Canada defends women's rights; Saudi Arabia threatens 9/11-style attack

[Synobun]

Were you using Trump's psychiatrist? ^_^

I'm a stable-minded Jenius.

 

[Lexicus]

They already have a war going in Yemen, one they started. No need to actually advocate for one. The yemenis have been quite competent at giving them a bloody nose whenever they haven't used air force against a country that lacks one.
All that would be necessary to have the saudi assets in Yemen destroyed as I said was for the saudi's allies to cease replenishing their weapons and giving them intelligence. Because the saudis cannot either manufacture or repair the weapons they use. They'd lose the war soon enough. And guess which country is selling them the "intelligent" bombs, providing the targeting intelligence, refueling their planes and maintaining them. BTW, that targeting intelligence seems really fine for hitting markerts and busloads of children.

Oh, and that relates to the topic of this thread like so:

https://www.thestar.com/news/invest...tion-dwarfs-aid-sent-to-war-torn-country.html

When Global Affairs Canada announced another aid package to war-torn Yemen in January, it boasted that Ottawa had given a total of $65 million to help ease what the United Nations has called “the worst man-made humanitarian crisis of our time.”

What Justin Trudeau’s government did not mention in its news release is that since 2015, Canada has also approved more than $284 million in exports of Canadian weapons and military goods to the countries bombing Yemen.

So unfortunately I think the hope that this tweet will provoke an actual isolation of Saudi Arabia is probably a forlorn one.

 

[warpus]

Nobody is backing Canada yet, I don't think. Unless things have changed every single country with a statement has been behind Saudi Arabia or "Meh, who cares"

Aren't we all supposed to be for women's and equal rights here in the west? Or are we abandoning that project altogether?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Women's and Equal Rights < Oil

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well that's a funny post. It contains a thesis and then debunks it immediately in only three sentences.

Did somebody lock him up and nobody's mentioned it on the news?

No?

Then he's not a prisoner. He's free to think whatever reprehensible thoughts it pleases him to think.

As long as he doesn't violate the hate laws in Canada, he's free to express his thoughts, as well.

So he's not a "prisoner of conscience."

Nobody is backing Canada yet, I don't think. Unless things have changed every single country with a statement has been behind Saudi Arabia or "Meh, who cares"

Aren't we all supposed to be for women's and equal rights here in the west? Or are we abandoning that project altogether?

It's one of those things that make things interesting during election campaigns or are the catalyst for something the government wants to do to look good or crack down on, depending on the situation.

After all, Harper, when questioned about the progress made on the inquiry into the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (mostly in BC), he said, "To be honest, it's not high on my radar." That made it clear that Harper really couldn't care less about a bunch of native women who went missing either on the streets of Vancouver and Toronto (many later turned up dead), or who went missing on the Highway of Tears (some bodies were found later; the only woman who went missing along there who was seriously searched for was a white woman - a tree planter who foolishly decided to hitchhike, and disappeared).

I don't recall that this made it to Harper's radar during the election campaign in 2015 or not; I do recall that his lapdog Jason Kenney was determined to prevent a Muslim woman from wearing her niqab during her citizenship ceremony.

Justin Trudeau noticed this and crafted a policy of feminism and equality (not that I'm saying he didn't genuinely believe in these things before the election, but he really stepped it up during the campaign and after) that convinced a lot of voters to switch from the NDP.

It's a useful policy when it gets politicians what they want, but it's also easily dropped or at least modified when it's expedient to do so.

For instance, the federal cabinet isn't 50-50 anymore.

 

[Ryika]

Did somebody lock him up and nobody's mentioned it on the news?

No?

Then he's not a prisoner. He's free to think whatever reprehensible thoughts it pleases him to think.

As long as he doesn't violate the hate laws in Canada, he's free to express his thoughts, as well.

So he's not a "prisoner of conscience."

It's interesting how you don't see that as a contradiction. "As long he doesn't violate the hate laws in Canada, he's free to express his thoughts"... aka "As long as he doesn't say the things we don't want him to say, he's free to express his thoughts." That's literally what you're saying there.

I happen to agree with you that Peterson is not a "prisoner of conscience" (obviously not in the literal sense as he's not in jail, but also not in the "He can't say what he thinks because he has to fear consequences"-way as it is often used), but that's certainly not because of principles. The way I understand the current hate speech and anti-discrimination laws is that pronoun misuse is not actually a fineble offense. Many people disagree, including some minority-rights groups that have been very joyful about bill C-16, and then there's the Lindsay Shephert incident also included an accusation of violating C-16 purely on the basis that a student showed clips of Peterson making his case. While I think it is very unlikely that this would hold in court, in the end, we don't know for certain how a court would judge these cases - a precedent would be needed to end that debate once and for all.

But in any case, what is clear is that Canada is not opposed to suppressing minority view points on principle, and the "hate laws" that you so willingly cited as the exception as if that were a reasonable thing could easily be perverted to be used as a tool for censorship. The only difference here is scope.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The Saudi's are at it with that 9/11 stuff again?. They'd better change their tune or Canada will be left with no option but into invade Yemen.

 

[Chose]

Quick summary of the thread plot:

1.) Canada tweets about human right violations in Saudi Arabia.
2.) Saudi Arabia loses it's mind and places economic measures against Canada and tweets about that 9/11 stuff.
3.) Someone whatabouts Canada by referencing their arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
4.) Someone else whatabouts someone's whatabouting of Canada by referencing the US arms deal.
5.) Saudi Arabia whatabouts Canada with a bunch of fake news.
6.) Jordan B Peterson sucks and isn't very smart and might be a flat earther

A real classic in the works here guys, really strong showings all around. I think we just need a few references to socialism and nazis and then we should be able to wrap this one up.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Nobody is backing Canada yet, I don't think. Unless things have changed every single country with a statement has been behind Saudi Arabia or "Meh, who cares"
Aren't we all supposed to be for women's and equal rights here in the west? Or are we abandoning that project altogether?

Its post Trump era now
A few years ago Saudia Arabia treating 9-11 attack would have resulted in Republicans screaming for Mecca to be nuked into glass.

 

[Bootstoots]

You know what I want to see? A bunch of European countries plus Canada, Australia, et al. realizing that they can't rely on the US to support anything resembling "human rights", or even their own interests, and that countries interested in either one of these should act independently of the US. It doesn't mean they need to, or should, invade or launch airstrikes against anywhere - that almost always ends badly. But just stopping arms shipments to horrible and volatile places like Saudi Arabia would be a very nice start.

 

[Zelig]

Or like, asylum for any women who escape from the KSA.

 

[FriendlyFire]

You know what I want to see? A bunch of European countries plus Canada, Australia, et al. realizing that they can't rely on the US to support anything resembling "human rights", or even their own interests, and that countries interested in either one of these should act independently of the US. It doesn't mean they need to, or should, invade or launch airstrikes against anywhere - that almost always ends badly. But just stopping arms shipments to horrible and volatile places like Saudi Arabia would be a very nice start.

I dunno Boots this is Germany we are talking about here.
Trump just recently pressured Germany to rebuild its Panzer Divisions and expand its arm trade industries. Besides everyone knows the Germans are very thin skinned regarding anything that would smacks of World War 2 and they wont be taken seriously.

On the other hand though Germany is an economic super power and can use its soft power
I dont think it will work on the RIch Saudis and besides the EU have bigger (Ivan) fish to deal with right now

 

[Bootstoots]

I dunno Boots this is Germany we are talking about here.
Trump just recently pressured Germany to rebuild its Panzer Divisions and expand its arm trade industries. Besides everyone knows the Germans are very thin skinned regarding anything that would smacks of World War 2 and they wont be taken seriously.

On the other hand though Germany is an economic super power and can use its soft power
I dont think it will work on the RIch Saudis and besides the EU have bigger (Ivan) fish to deal with right now

Or they could just join us in not caring about human rights, or admit they're vassal states under the thumb of Murica whatever it decides to do. I know what I'd prefer they do - build some Panzers and start acting like they're at least somewhat independent of our arbitrary whims on military decisions like arming KSA - but if they want to admit that they're not even remotely independent of our empire alliance structure and subject to our whims, I wouldn't really blame them.

Perhaps the Yer-Peeins, given that they don't have oil (Norway excepted) or any other resources to speak of, don't believe they can handle such a change - for which I don't really blame them. But Canada? It has oil, plenty of other resources, and an ocean between it and the Saudis.

Come on, Justin, do the right thing - I dare you. Daddy's watching over you. He dares you too. Trump dares you as well, in his special oppositional way.

 

[Hrothbern]

Or like, asylum for any women who escape from the KSA.

who will complain here that their personnel is not working 24x7

 

[r16]

A few years ago Saudia Arabia treating 9-11 attack would have resulted in Republicans screaming for Mecca to be nuked into glass.

but would have done nothing as per the course . Might haqve been referenced already , but Trump is punishing Canada by letting Saudis talk Canadians down and doing nothing to help .

 

[Kyriakos]

You know what I want to see? A bunch of European countries plus Canada, Australia, et al. realizing that they can't rely on the US to support anything resembling "human rights", or even their own interests, and that countries interested in either one of these should act independently of the US. It doesn't mean they need to, or should, invade or launch airstrikes against anywhere - that almost always ends badly. But just stopping arms shipments to horrible and volatile places like Saudi Arabia would be a very nice start.

Only this isn't even allowing for such a discovery move yet, given Canada doesn't seem to be at all serious about human rights either, given it has no issue selling guns to Saudi to help it kill more people in its invasion of its neighbor. So Canada didn't overplay its hand, while meaning to actually do something positive; it overplayed its hand while bluffing in the first place.

It goes without saying that there are far worse (western) countries (regarding doing this) than Canada. US, UK, France, the list goes on and on.

 

[red_elk]

Perhaps the Yer-Peeins, given that they don't have oil (Norway excepted) or any other resources to speak of, don't believe they can handle such a change - for which I don't really blame them. But Canada? It has oil, plenty of other resources, and an ocean between it and the Saudis.

It's the opposite IMO. Europe in any case has to import oil, but they can diversify suppliers, including Middle East, Russia and the USA.
Canada is too close to the US to act fully independent, if it does something stupid you may bring freedom to them.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's interesting how you don't see that as a contradiction. "As long he doesn't violate the hate laws in Canada, he's free to express his thoughts"... aka "As long as he doesn't say the things we don't want him to say, he's free to express his thoughts." That's literally what you're saying there.

I happen to agree with you that Peterson is not a "prisoner of conscience" (obviously not in the literal sense as he's not in jail, but also not in the "He can't say what he thinks because he has to fear consequences"-way as it is often used), but that's certainly not because of principles. The way I understand the current hate speech and anti-discrimination laws is that pronoun misuse is not actually a fineble offense. Many people disagree, including some minority-rights groups that have been very joyful about bill C-16, and then there's the Lindsay Shephert incident also included an accusation of violating C-16 purely on the basis that a student showed clips of Peterson making his case. While I think it is very unlikely that this would hold in court, in the end, we don't know for certain how a court would judge these cases - a precedent would be needed to end that debate once and for all.

But in any case, what is clear is that Canada is not opposed to suppressing minority view points on principle, and the "hate laws" that you so willingly cited as the exception as if that were a reasonable thing could easily be perverted to be used as a tool for censorship. The only difference here is scope.

And here we go again... this "freedom of speech = freedom to say just any dumbfool thing, no matter how irresponsible or harmful" schtick. Would you get into trouble if you yelled "Fire!" in a crowded space if there's no fire? Would you expect to be noticed by security in an airport if you openly started yakking about bombs and hijacking? If so, then your speech isn't 100% free, either.

Canada has freedom of expression, but along with that comes the expectation that it won't be used in a harmful way. I don't understand why that's apparently such a difficult concept.

No, Peterson isn't violating hate speech laws by refusing to use special pronouns... as long as he doesn't start making public speeches advocating hate/harm to transgender people or any other minority, or engaging in Holocaust denial. But don't think that his speeches and writing isn't being scrutinized to see if he has been crossing that line.

Its post Trump era now
A few years ago Saudia Arabia treating 9-11 attack would have resulted in Republicans screaming for Mecca to be nuked into glass.

Back in 2004, I joined my first online forum and one of the people there made a post stating that Canada should be nuked because we supposedly let the 9/11 hijackers into the U.S. That poster was flabbergasted that I was angered by that and pointed out a few facts to him:

1. Canada was not responsible for the incompetence of the U.S. customs agents who let the hijackers into the country. That's on the Americans.

2. It was news to this guy that Canada took in thousands of stranded travelers - most of whom were American - when the U.S. closed its airspace.

3. Advocating nuking a country out of petty spite based on false accusations isn't the way to win friends.

But of course 12 years later, the U.S. president is someone who excels at petty spite and is sitting back and laughing at this situation.

 

[Ryika]

Canada has freedom of expression, but along with that comes the expectation that it won't be used in a harmful way. I don't understand why that's apparently such a difficult concept.

No, Peterson isn't violating hate speech laws by refusing to use special pronouns... as long as he doesn't start making public speeches advocating hate/harm to transgender people or any other minority, or engaging in Holocaust denial. But don't think that his speeches and writing isn't being scrutinized to see if he has been crossing that line.

Well again, the devil in the detail is what is considered to be "harmful". That's the problem with "hate speech" laws, it does not actually restrict free speech in any sensible way - such as preventing people from yelling fire in a theater certainly does - and instead it just puts restrictions on the opinions that you can utter. There are sensible parts, like, not being allowed to call for violence, but then there are also hate speech laws that are just emotion-based nonsense. Anti-holocaust-denial are certainly laws that are directly against free speech. Literally all they do is prevent people from saying things that could hurt the feelings to Jewish people.

In the same vain, refusing to use gender-specific pronouns is harmful to trans individuals according to many activist groups, so if the government were to come to an agreement with them, then advocating against the use of of gender-specific pronouns - be it very "out there" ones like xir and whatever else there is on Tumblr, or just refusing to call a M2F trans individual a "she" - could easily be considered hate speech.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Anti-holocaust-denial are certainly laws that are directly against free speech. Literally all they do is prevent people from saying things that could hurt the feelings to Jewish people.

Insisting that the mass murder of innocent people never happened goes way beyond "hurt feelings."

This conversation is not going to go anywhere productive, so you and I are finished.