Canada's M-103

[Hermit]

The text purports to want to quell unreasonable hateful rhetoric directed at religious beliefs (most notably Islam). If that's all it was, then it would be only mildly offensive to my sensibilities.

No, it doesn't, but if it did I'd regard it as way more than mildly offensive. I don't not want to be charged with any offence for proclaiming what I really think about the Bible even if the catholic raised magistrate sentencing me regards my opinion as unreasonable.

[pErvinalia]

Well it all depends on how it is implemented. Australia's Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it illegal to "offend" someone on the basis of race. I haven't heard you up in arms about that one. Probably because it is implemented in a reasonable fashion with reasonable qualifications and virtually no one has been convicted under it.

[Forty Two]

Any law which criminalizes "offending" someone is a stupid law.

[Forty Two]

I can see the potential problem if this became law too, but from the text alone you are just engaging in hyperbole. The text purports to want to quell unreasonable hateful rhetoric directed at religious beliefs (most notably Islam). If that's all it was, then it would be only mildly offensive to my sensibilities.

Actually, it says it seeks to quell the "climate of fear and hate" and does not expressly state that it seeks to quell unreasonable hateful rhetoric directed at religious beliefs.

Further, it would be WORSE if it did talk about quelling rhetoric directed at religious beliefs. Religious beliefs should be open to criticism, ridicule and contempt just like any other set of beliefs. It's not our problem if some religious group thinks their religion is holy or sacrosanct. No religion is real. No religion is true. They are all insults to human dignity. Faith is the most overrated of the virtues. Religious dogma is a mind-forged manacle.

We must not let government "quell" our views on religion. If that hurts someone's feelings, so be it. I don't expect the government to silence religious people when they ridicule atheism. They sure as fuck are not deserving of protection from words either.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, we know "liberals" views on hate speech. Nothing new there. It's easy to be for largely unfettered free speech when you don't face discrimination daily. This is just the usual empathy deficit that conservatives are harnessed with. Most of you have an inability to understand what it would be like to be discriminated against almost constantly. And not to mention that as soon as someone even has the whiff of defaming a conservative they are straight to the courts whining like the man babies they are.

[Hermit]

Yes, we know "liberals" views on hate speech. Nothing new there. It's easy to be for largely unfettered free speech when you don't face discrimination daily. This is just the usual empathy deficit that conservatives are harnessed with. Most of you have an inability to understand what it would be like to be discriminated against almost constantly. And not to mention that as soon as someone even has the whiff of defaming a conservative they are straight to the courts whining like the man babies they are.

Is this supposed to be an argument in support of making statements like "Religions are the plagues of humanity and Islam is among the worst." a hate crime?

[Forty Two]

Yes, we know "liberals" views on hate speech. Nothing new there.

Oh, this issue concerns hate speech? Does it? Huh.... if it did, why would there need to be a motion. There is already a hate speech law in Canada.

And, we know the leftist views on speech in general. Nothing new there... that's for sure.

It's easy to be for largely unfettered free speech when you don't face discrimination daily.

Oh, well, discrimination is different than speech. If someone is discriminating against you in the provision of services, employment, etc., does that give a person or group the right to be free from criticism, particularly a religious group for their ideas? You're making some connection between Canadians discriminating against Muslims, and the right of Canadians to criticize, ridicule or mock Islam? If not, if that's not fair, then explain what the connection is between a group whose members face discrimination from time-to-time, and the right of people to criticize, ridicule or mock a religion.

This is just the usual empathy deficit that conservatives are harnessed with. Most of you have an inability to understand what it would be like to be discriminated against almost constantly. And not to mention that as soon as someone even has the whiff of defaming a conservative they are straight to the courts whining like the man babies they are.

Well, first, you'd have to show that Muslims - in Canada - are, in fact, discriminated against almost constantly. That would be step 1.

Step 2 you'd have to show examples of "conservatives" going to court whining about being defamed. Has that ever happened, once? Certainly not in the US -- in the US if a conservative brought suit suggesting that his conservatism has been defamed, or that that someone said something about him because he's a conservative, he would be laughed out of court. There has never been such a case, at least none that has ever come to trial. If any case like that was ever brought, I submit it would have been dismissed on the pleadings as failing to state a cause of action on which any relief could be granted. I submit also that no such case has ever succeeded in Canada and I doubt one was ever brought.

This "empathy deficit" is just your usual attempt to win arguments by either emotion or insult, and to virtue signal. It's not an argument. We should limit free speech as to certain groups because we empathize with them?

[Forty Two]

Yes, we know "liberals" views on hate speech. Nothing new there. It's easy to be for largely unfettered free speech when you don't face discrimination daily. This is just the usual empathy deficit that conservatives are harnessed with. Most of you have an inability to understand what it would be like to be discriminated against almost constantly. And not to mention that as soon as someone even has the whiff of defaming a conservative they are straight to the courts whining like the man babies they are.

Is this supposed to be an argument in support of making statements like "Religions are the plagues of humanity and Islam is among the worst." a hate crime?

Yes, because pErvin is so kind and compassionate, he understands that Canadians discriminate against Muslims almost constantly. So, it stands to reason that Canadians should not say bad things about Islam. It is his usual perfect, unassailable logic.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, we know "liberals" views on hate speech. Nothing new there. It's easy to be for largely unfettered free speech when you don't face discrimination daily. This is just the usual empathy deficit that conservatives are harnessed with. Most of you have an inability to understand what it would be like to be discriminated against almost constantly. And not to mention that as soon as someone even has the whiff of defaming a conservative they are straight to the courts whining like the man babies they are.

Is this supposed to be an argument in support of making statements like "Religions are the plagues of humanity and Islam is among the worst." a hate crime?

No.

[Forty Two]

So what's it an argument for?

[pErvinalia]

It's an argument about the hypocrisy and naivety of liberals, which I am suggesting is potentially tainting your view of this.

[Brian Peacock]

You can be offended if I call your religion stupid, false, dangerous, or irrelevant, but why should it bother you that I don't respect your personal choices? It's not like I don't think you have a right to believe any shit you want nor, by expressing my opinion, am I disavowing your right to a freedom of religion by my expression of my right to a freedom from religion. Storms and teacups come to mind. Be careful Canada.

[Forty Two]

It's an argument about the hypocrisy and naivety of liberals, which I am suggesting is potentially tainting your view of this.

It's a piss poor argument, then, because it shows zero hypocrisy, and zero naivete'.... didn't you also refer to conservatives being the ones who lacked empathy? I'll double check, but I thought that's what you said.

Edit - yes, here you said - "This is just the usual empathy deficit that conservatives are harnessed with."

So, the lack of empathy of conservatives, and the fact that you think Canadians discriminate against Muslims almost constantly, is an argument for the hypocrisy and naivete of liberals... and the hypocrisy and naivete of liberals relates to Canada's M-103 in a manner you have yet to explain...

[Forty Two]

You can be offended if I call your religion stupid, false, dangerous, or irrelevant, but why should it bother you that I don't respect your personal choices? It's not like I don't think you have a right to believe any shit you want nor, by expressing my opinion, am I disavowing your right to a freedom of religion by my expression of my right to a freedom from religion. Storms and teacups come to mind. Be careful Canada.

Well said, Brian.

I would add that it's the "empathy" allegation here that may well be part of the problem. There appears to be a movement among the left that believes they have some sort of kind empathy toward those they label "marginalized." In this case, Muslims. So, they say, they're so put upon - they're so oppressed -- we should have a special rule to protect them against bad things being said about their religion.

It's a very condescending position to take - that most people can have bad things said about their religions, and its fine, but the poor, downtrodden Muslims, they need protection from the ridicule and criticism of their faith. It's a kind of soft bigotry that the virtuous, empathetic leftist applies to say "there there - we'll protect you..." Meanwhile, the goal of factions on the Islamic side is to silence criticism to protect their movement. Win win for both sides. They virtue signalers get to show how kind and compassionate they are, and Islam gets placed on a pedestal, with nobody insulting their holy Prophet.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't disagree with the view that certain groups are marginalized in society, but the question is in what way and to what extent. Women are marginalized economically, as are disabled people. Paedophiles and white supremacists are marginalizes socially and legally. Idiots are marginalized educationally. Working to even out these disparities is not something that falls entirely on the left, nor is ignoring them and/or entrenching them something that falls entirely on the right; though generally the left are less reluctant than the right to address this issue. I can understand why many Muslims might feel under pressure these days, overly scrutinised, or even ill-thought of because of their faith, but for my own part what people believe is their own affair - what people say and do on the other hand is, and should be, open to scrutiny. Nobody gets a free pass on that just because they belong to an un-marginalized group any more than if they belong to a marginalized one.