Bill C-16 in Canada: Good or Bad?

Started by Surtur3 pages
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.

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

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!!!!!

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
[b]That aint climate change. It is just You getting to be an Old Fart. [/B]

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
[b]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. [/B]

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.