WTF is going in in France Svarty?

[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.

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.

Well fuck.

Can't you leave me with just a LITTLE outrage? Scots are NOT a protected group, as far as I understand, it's still fine to heap satire on them.

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?

There are a lot of decisions available for perusal. They don't always tell the story.

Look into the NWT decisions, and you will see one name 'Portman' come up as complaintant frequently. Is this Portman person a grievance-specialist who is exploiting the system? Or a systematically oppressed person? (the answer isn't there, or otherwise available to you...the question is important)

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?

I said that I didn't find any, and that I thought it was good news.

Belabour the point all you want though...I'm still convinced it is dangerous and unjust. The Rick Mehta case (the only example I can find of the 'chilling effect' of these laws making it out into the open) shows what happens the odd time when someone doesn't toe the line.

He was a tenured professer at Acadia, fired for speaking out. The university claims it was for a privacy breach, but refuses to hand over their documentns...oh, and the 'breach' was only a problem after an investigation into his 'problematic speech' was started upon the complaints of anonymous students.

Those problematic speech items were never defined, either.

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

Yup, which I admitted i didn't find.

I wonder though, how many people in Rick Mehta's position simply shut up when threatened, rather than going public and losing their livelihood...?

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.

When they can go after your employer for your comments, do you think that makes the employer (sometimes a university) act as informal enforcement, while never showing up in any stats?

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.

I consider 'protection of gender expression' this way - if I express a gender, it is when I use 'he' (for you) or 'she' (for my dog). If I choose to express satire by reversing your genders, for my amusement, then that is also protected.
To me, what pronoun you use is your 'gender expression', and what you wear is simply your fashion.

I doubt it would fly when pitted against a crying trannie, but with the new laws, most adults simply stay away from them whenever we can.

Knowing the pitfalls, my guess is that people will be more likely to avoid encounters with trans-anythings, in order to avoid being found afoul of this new law. Nothing to do with reality, as you pointed out, but instead to do with what people think the law means.

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!"

I'm frustrated because the examples don't matter NEARLY as much as the chilling effect I described.

For example, there is a law forbidding the use of 5 of the 7 words in my signature. What do you suppose the odds are that most folks would just avoid all 7, instead of bothering to figure out which 5 are verboten?

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

It's not the overt prosecution that is the largest effect. Have you looked into the Rick Mehta case? I know the CBC shared their perspective, but I have listened to his, and to some of his colleagues. The man is not allowed to speak about issues within his specialty, in a tenured position at a University. Isn't that a bit alarming? Shouldn't we wonder why it is that his words have been so obscured?

Or should we just allow media to label him, and accept that he is now not to be heard?

[Forty Two]

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?

There are a lot of decisions available for perusal. They don't always tell the story.

Then how do you know they involve prosecutions for mere speech?

Look into the NWT decisions, and you will see one name 'Portman' come up as complaintant frequently. Is this Portman person a grievance-specialist who is exploiting the system? Or a systematically oppressed person? (the answer isn't there, or otherwise available to you...the question is important)

I don't know - but if her cases don't involve people being punished just for speech, then it's not really relevant, even if she is professional grievance person. The HRC can be total farce and at the same time not be prosecuting people for saying or writing things.

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?

I said that I didn't find any, and that I thought it was good news.

That is good news.

Belabour the point all you want though...I'm still convinced it is dangerous and unjust. The Rick Mehta case (the only example I can find of the 'chilling effect' of these laws making it out into the open) shows what happens the odd time when someone doesn't toe the line.

I'm not belabouring it - You said there were these types of cases -- you were asked for examples - there aren't any that you're aware of. That's the end of it. However, some of your responses above are non-responsive, because when asked for an example you give an answer concerning how sucky the HRC is or how dangerous it is.

I think Rick Mehta is more of university policy thing than a law thing. Both are important, of course, and the universities can have immense chilling effects on speech.

He was a tenured professer at Acadia, fired for speaking out. The university claims it was for a privacy breach, but refuses to hand over their documentns...oh, and the 'breach' was only a problem after an investigation into his 'problematic speech' was started upon the complaints of anonymous students.

Those problematic speech items were never defined, either.

Important issue, and relevant to free speech issues. But, I don't think it was an HRC issue.

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

Yup, which I admitted i didn't find.

I wonder though, how many people in Rick Mehta's position simply shut up when threatened, rather than going public and losing their livelihood...?

Most people just cave and keep quiet. IMO.

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.

When they can go after your employer for your comments, do you think that makes the employer (sometimes a university) act as informal enforcement, while never showing up in any stats?

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.

I consider 'protection of gender expression' this way - if I express a gender, it is when I use 'he' (for you) or 'she' (for my dog). If I choose to express satire by reversing your genders, for my amusement, then that is also protected.
To me, what pronoun you use is your 'gender expression', and what you wear is simply your fashion.

I doubt it would fly when pitted against a crying trannie, but with the new laws, most adults simply stay away from them whenever we can.

Knowing the pitfalls, my guess is that people will be more likely to avoid encounters with trans-anythings, in order to avoid being found afoul of this new law. Nothing to do with reality, as you pointed out, but instead to do with what people think the law means.

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!"

I'm frustrated because the examples don't matter NEARLY as much as the chilling effect I described.

The chilling effect is important - but chilling effect "of what?" -- i.e., they repealed Section 13, and there doesn't appear to be any hate speech exception to the Canadian Constitution now. That's good. I'm not sure which law you're saying "chills" free speech, but you said it was the HRC, which I think we can't say chills anything if they don't have a law to actually enforce.

I think the university rules can chill speech.

And, I think that things like Bill C-16 and all are designed to chill speech, and the Islam resolution, whatever number that is, too.

For example, there is a law forbidding the use of 5 of the 7 words in my signature. What do you suppose the odds are that most folks would just avoid all 7, instead of bothering to figure out which 5 are verboten?

I don't know - but you're talking to a free speech absolutist here, so I don't think any of the words should be forbidden.

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

It's not the overt prosecution that is the largest effect. Have you looked into the Rick Mehta case? I know the CBC shared their perspective, but I have listened to his, and to some of his colleagues. The man is not allowed to speak about issues within his specialty, in a tenured position at a University. Isn't that a bit alarming? Shouldn't we wonder why it is that his words have been so obscured?

Or should we just allow media to label him, and accept that he is now not to be heard?

Yes, it's alarming, but the big chill there seems to be from the university, not HRC. So - I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just being precise.

[Cunt]

However, some of your responses above are non-responsive, because when asked for an example you give an answer concerning how sucky the HRC is or how dangerous it is.

I think Rick Mehta is more of university policy thing than a law thing. Both are important, of course, and the universities can have immense chilling effects on speech.

The university enforces those policies so that the HRC doesn't have to.

Important issue, and relevant to free speech issues. But, I don't think it was an HRC issue.

Nope, their hands are sort of clean...

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.

The universities are volunteeer cops in this arena, and work hard so the HRC doesn't have to go to the trouble of a kangaroo court.

The chilling effect is important - but chilling effect "of what?" -- i.e., they repealed Section 13, and there doesn't appear to be any hate speech exception to the Canadian Constitution now. That's good. I'm not sure which law you're saying "chills" free speech, but you said it was the HRC, which I think we can't say chills anything if they don't have a law to actually enforce.

Here is one...they have 'chilled' criticism around indigenous issues...so one of the issues is residential schools.

I have some close connections from several sides of that issue, and understand fully that there are many facets.

Why do I not find more of them publicly discussed?

For example, there is a law forbidding the use of 5 of the 7 words in my signature. What do you suppose the odds are that most folks would just avoid all 7, instead of bothering to figure out which 5 are verboten?

I don't know - but you're talking to a free speech absolutist here, so I don't think any of the words should be forbidden.

Thanks, but I was asking you to weigh in on what you thought the odds were that most people would just avoid all 7 words (even though only 5 were verboten)

Yes, it's alarming, but the big chill there seems to be from the university, not HRC. So - I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just being precise.

The university relies on government funding. The same government which uses the HRC to enforce these laws. Do you think their clamping down on discussion is because they want everyone to shut up at school? Or do you think that, just maybe, their funding, even their operation, relies on their adherance to and enforcement of, HRC directives?

[Forty Two]

However, some of your responses above are non-responsive, because when asked for an example you give an answer concerning how sucky the HRC is or how dangerous it is.

I think Rick Mehta is more of university policy thing than a law thing. Both are important, of course, and the universities can have immense chilling effects on speech.

The university enforces those policies so that the HRC doesn't have to.

How so? is there a regulation or law that the HRC could enforce in the Mehta case, but doesn't?

Important issue, and relevant to free speech issues. But, I don't think it was an HRC issue.

Nope, their hands are sort of clean...

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.

The universities are volunteeer cops in this arena, and work hard so the HRC doesn't have to go to the trouble of a kangaroo court.

What law or regulation would the HRC enforce?

The chilling effect is important - but chilling effect "of what?" -- i.e., they repealed Section 13, and there doesn't appear to be any hate speech exception to the Canadian Constitution now. That's good. I'm not sure which law you're saying "chills" free speech, but you said it was the HRC, which I think we can't say chills anything if they don't have a law to actually enforce.

Here is one...they have 'chilled' criticism around indigenous issues...so one of the issues is residential schools.

I have some close connections from several sides of that issue, and understand fully that there are many facets.

Why do I not find more of them publicly discussed?

I don't know, but I'm happy to discuss any instance that actually happened.

For example, there is a law forbidding the use of 5 of the 7 words in my signature. What do you suppose the odds are that most folks would just avoid all 7, instead of bothering to figure out which 5 are verboten?

I don't know - but you're talking to a free speech absolutist here, so I don't think any of the words should be forbidden.

Thanks, but I was asking you to weigh in on what you thought the odds were that most people would just avoid all 7 words (even though only 5 were verboten)

I don't know. People usually avoid using shit, piss, cunt, fuck, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits in polite conversation, even though there is no law forbidding it here in the US. There's some regulation for TV and radio, and it does chill speech.

Yes, it's alarming, but the big chill there seems to be from the university, not HRC. So - I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just being precise.

The university relies on government funding. The same government which uses the HRC to enforce these laws. Do you think their clamping down on discussion is because they want everyone to shut up at school? Or do you think that, just maybe, their funding, even their operation, relies on their adherance to and enforcement of, HRC directives?

Which laws? Citation needed.

[Cunt]

Which laws? Citation needed.

It's called (in the Ontario Human Rights site) vicarious liability.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-prevent ... -liability

Just a snippet...nothing chilling about this at all...

The “organic theory of corporate liability” may also apply. That is, an organization may be liable for acts of harassment carried out by its employees if it can be proven that management was aware of the harassment, or the harasser is part of the management or “directing mind” of the organization.[103]

Generally speaking, anybody with authority or significant responsibility for the guidance of others will be considered part of the “directing mind.”

Clear enough? I'm trying to limit what I put forward about this, but it is a subtle enforcement, since it takes place without the HRC documenting in, in large part.

If you ran a large business, and the workers thought it was funny to use the upside-down 'ok' symbol which, today, is associated with hatespeech, would you think you need to put an end to it? There haven't been any cases or decisions on it so far...what would your corporate decision be?

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

If you ran a large business, and the workers thought it was funny to use the upside-down 'ok' symbol which, today, is associated with hatespeech, would you think you need to put an end to it? There haven't been any cases or decisions on it so far...what would your corporate decision be?

The decision would be based on the same criteria as any other corporate decision, one totally divorced from ethics of any sort. The only thing that counts is the extent to which any given decision affects the bottom line of corporate profits.

[Cunt]

Cunt wrote:

If you ran a large business, and the workers thought it was funny to use the upside-down 'ok' symbol which, today, is associated with hatespeech, would you think you need to put an end to it? There haven't been any cases or decisions on it so far...what would your corporate decision be?

The decision would be based on the same criteria as any other corporate decision, one totally divorced from ethics of any sort. The only thing that counts is the extent to which any given decision affects the bottom line of corporate profits.

There is that chill...

I don't know how to get around it, either.

My guess is that we are seeing the beginning. People are having their income removed via de-platforming and some of them are scratching back. Thunderf00t has videos 'de-monitized' because the advertisers don't want to associate with his message. I hope a flip is coming, where guys like him (content creators, journalists, artists of all kinds) will hold their ADVERTISERS to higher standards. I would be disgusted if I found out that my photos were being used to sell some ideas, and have shit on one company in the past for doing so. Of course, that meant they will avoid anything with my name on it in the future, but I'm good with that. When an 'in demand' artist does it, it might make a difference, and certain companies will find it harder and harder to buy advertising.

Now that 'content creation' includes everything from Fox studios, to you with a shitty burner phone and an anonymous youtube account, I think that world is going to be shaken in unexpected ways.

As to your corporate decision, there isn't another way you could go. Boards bind corporations to certain actions. Human Rights legislation dictates will be followed, because of that bottom line.

So there won't be much need for enforcement of these speech laws. Just look at how conservative speakers are treated vs others, and you will even begin to suspect political bias has somehow crept in...

[DRSB]

No resolution in sight.
Macron effigy beheading. Interesting metaphors! I hope he had a nice Christmas.

[JimC]

No resolution in sight.
Macron effigy beheading. Interesting metaphors! I hope he had a nice Christmas.

Did they use a guillotine?

[Svartalf]

heck, I don't know, I guess they used a knife or axe, though a mock guillotine would have added cachet to the demonstration... What bothers me is that they may be going through a weak pass for the feast season, only to come back in force next year, and wehn they have major demonstrations on saturdays, the transportation on which I am dependent to go see my friends is perturbed into being useless...

[DRSB]

A new beginning? And a leader? Who is this guy Eric Drouet?

[Svartalf]

I don't really know, he's only the leader of a small group, and he may very well end up rejected and vilified by the community at large, at least that's what happened to would be representatives of the movement in early december... I'd say, from what little I've heard that the man is a manipulative cunt who engineered his own arrest to gather publicity, something that may not be received too well by many...

[DRSB]

Why are we seeing riots in France when there are plenty of reasons for riots in US?

[Sean Hayden]

Riots are stupid, but I guess if you think 'merikins is dumb you won't see it that way.

[Sean Hayden]

It's like most thieves. I feel bad for them. I think stealing today is good. (I know that's going to come back to haunt me, but I'm serious.)

But they absolutely should stop hurting their peers. It's hard though. How do you get at the wealthy, who don't give a shit about your country or your values and only participate in your government to keep their investments safe?

Well, you don't do it by hurting your fucking peers.