Canada's M-103

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by Forty Two » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:58 pm

I said that those legal resources and recourse were available. It's like saying that if a person is robbed they can call the police. That doesn't "imply" that theft can't happen.

There "can" be pay disparity, because any two individuals can possibly be paid differently for the same job. Violations of the law happen.

In the real world, women are not paid, statistically, 77 cents on the dollar that men are paid for the same job with the same qualifications and experience/seniority. If you want to talk about the real world, that's the real world. The notion that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the "same work" is factually unsupported, except if you compare unlike jobs to unlike jobs overall.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6326
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by Tyrannical » Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:10 pm

M103 is neither a machine gun nor grenade launcher. How lame
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:11 pm

m103 has just passed.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by Hermit » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:20 pm

Three days ago, actually.

Coito will love the result. Perfect excuse for yet another rant about the rise of "the left" and the destruction of freedom of speech. Maybe he'll even bless us with his attempt to be funny. Unfortunately he hasn't noticed that his brand of sarcasm has become a source of boredom rather than laughter a long time ago.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:31 pm

Hermit wrote:Three days ago, actually.
I was speaking in geological time scales.
Coito will love the result. Perfect excuse for yet another rant about the rise of "the left" and the destruction of freedom of speech.
Now that it's actually passed I'm going to keep an eye out for a more detailed analysis of what exactly it is and the issues involved. All the articles I've read so far have been simplistic right wing pieces, from which I've got a pretty negative view of it.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by Hermit » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:52 pm

M103 proposed some amendment to existing laws. I read up on that stuff a bit over a week ago and posted my opinion about the amendments here and here. My take on the issue was not so right wing.
Last edited by Hermit on Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:54 pm

I don't want to know what you Marxists think about it. I'm waiting for JimC to sum it up for me..
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by Hermit » Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:00 pm

Marxist? Moi? :lay:

I'm about as conservative as any cardigan wearing, gin swilling suburbanite pretending to be a centrist, I'll have you know! :cranky:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:04 pm

:hehe:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by JimC » Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:09 pm

:lol:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by JimC » Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:13 pm

I think it is one of those laws that will be heavily dependent on judicial interpretation in a given case. I take Hermit's point that there is no direct mention that refusal to use a preferred mode of address will entail a penalty, but ultimately, it will come down to an interpretation of the concept of discrimination.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by Forty Two » Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:50 pm

Hermit wrote:Three days ago, actually.

Coito will love the result. Perfect excuse for yet another rant about the rise of "the left" and the destruction of freedom of speech. Maybe he'll even bless us with his attempt to be funny. Unfortunately he hasn't noticed that his brand of sarcasm has become a source of boredom rather than laughter a long time ago.
Well, rant or no rant, does it not signify a rise of the anti-free speech left that such a measure would pass? I mean, other than pandering to an interest group here, what sort of nonsense is this? "Quell the rise of hatred and fear?" How? By shutting people up? Protect against comments against religions, especially mentioning that loathesome cult, Islam?

I mean, this is rather concerning. We're atheists, folks. 10 years ago and even 5 years ago on the various atheist and skeptic message boards, the idea of protecting religions from offense would have been laughed off and ridiculed. I am amazed at how many on the left -- and most atheists tend to lean left and call themselves "progressive" or "liberal" -- are willing to entertain the absurdity that is "anti-Islamophobia" measures.

I guess I can surmise it's the influence of the 20 somethings, who are coming out of college full to the brim with identity politics, microaggression, and class-struggle lingo whereby even as atheists who believe religion is bullshit, they are willing to be gagged from saying so because some fuckhead thinks their dogma is "sacred."

M-103 is a pile of shit in so many ways...
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by JimC » Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:05 pm

The problem with the various anti-Islamic movements is not that they provide reasoned and robust arguments about the serious issues that Islam generates (which is perfectly justified), but that the movements themselves are very frequently hot-beds of red-neck racism, with a veneer of "we're just criticising a religion".

The left responds to this, but inevitably gets drawn too far, to the point where criticising Islam for any reason becomes politically incorrect.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by Hermit » Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:34 pm

Forty Two wrote:Well, rant or no rant, does it not signify a rise of the anti-free speech left that such a measure would pass? I mean, other than pandering to an interest group here, what sort of nonsense is this? "Quell the rise of hatred and fear?" How? By shutting people up? Protect against comments against religions, especially mentioning that loathesome cult, Islam?
Let me remind you of the actual text of proposition m103 again. Please read it.

Text of the Motion

  • That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


OK, I am confident that you have read it attentively. This will now enable you to quote the bits therein that signify a rise of anti-free speech and the ones that protect against comments against religions. As for "the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear", I think the movers of the proposition quite rightly had "Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination" in mind. Although I don't see the need to mention islamophobia separately since 'religious discrimination' covers it quite adequately, I see nothing objectionable in the proposition.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Canada's M-103

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:13 am

JimC wrote:The problem with the various anti-Islamic movements is not that they provide reasoned and robust arguments about the serious issues that Islam generates (which is perfectly justified), but that the movements themselves are very frequently hot-beds of red-neck racism, with a veneer of "we're just criticising a religion".

The left responds to this, but inevitably gets drawn too far, to the point where criticising Islam for any reason becomes politically incorrect.
"Mohammed can suck my pig's nipples."

Now, that could be considered inflammatory, but whether it's deserving of legal sanction is another matter. It's certainly disrespectful to a particular historical figure, one intimately associated with a particular religion, but by disrespecting said historical figure am I threatening, harming or otherwise abusing those who hold this particular historical figure in high esteem? I'm not disavowing such individual's rights to freedom of religious practice, nor barring them from ordering their lives by the principles embodied by Mohammed and codified into this-or-that strand of Islam, or imposing any conditions on them of any sort.

The law might take a different view of course, but the imposition of legal sanctions for disrespecting the religious beliefs of others is a stupid idea and passes perilously close to reinstituting prohibitions against blasphemy that were, quite rightly in my view, done away with some time ago. If we are not prepared to similarly protect all kinds of personal, private beliefs, such as political views, or opinions about fashion, musical or dietary preferences etc, then one can only assume that certain beliefs, like religious beliefs, can legitimately fall into a special category - one which entitles people to expect to have these special kinds of beliefs protected from general and particular criticism, opprobrium, and/or ridicule.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests