WTF is going on in France Svarty?

[Forty Two]

"Homosexual subculture", what's that? White wine and Judy Garland movies?

The Academy Awards, men's "fashion" and Cosmopolitan Martinis.

If the subculture gets what it wants, then that stuff will be cool.

[laklak]

Show tunes. Can't have Gay Subculture without Show Tunes.

[Cunt]

That's another good example - but it's 11 years old. I think there was a major shift in Canadian law when Section 13 went away.

A private member's bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is known as the “hate speech provision,” passed the Senate this week and received Royal Assent. ... But critics of Section 13 said it enabled censorship on the Internet, and are calling its repeal a victory for free speech.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... rights-act

I may well be behind the times, but the HRC had earned such contempt from me, it would take a lot to make me think they were anything other than government fat to cut.

Maybe they have done something useful in the last few years, but policing speech, and possessing the ability to issue fines makes them less appealing than a drunken cop.

The last time I heard someone (fairly current) speak about them, they were a lawyer addressing Canadian Parliment about the power the HRC has over business, and how bill C-16 could lead to jail time.

I understand that pErvinalia demands links to current live-streaming cams of jailed hate-speakers, but this will have to do...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbqCHPB9jg

It's a lawyer laying out just how one can be jailed for refusing a lawful court order (such as are issued by the HRC)

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

...jailed for refusing a lawful court order...

The end times are here! Stalinism rules!

[Cunt]

Cunt wrote:

...jailed for refusing a lawful court order...

The end times are here! Stalinism rules!

Make jokes, but whatever you do, don't get caught joking about anyone from one of the protected classes, JimC.

It must feel great to have those areas protected from satire. Probably feels all warm and safe.

What would respectful satire look like, JimC? I hear that muslims are protected by your human rights act...what kind of satire can you post about them?

[JimC]

You do love to exaggerate, don't you...

Now, I'm not saying that government legislation or commissions on "hate speech" could not be potentially problematic. And yet, even 42 took you to task for simply not being able to show actual Canadian examples that would be a clear abuse of such powers, and a detriment to free speech, as long as we all realise that free speech is not utterly without limits. A sensible form of regulation would only target the most egregious examples of true hate speech ("death to the jews", for example), and would have enough oversight to prevent the line being drawn in such a way that would make your paranoia actual rather than fanciful.

And there is plenty of room for robust criticism of religions here - even though many of our most trenchant anti-muslim groups are racist at heart, whose real beef is with brown people rather than the very real failings of religion. They get into trouble wit the law via violent street protests, rather than their actual words...

[Cunt]

You do love to exaggerate, don't you...

Now, I'm not saying that government legislation or commissions on "hate speech" could not be potentially problematic. And yet, even 42 took you to task for simply not being able to show actual Canadian examples that would be a clear abuse of such powers, and a detriment to free speech, as long as we all realise that free speech is not utterly without limits. A sensible form of regulation would only target the most egregious examples of true hate speech ("death to the jews", for example), and would have enough oversight to prevent the line being drawn in such a way that would make your paranoia actual rather than fanciful.

It may be paranoia, but tell me, how many people who draw Mohammad are working in major communications companies in Canada?

In the US, where they have a committment to freedom of speech, they have held draw Mohommad contests if they want.

In Canada, the laws are so firmly entrenched, none of them dare republish even the newsworthy ones.

I don't remember reading any

And there is plenty of room for robust criticism of religions here - even though many of our most trenchant anti-muslim groups are racist at heart, whose real beef is with brown people rather than the very real failings of religion. They get into trouble wit the law via violent street protests, rather than their actual words...

Some folks (like that tool-bag Ben Affleck) accused Tommy Robinson of racism because of what he said about Muslims ('muslim' isn't a race)

You may yourself have done the same thing to Sam Harris. (or was it the other way around?)

I see that there aren't decisions yet (GOOD NEWS! Thank you again for disagreeing so patiently)

This article explains the problem, while still pretending it doesn't exist (with regards to c-16 - the gender addition to human rights law)
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jord ... 6-correct/

They insist that no-one can be jailed, because it isn't a criminal charge (short of actual hate speech).

They go on to add...

If Peterson was found to be in violation of the code, there are different possible remedies. He could be ordered to pay money, he could be ordered to correct the behaviour, he could be ordered to go to training, etc.

What do you suppose happens to a person who refuses to pay what the HRC says they should pay? Do they just forget about it?

Another gem, which won't show up in many stats...

The policy explains further: “Vicarious liability may make an employer responsible for discrimination arising from the acts of its employees or agents, done in the normal course, whether or not it had any knowledge of, participation in, or control over these actions.”

In other words, the University of Toronto could be held accountable for discriminatory actions committed by its employees.

So anyone who values their job, will have their employer pressuring them to toe the line as well.

Pretty effective. It is so effective that I almost never hear of even tenured professors pushing back. I mean, Rick Mehta got fired, but most folks would rather listen to CBC's interpretation of what happened, rather than look through it themselves.

I'm happy to report no-one is being jailed so far. You both have me there. Except maybe Tommy Robinson. (not in Canada)

[JimC]

So, to summarise your ramblings, no criminal charges have been laid by your feared witch hunt commission.

All that remains is right wing paranoia...

[Cunt]

So, to summarise your ramblings, no criminal charges have been laid by your feared witch hunt commission.

All that remains is right wing paranoia...

There have been some, when it elevates to 'hate speech', but the fines, 'vicarious liability' of employers and such have been enough.

[Cunt]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10604 ... -workplace

THE Scottish Government has banned the use of the term gingerbread men, with Holyrood renaming the treats ‘persons’ in a bid to reduce sexism - amid claims the gender specific traditional name caused offence.

[Hermit]

And there is plenty of room for robust criticism of religions here - even though many of our most trenchant anti-muslim groups are racist at heart, whose real beef is with brown people rather than the very real failings of religion. They get into trouble wit the law via violent street protests, rather than their actual words...

Some folks (like that tool-bag Ben Affleck) accused Tommy Robinson of racism because of what he said about Muslims ('muslim' isn't a race)

You seem to have missed the point contained in the phrase "whose real beef is with brown people rather than the very real failings of religion".

Judaism isn't a race either. That hasn't stopped racists from being racist, has it?

[Cunt]

You seem to have missed the point contained in the phrase "whose real beef is with brown people rather than the very real failings of religion".

When did Tommy Robinson say his real beef was with brown people, rather than the very real failings of religion?

I mean, unless you just made that up...I listened to him interviewed at length...his words don't match your accusations.

Of course, you might have been talking about Sam Harris...THAT guy might have a real beef with brown people...he publishes too much to keep up with.

[NineBerry]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alber ... r-boissoin

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rev.- ... iews-on-ho

[NineBerry]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10604 ... -workplace

THE Scottish Government has banned the use of the term gingerbread men, with Holyrood renaming the treats ‘persons’ in a bid to reduce sexism - amid claims the gender specific traditional name caused offence.

No. No one has banned anything. The Cafeteria in the Scottish parliament has decided to use the different name in their menus. That is all.

[Forty Two]

That's another good example - but it's 11 years old. I think there was a major shift in Canadian law when Section 13 went away.

A private member's bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is known as the “hate speech provision,” passed the Senate this week and received Royal Assent. ... But critics of Section 13 said it enabled censorship on the Internet, and are calling its repeal a victory for free speech.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... rights-act

I may well be behind the times, but the HRC had earned such contempt from me, it would take a lot to make me think they were anything other than government fat to cut.

That's obviously a different question. I don't know what the bulk of their work is in. Are they investigating workplace discrimination? That kind of thing?

Maybe they have done something useful in the last few years, but policing speech, and possessing the ability to issue fines makes them less appealing than a drunken cop.

i agree, if they are doing that. but if they issued fines because of what people said or wrote, wouldn't that be easy to find?

The last time I heard someone (fairly current) speak about them, they were a lawyer addressing Canadian Parliment about the power the HRC has over business, and how bill C-16 could lead to jail time.

I understand that pErvinalia demands links to current live-streaming cams of jailed hate-speakers, but this will have to do...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbqCHPB9jg

It's a lawyer laying out just how one can be jailed for refusing a lawful court order (such as are issued by the HRC)

I don't think that's a fair characterization of what pErvinalia said. I think it's fair to ask for examples.

Your video shows a fair exposition of the concept. Still, it's a fair question to ask if anyone has been issued any orders to comply in the way described in the video. Even if there weren't, the text and potentialities of any piece of legislation is relevant - we don't have to wait for an injustice to be concerned about the possible effects of a bad law. However, there still clearly is a difference between a potentiality and an actuality, and if nobody has actually been sanctioned or penalized, then that is different than if someone actually was sanctioned or penalized. Clearly, the actuality is worse than the potentiatlity. Both can be bad. But, clearly, if the cops are interpreting the law so as not to prohibit people from saying "I'm not going to use those pronouns" and nobody is getting sanctioned for refraining from using batshit pronouns, then one might reasonably conclude that the law as applied is not prohibiting that conduct.

There is some grey area here - but at bottom - it's fair for pErvinalia and others to ask for examples because you didn't just say that it was a potential application of the law. You said this was one of the functions of the HRC, and that it was actually doing this. That's how I read it, anyway -- when asked for an example, you responded sort of like "oh, come on!"

The HRC can suck ass, even if they haven't prosecuted anyone for mere speech in the last 5 years.