Is the term "r*****k" offensive?

[Timsup2nothin]

"Hopefully die" should be "inevitably die," but that doesn't mean we will live to see it. On the 2010 census about 3% of the population identified as multi-racial. That means that some larger percentage are involved in or at least have been involved in a relationship across racial lines. Those people, on both sides, have families. It's harder to be a racist when your own family is "the other." All of those percentages are growing.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sorry its late here reading posts at 2 am is probably not a good habit

Yes the UK does have some silly hate speech laws - as does Canada and Australia.

We have hate speech laws for some very good reasons. We've seen what can happen when we don't have them.

 

[Giftless]

I sincerely doubt that will happen. It is just driving it underground where it will fester.

Just look at how many dog whistles are still being used in the Republican presidential campaign, much less in Congress. Trump has even clearly showed that a large segment of the Republican Party respond positively just by being direct.

Just look at how Muslims have been attacked since 9/11.

Racism and bigotry is alive and well in the US, as well as Western Europe.

It's impossible to stop people from grouping together according to racial lines as much as it is impossible for people to stop grouping according to national or ideologically ones. As long as individuals are robbed, attacked, or otherwise damaged by other groups it will continue. There is no way to take human beings away from being in direct competition with one another. I say that bigotry and racism is just a state of warfare operating at a more subdued level; it isn't just a case of crazy people who have no justification for their views.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean it is "impossible" for many whites to accept the fact there isn't any "state of warfare" with black Americans, and there never has been? That this obviously isn't some sort of racial "direct competition"?

No, I would say such views are completely unjustified based on the facts.

 

[bhavv]

We have hate speech laws for some very good reasons. We've seen what can happen when we don't have them.

Such as?

 

[Borachio]

Here's an example:

Not that I'm not an advocate of free-speech, of course. But there are some dilemmas involved with it.

 

[Tahuti]

Here's an example:

Not that I'm not an advocate of free-speech, of course. But there are some dilemmas involved with it.

Well, if the Guardian or the Daily Fail can be sold on the streets without repurcussions, the Völkischer Beobachter shouldn't that much of a problem in comparison.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Canada has hate speech laws so that if Adolf Hitler is reanimated he won't take over their country?

Are we going to need Canada to declare war on the US and much of the rest of the world, fail, then have another Great Depression, and then start a campaign to persecute Jews in Canada as well?

What does that say about the typical Canadian voter?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Canada has hate speech laws so that if Adolf Hitler is reanimated he won't take over their country?

Are we going to need Canada to declare war on the US and much of the rest of the world, fail, then have another Great Depression, and then start a campaign to persecute Jews in Canada as well?

What does that say about the typical Canadian voter?

Could you translate that into a bit more straightforward English, please?

Right now the "typical Canadian voter" is confused and uncertain. We have a prime minister who got in by dirty politics, cheating, and fraud last time, and unlike the U.S. with your impeachment rules, there's basically nothing we can do to get rid of a bad PM except either vote him out or shame him into resigning. Technically the Governor-General could do something about the rampant corruption that's been going on for years, but since the PM picks the GG, it's not likely that most of them will go against the PM's wishes.

We have a federal election coming in October, unless Harper decides to drop the writ sooner - or change his mind about October and wait until next year. Just because he said he wanted fixed election dates, that doesn't mean we're going to get them. From what I've seen these past several months, it's not necessarily a good thing to know when the election is scheduled. The attack ads and unofficial campaigns have been starting now, so the parties won't be constrained by official spending rules when the campaign officially gets going.

I can better respond to the rest of your post when you make it clearer what you were actually saying.

 

[onejayhawk]

Could you translate that into a bit more straightforward English, please?

Welcome to Formworld. The only thing that never needs unraveling is the vitriol.

J

 

[NovaKart]

I took it to mean that he thinks the rationale of hate speech laws to protect us from another Hitler is faulty because that's such an unlikely scenario and if it's true it shows us that the Canadian voter is too easily influenced by charismatic leaders.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I took it to mean that he thinks the rationale of hate speech laws to protect us from another Hitler is faulty because that's such an unlikely scenario and if it's true it shows us that the Canadian voter is too easily influenced by charismatic leaders.

Well, the only person we're in danger from right now is the one who's already the prime minister, and he is anything but charismatic.

Evidently Formaldehyde has not been paying attention to my posts over the past several years when I've explained some of the reasons why hate laws are actually beneficial.

Can they be perverted? Of course. But I'd rather live with them than without them. It's a way of ensuring a more civil society.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes, I get it that your personal opinion that the silly hate speech laws are "actually beneficial".

No, I obviously disagree.

 

[Berzerker]

Can they be perverted? Of course. But I'd rather live with them than without them. It's a way of ensuring a more civil society.

a more civil society by threatening violence against people for expressing the wrong opinions?

 

[Borachio]

Maybe a more civil society needs defined boundaries so that people are clear about which things are unacceptable to say.

 

[Berzerker]

all societies have boundaries, in ours slander/libel and threats cross them

hate speech laws are censorship

 

[Borachio]

So it's OK to express the opinion, for example, that "black" people are inferior to "white" people, then?

(Think very carefully before you answer. This is a mine-field, imo. Nah, ignore me. Go ahead. Feel free. Say whatever you like.)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

a more civil society by threatening violence against people for expressing the wrong opinions?

all societies have boundaries, in ours slander/libel and threats cross them

hate speech laws are censorship

You have some bizarre ideas of how things are here.

Did we string Jim Keegstra up for Holocaust denial and indoctrinating years' worth of high school students to hate Jews? No. Was his teaching license taken away and a fine imposed? Yes. He should have had jail time, but slithered out of that.

We don't even execute people who have committed the most heinous crimes and are undeniably guilty. So don't come with this 'threatening violence for wrong opinions' stuff. The only people who are at risk of that are those who happen to clash with power-tripping cops... seems your country has a problem with that as well.

 

[Berzerker]

So it's OK to express the opinion, for example, that "black" people are inferior to "white" people, then?

(Think very carefully before you answer. This is a mine-field, imo. Nah, ignore me. Go ahead. Feel free. Say whatever you like.)

Why does it need to be "OK"?

You have some bizarre ideas of how things are here.

Did we string Jim Keegstra up for Holocaust denial and indoctrinating years' worth of high school students to hate Jews? No. Was his teaching license taken away and a fine imposed? Yes. He should have had jail time, but slithered out of that.

We don't even execute people who have committed the most heinous crimes and are undeniably guilty. So don't come with this 'threatening violence for wrong opinions' stuff. The only people who are at risk of that are those who happen to clash with power-tripping cops... seems your country has a problem with that as well.

You wanted to put the guy in jail, thats threatening violence against someone for expressing the wrong opinion.

 

[onejayhawk]

I took it to mean that he thinks the rationale of hate speech laws to protect us from another Hitler is faulty because that's such an unlikely scenario and if it's true it shows us that the Canadian voter is too easily influenced by charismatic leaders.

In USA hate speech laws are directed at the KKK and similar groups. More recently, the anti-communist pogrom of the 1950s.

IMO it is a two edged weapon. For example, a pizza restaurant declined to accept business from a gay wedding. The outcry forced the business to close. Would the restaurant have cause to claim a hate crime? They were forced to close their business because of their religious practices.

J