Eating other ethnicities' foods = cultural appropriation?

[JimC]

42 = Chicken Little...

Sky's still up there...

[BarnettNewman]

Give it time. Just look at the laws they're passing in Canada these days.

Cite the laws, please. I mean the wording, not your interpretation of what they mean.

He won't be able to, except if he cites InfoWars, who get it wrong every time.

[Hermit]

Give it time. Just look at the laws they're passing in Canada these days.

Cite the laws, please. I mean the wording, not your interpretation of what they mean.

He won't be able to, except if he cites InfoWars, who get it wrong every time.

I don't mind if Forty two gets the wordings of the laws he has in mind from Infowars as long as they are quoted accurately. My concern is that he will not be content with letting the wordings speak for themselves and that I need his help to work out what they mean.

We've been through this discussion before, and I remain of the opinion that with the exception of the unnecessary mention of "Islamic" they are well formulated. Also fair and not just unobjectionable - they are desirable amendments to the relevant existing laws.

[pErvinalia]

I've never had a fish taco. It sounds yummy. I can probably get one here at some hipster establishment for $30 a taco.

You can get taco shells or tortillas, right? Easy to make.

Just slap a fish inside a taco? I don't think mine's going to be as nice as a culturally appropriated one.

[pErvinalia]

You should leave the cellar once in a while

[Forty Two]

Give it time. Just look at the laws they're passing in Canada these days.

Cite the laws, please. I mean the wording, not your interpretation of what they mean.

He won't be able to, except if he cites InfoWars, who get it wrong every time.

I don't mind if Forty two gets the wordings of the laws he has in mind from Infowars as long as they are quoted accurately. My concern is that he will not be content with letting the wordings speak for themselves and that I need his help to work out what they mean.

We've been through this discussion before, and I remain of the opinion that with the exception of the unnecessary mention of "Islamic" they are well formulated. Also fair and not just unobjectionable - they are desirable amendments to the relevant existing laws.

Well, so that's your view on it. Nobody said you weren't entitled to your value judgment. But, I think where we differ is in the interpretation of the bill and the related applicable provincial rules and civil rights department "guidance" doesn't make me wrong. You can feel free to disagree; however, I don't find them desirable at all.



It's in those details that Jordan Peterson was warned that his expressed refusal to use certain pronouns might well be illegal. We have been through all that before, and you're going to tell me you've "explained it to me before." Yes, you've explained your opinion. I disagree. You haven't proved a case -you've expressed a different value judgment. And, I don't agree that you can take C-16 in isolation, and likewise, the anti-Islamaphobia measure may seem non-threatening to you based on its own language (I disagree, as I read it as pernicious).

On another point is Canada's overbroad hate speech laws --

[BarnettNewman]

Oh, so you couldn't cite actual law. Shock.

[Hermit]

Oh, so you couldn't cite actual law. Shock.

Just like the inquisition.

And look how hysterical the RWNJs get about adding "gender identity and gender expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Apparently the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code kills free speech.

[Forty Two]

Oh, so you couldn't cite actual law. Shock.

Canada's hate speech law? Do you need the code number?

Bill c-16? https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

It's on it's way to passage. http://canadafreepress.com/article/cana ... mmon-sense

The islamaphobia motion? M-103 - http://www.dailywire.com/news/12957/war ... el-qazvini

[Forty Two]

Oh, so you couldn't cite actual law. Shock.

Just like the inquisition.

And look how hysterical the RWNJs get about adding "gender identity and gender expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Apparently the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code kills free speech.

It's not just RWNJs that are concerned about it.

Jordan Peterson explains it well. He's not right wing at all. I won't rehash it here. You aren't interested in it or you hand wave it away. Fine, you don't agree. Just don't pretend you've engaged in some kind of analysis. You haven't. All youve done is say the equivalent of "oh, come on!"

[Hermit]

Oh, so you couldn't cite actual law. Shock.

Canada's hate speech law? Do you need the code number?

Bill c-16? https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

Summary:
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Yup. I knew you would equate adding "gender identity and gender expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination with killing freedom as you know it. And there's no need to rehash what Jordan Peterson has to say. I listened to his spiel in the links you proffered in the
"Is the Spanish language offensive to trans people" thread. He is as not right wing at all as you. I quite intentionally expressed the previous sentence in a way we both can agree on to shortcircuit your tediously inevitable reply. Have a good night when it comes your way, and don't forget to pray to Ayn Rand that she will protect your freedom.

[BarnettNewman]

Oh, so you couldn't cite actual law. Shock.

Canada's hate speech law? Do you need the code number?

Bill c-16? https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

It's on it's way to passage. http://canadafreepress.com/article/cana ... mmon-sense

The islamaphobia motion? M-103 - http://www.dailywire.com/news/12957/war ... el-qazvini

To begin with, a motion is not a law. A motion is a statement adopted by parliament and that is about it. It forms zero basis for charges or legal action.

Glad you know Canadian law so well 42.

[BarnettNewman]

Peterson 's whole free speech argument rests on whether he is allowed to address someone as a Professor at a University with the pronoun of his choosing.

Just try calling a female judge in court "Sir" and see if you won't be held in contempt.

[Scot Dutchy]

We call the mrs here. In Dutch there is no other; meneer and mevrouw

[Forty Two]

Oh, so you couldn't cite actual law. Shock.

Canada's hate speech law? Do you need the code number?

Bill c-16? https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

Summary:
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Yup. I knew you would equate adding "gender identity and gender expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination with killing freedom as you know it. And there's no need to rehash what Jordan Peterson has to say. I listened to his spiel in the links you proffered in the
"Is the Spanish language offensive to trans people" thread. He is as not right wing at all as you. I quite intentionally expressed the previous sentence in a way we both can agree on to shortcircuit your tediously inevitable reply. Have a good night when it comes your way, and don't forget to pray to Ayn Rand that she will protect your freedom.

I'm neither right wing, nor an Ayn Rand devotee, but thanks for attacking the person and not the argument. If you think it is merely about "hate propaganda," you're mistaken. This is concept creep. Suddenly "I won't use your made up pronouns" is "hate propaganda." Even feminists are taking issue with it: http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/05/ ... atriarchy/