come get you when its time for your pill and bed time Old Timer.
Will you change my adult diapers, too? Cause all that iced tea made me piss my pants. No, but seriously, as people age, they begin to feel cold all the time so the heat bothers them a lot less.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Will you change my adult diapers, too? Cause all that iced tea made me piss my pants. No, but seriously, as people age, they begin to feel cold all the time so the heat bothers them a lot less.

What? My grammies and grandpa were always going on about AC and how they loved it. It's almost as if aging made them more vulnerable to heat.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Will you change my adult diapers, too? Cause all that iced tea made me piss my pants. No, but seriously, as people age, they begin to feel cold all the time so the heat bothers them a lot less.
This is why we leave you outside under the tree. We can just spray you off with the garden hose. Which is a plus for you seeing as how you are always so hot. That water is good and COLD!
Originally posted by Surtur
What? My grammies and grandpa were always going on about AC and how they loved it. It's almost as if aging made them more vulnerable to heat.
The old folks I know are just the opposite. They are thin skinned and always cold. The Gonna move to Arizona type.

Jordan Peterson utterly destroys smug politician on pronouns

ODHQq_zuZ_w

A shorter part of a clip posted, I like this part and seeing him slap down people who have no clue what they are talking about.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I wonder why the idea of giving human rights to trans people is "ridiculous" to you then. mmm

And it's not, turns out to nobody's surprise DMB in his trigger-happy ignorance has misconstrued the law entirely.

FYI:
For those compelled to speak and act in truth, however unpopular, truth is included in those defences. Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most "extreme manifestations" with the intention of promoting the "level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection" that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups.

Those concerned that they could be criminalized for their repugnant or offensive ideas fail to understand a crucial distinction in the law. As the Supreme Court of Canada has explained:
This law is not criminalising free speech, and it is not criminalising hurting people's feelings, but giving trans people the same human rights as everybody else.

And if you prefer facts to silly narratives I suggesting reading that statement in full.




And who decides what's extreme? It's open to interpretation, and therefore can err on the side of criminalizing free speech.

We see it happen all the time.

Exactly, this is the problem. Extreme speech...hate speech, etc. is different depending on the person. So we run into a problem because some of these folk consider talking about facts to be hate speech or extreme speech. This doesn't just happen with trans issues either.

So I'm genuinely curious as to who decides what is or is not extreme? On what merits do we even choose who is in charge of deciding if this is extreme speech?

Leftist Extremist get to decide what is Extreme. Because They Know EXTREME! Like it was the 90's all over again!

Support. Our country could use more protective bills like this. Hell, it is still legal to spank children in Canada.

Originally posted by The Lost
Support. Our country could use more protective bills like this. Hell, it is still legal to spank children in Canada.
There's a difference between speech and physical violence. Words are not violence, they are words.

Laws mean nothing without the instruments and infrastructure to enforce it. Only Ontario if I recall has a full body Kangaroo Court in place to enforce this ruling in non Federal spheres. Most provinces do not have a full blown human rights commission like Ontario where you can make claims for all type of bogus shit if you are one of the "protected groups". Where this will hit people the hardest are those who work in public facing Government roles whom only need one tweaked out Tranny to ruin their working career.

What now gets interesting is the medical field. I look forward to all the converted Tinas into Tim who end up in ER and demand to be treated as Man and get a male's dose of anesthetics. When the liver is recoil and the heart is about to blow up they will get a start reality of how nature has no time or patience for what you feel about your biology.

Not Canadian so not my place to weigh in on, beside of course the reminder to remember who gets to determine what constitutes hate speech...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.