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

[Ryika]

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

No, it's literally that - hurt feelings. The historical evidence is clear and one-sided enough that there's no possible way that holocaust denial could ever become a mainstream opinion. What other implications does it have? That people could develop a hatred for Jews if they came to the conclusion that the Holocaust never happened? Well, I'll tell you one thing: The very existence of laws against Holocaust denial is used as a tool by the far right to get people rallied up against the Jews - and probably more so than actual holocaust denial potentially could, because the narrative that the Jews are "in control" and that because of that such a law can even exist is so much easier to push than the narrative against the actual Holocaust.

Overall, the law achieves nothing good other than preventing holocaust survivors and their relatives from having to hear things that might be uncomfortable to them.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No, it's literally that - hurt feelings. The historical evidence is clear and one-sided enough that there's no possible way that holocaust denial could ever become a mainstream opinion. What other implications does it have? That people could develop a hatred for Jews if they came to the conclusion that the Holocaust never happened? Well, I'll tell you one thing: The very existence of laws against Holocaust denial is used as a tool by the far right to get people rallied up against the Jews - and probably more so than actual holocaust denial potentially could, because the narrative that the Jews are "in control" and that because of that such a law can even exist is so much easier to push than the narrative against the actual Holocaust.

Overall, the law achieves nothing good other than preventing holocaust survivors and their relatives from having to hear things that might be uncomfortable to them.

I've posted before about Jim Keegstra, a high school teacher who indoctrinated his social studies students in Holocaust denial and expecting them to parrot his disgusting, twisted version of history in their assignments and on exams. This went on for years, and by the time he was caught, tried, convicted, and lost his teaching license, he'd had ample time to screw with the minds of hundreds of kids.

As I said, this goes far beyond "hurt feelings." And do not try to "splain" this to me. I lived with someone who tried to indoctrinate me in this - my grandfather. I finally had enough one day and told him to stop trying to convince me to hate Jews.

I told him I did not want to hear it, and there was no "But---" that I would tolerate. And if he was so determined to hate Jews, he'd better give up watching every TV program that featured Jewish actors (he was a T.J. Hooker fan an William Shatner is Jewish), and leave my book collection alone, as a significant number of the books he liked to borrow were written by Jewish authors.

So he stopped spouting that <stuff> in my hearing, though I'm sure he never changed his mind. Actually, Keegstra decided to try politics as a career after his teaching license was revoked. My grandfather said, "I'm going to vote for him" - he was running for the Social Credit party, which is basically Conservative with added religion and bigotry. My grandfather was quite put out that my grandmother refused to go along with that and vote for a different party. He was even more put out when my dad and I also refused to vote for the bigot.

As for historical evidence being clear... you do realize that the U.S. has a problem where historical evidence is being dismissed by a "president" who doesn't accept such things unless they match his whim of the moment?

Just because something seems far-fetched, don't assume it can't happen.

 

[Ryika]

I though you're finished here? Well, anyway.

I've posted before about Jim Keegstra, a high school teacher who indoctrinated his social studies students in Holocaust denial and expecting them to parrot his disgusting, twisted version of history in their assignments and on exams. This went on for years, and by the time he was caught, tried, convicted, and lost his teaching license, he'd had ample time to screw with the minds of hundreds of kids.

In a Canada where Holocaust Denial is not illegal, he would still have been convicted for promoting hatred against Jews. If he were to not promote hatred against Jews but to argue that the Holocaust did not happen in class, then surely that would be grounds enough to remove him from his teaching position, even if that's not a criminal offense. And it should not be a criminal offense, because it's just an opinion. A stupid one at that, but not one that translates into hatred.

In either case, you don't need a law against holocaust denial to prevent this.

 

[Chose]

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.

You're just not granting that there is a real difference between a speech act and the mere expression of an opinion. The latter should be absolutely free.

Anyone can and most likely someone will get offended at anything. Just because it might seem far fetched doesn't mean it won't happen. When you embrace psychological harm as means to legislate hate speech then any and every utterance is a potential crime. That is a serious problem.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You're just not granting that there is a real difference between a speech act and the mere expression of an opinion. The latter should be absolutely free.

Anyone can and most likely someone will get offended at anything. Just because it might seem far fetched doesn't mean it won't happen. When you embrace psychological harm as means to legislate hate crimes then any and every utterance is a potential crime. That is a serious problem.

I am fully aware that there's a difference between having an opinion and articulating speech that violates the hate speech laws.

All you see is "Oh, noes, Canada hates free speech! Canada does thought control! "

What I see is a situation where people can articulate any disgusting thing they want - in private. But preaching hate/harm to minority groups in public is hate speech, whether you do it on a stage, in a park, in a letter to the editor, in a blog, or in a classroom.

Do not presume to "splain" this to me. I live in this country. You don't. I have lived with someone who preached this to me. You, as far as I know, haven't. I worked with someone who defended Keegstra - who preached hate to his students. You didn't.

Do not assume you know more about my life experiences than I do. You don't.

 

[Chose]

I am fully aware that there's a difference between having an opinion and articulating speech that violates the hate speech laws.

All you see is "Oh, noes, Canada hates free speech! Canada does thought control! "

What I see is a situation where people can articulate any disgusting thing they want - in private. But preaching hate/harm to minority groups in public is hate speech, whether you do it on a stage, in a park, in a letter to the editor, in a blog, or in a classroom.

Do not presume to "splain" this to me. I live in this country. You don't. I have lived with someone who preached this to me. You, as far as I know, haven't. I worked with someone who defended Keegstra - who preached hate to his students. You didn't.

Do not assume you know more about my life experiences than I do. You don't.

I'll try not to make any assumptions about you. It would be appreciated if you did the same for me.

I actually do live Vancouver, Canada and I've been a PR for 2.5 years. I don't think Canada does thought police, either. I get the sense this is a very important issue for you and I'm not trying to discredit any of your experiences.

I just have a different idea about what the government should be legislating, and how important it is and what it means to protect free speech. I'll respect your requests and not try to 'splain' my views on this topic to you, but given this is a forum I find it all a bit odd. You state your opinion, say its simple and accuse those who disagree as being unable to grasp the concept, and then tell those same people not to give you their opinion.

 

[Broken_Erika]

One of the reasons we have these laws is to prevent crap like this...(bigoted conspiracy theorists whose "free-speech" leads their audiences to harass and threaten people)

The conspiracy theorists falsely alleged that Gilmore was an agent of the so-called "deep state", who had planned the crash as a way of discrediting President Trump and his supporters. They claimed, again falsely, that he was in the pay of liberal financier George Soros.

The first sign that something was wrong was when Gilmore's sister called him on Sunday 13 August, to let him know that their parents had been 'doxxed' - their address was posted on far-right message boards, and threats were made against them.

With the help of local police, Gilmore tracked down his parents and made sure they were safe. But then, conspiracy-fuelled websites jumped on his story.

• What is doxxing?

"All of the hopes of this being a fringe issue disappeared when Infowars and all these big conspiracy theory-led media picked up on it and shared it out with all their followers," Gilmore says.

"I became a target, with emailed death threats, harassment, hacking attempts on my computer and a bizarre litany of allegations.

"I went through a hellish week of being targeted by these conspiracy theorists. I had friends I'd grown up with who were accusing me."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45142881

 

[Ryika]

these laws

Anti-Defamation laws are not Hate Speech Laws.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I would like to make a relevant post in a serious discussion for once but my brain seems incapable. How about this apple?*
*holds up grapefruit, looks around. proceeds to bash head into desk repeatedly.

 

[miaasma]

if i want to see how many people fundamentally do not understand what free speech is i visit an internet forum

Overall, the law achieves nothing good other than preventing holocaust survivors and their relatives from having to hear things that might be uncomfortable to them.

gasp

truly, something not worth implementing

 

[Ryika]

truly, something not worth implementing

I'm surprised that we agree on this!

 

[luiz]

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?

What has Canada actually done that merits being backed, though?

I mean, if Canada does something courageous, like imposing an arms embargo against KSA, or freezing the assets of Saudi govenrment people in Canada, or banning them for entering Canada, then I'd support it. But unless I missed something, what Canada did was the equivalent of a post on CFC complaining about something.

I really think this kind of thing is not only unhelpful as it is hypocritical. "Yeah we think you're super evil for the way you treat women, but we're happy to sell you some guns and welcome your investments in our country".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'll try not to make any assumptions about you. It would be appreciated if you did the same for me.

I actually do live Vancouver, Canada and I've been a PR for 2.5 years. I don't think Canada does thought police, either. I get the sense this is a very important issue for you and I'm not trying to discredit any of your experiences.

Then you might want to change your location. Given the tone of your post and the location under your avatar (USA), what other conclusion would you expect me to reach than that of you being an American and "explaining" my country to me as though I wasn't born here, didn't grow up here, didn't witness some of what I'm talking about, didn't work with some of the people involved, and so on?

What is a "PR"?

I just have a different idea about what the government should be legislating, and how important it is and what it means to protect free speech. I'll respect your requests and not try to 'splain' my views on this topic to you, but given this is a forum I find it all a bit odd. You state your opinion, say its simple and accuse those who disagree as being unable to grasp the concept, and then tell those same people not to give you their opinion.

I'm criticizing people who, after numerous posts, are still talking past mine. I am fed up with this "hate laws = thought control" nonsense.

And I never told people not to give their opinions. I told them not to treat me like I'm wrong about the experiences of my own life.

 

[red_elk]

What is a "PR"?

Permanent resident status, a Canadian "green card".

 

[Synobun]

I might need to move now that a fellow member of CFC likely lives 15-20 minutes away from me.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I might need to move now that a fellow member of CFC likely lives 15-20 minutes away from me.

Yeah, we should be spread out, one per province/territory.

I think we're going to run out of spaces, since there are more than 13 of us...

 

[Broken_Erika]

Southern Ontario is getting kinda cramped here!

 

[Bootstoots]

Yeah, we should be spread out, one per province/territory.

I think we're going to run out of spaces, since there are more than 13 of us...

Feel free to nominate any of your countrymen/women to be banished to Nunavut.

 

[Synobun]

Feel free to nominate any of your countrymen/women to be banished to Nunavut.

Iqaluit's looking nice these days.

I nominate @shadowplay.

 

[Chose]

Then you might want to change your location. Given the tone of your post and the location under your avatar (USA), what other conclusion would you expect me to reach than that of you being an American and "explaining" my country to me as though I wasn't born here, didn't grow up here, didn't witness some of what I'm talking about, didn't work with some of the people involved, and so on?

I tried to change my location awhile back, and it gave me some error about not having all the required fields entered, but it didn't tell me which ones were required, and since most of the fields were empty I just gave up. But you should have definitely noticed that my picture is from the top of grouse mountain and then connected the dots to realize that I fell in love with someone from Vancouver and left my entire life behind in America to be with her. It's all right there in the picture.

In all seriousness the conclusion that I'm American was warranted, the rest of what you said, I don't know still seems unfair and uncharitable to me.