Free speech dies in Canada, Bill C-16 has passed the House of Commons (gender pronouns/hatespeech)

[Victorian Gray]

I, for one, am glad all you liberals are in support of opening up all these laws and criminally prosecuting all the speech which you find offensive and unwanted. Proud of you. You're doing the right thing supporting this...


I'm just going to land this gem right here for you to contemplate the possible consequences of your righteousness (or would that be lefteousness?):

Dude, stop embarrassing yourself. It's obvious that you have no idea what this law does or does not do.

 

[cubby1223]

Dude, stop embarrassing yourself. It's obvious that you have no idea what this law does or does not do.

Meh.

It's 100% appropriate to the responses present in the thread.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Meh.

It's 100% appropriate to the responses present in the thread.

Ignorance is bliss so I guess you're in nirvana. Keep up the good fight.

 

[agent00f]

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1157029
"“Today, I am very proud that Bill C-16 has passed the House of Commons. This Bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also proposes to amend the Criminal Code to add gender identity or expression to the definition of "identifiable group" for the purpose of the hate propaganda offences and to the list of aggravating circumstances for hate-crime sentencing."

As with all well meaning legislation in the past, the repercussions will result in repression. This is a country which has had a twitter trial, and has fined comedians tens of thousands of dollars over people being offended, but they don't learn.

Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin: Gender Pronouns and the Free Speech War (Full Interview)

from today
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO - BILL C-16 Debate

Wow, is this one ever for our tender SJW's.

I, for one, am glad all you liberals are in support of opening up all these laws and criminally prosecuting all the speech which you find offensive and unwanted. Proud of you. You're doing the right thing supporting this...


I'm just going to land this gem right here for you to contemplate the possible consequences of your righteousness (or would that be lefteousness?):

Found the people who write youtube comments.

 

[fskimospy]

I remember watching this talk on psychopaths (pro'lly a TED-X thing), and one of the main tells is when they accuse others of doing exactly what they are guilty of, and playing innocent all the while.

Of course, it could also just be eejit fuckwads that are upset over their concrete dodgeball being taken away.

I always enjoy how he repeatedly whines about how people are calling him names while he's calling everyone else names.

Not the sharpest knife, that one.

 

[brycejones]

Meh.

It's 100% appropriate to the responses present in the thread.

Willfully ignorant what a brilliant and insightful way to live.

 

[michal1980]

Should we be surprised to see 0rootard, Beta Max, and Mikhail on the wrong side of common sense and decency? Go back to Mother Russia comrades...

how stupid the people on the left have become. Isnt it very Russian to ban speech you don't like? But please keep telling us how good it is for liberals to define what you can and cannot say, its cute.

 

[michal1980]

As I posted above the majority in this matter support the measure. You're on the wrong side.

so when most supported slavery that made it cool?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just wondering how many American Dudes are in here all concerned about what Bill Canada passes?
Honestly I could care less, its Canada its their Country.

 

[Commodus]

how stupid the people on the left have become. Isnt it very Russian to ban speech you don't like? But please keep telling us how good it is for liberals to define what you can and cannot say, its cute.

You tell us, since the Russians helped get your boy Trump into office!

(Also, pro tip: the law doesn't ban disagreeable speech by itself, it's when it's used to discriminate in business or is intended to incite hate... that is, both illegal acts outside of speech. Nice try creating a straw man, though.)

 

[child of wonder]

The gender expression piece is the part I disagree with.

Who established these gender expressions? Why? What are the criteria for meeting one of these expressions? If none exists, can anyone arbitrarily choose an expression and cloak themselves in the protections this bill affords?

Hate crimes against things people can't control such as ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, etc. are perfectly reasonable but not against things people can choose like toppings on a pizza unless we can establish that these "gender expressions" are scientifically valid and not just willed into existence by a consensus on Tumblr.

 

[lopri]

^ It is explained in the bill regulation. Here is a link.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/identity-identite/about-apropos.html

Gender Expression
Gender expression is the way in which people publicly present their gender. It is the presentation of gender through such aspects as dress, hair, make-up, body language, and voice.

 

[Darwin333]

Ok, I listened to about half of that debate while I did a few things around the house and while I agree with protections to prevent discrimination against people I do think the psychologist had a good point about the court, which is evidently an extra-judicial court, that will be handling at least some of the law. Assuming that what he said was absolutely true, and I didn't hear anyone rebut him on it, that part would be just plain wrong. Any and all dealings with the courts should happen in the light of the day with full and normal protections and resources for the accused as well as accountability for the court itself and it's members. I'm sure very few people actually watched it and I probably wouldn't have either if I couldn't have listened to it in the background but he was talking about things as basic as being able to search your house without a valid warrant and no rules of evidence. The court can fine you and if you don't pay the fine hold you in contempt and therefore jail you, rules of evidence are a very basic and absolutely necessary requirement for any court system and I'd argue that a court system without rules of evidence goes against the very nature of a free society.

 

[Commodus]

The gender expression piece is the part I disagree with.

Who established these gender expressions? Why? What are the criteria for meeting one of these expressions? If none exists, can anyone arbitrarily choose an expression and cloak themselves in the protections this bill affords?

Hate crimes against things people can't control such as ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, etc. are perfectly reasonable but not against things people can choose like toppings on a pizza unless we can establish that these "gender expressions" are scientifically valid and not just willed into existence by a consensus on Tumblr.

Well, transgender is pretty safe. The concept of gender dysphoria is well-established and isn't something you control at all, let alone control on a whim.

As for others? It's more complicated, but I suspect any court case would have to consider that person's history, their testimony and the nature of the accusations. If someone says they're genderfluid, for example, did the perpetrator already know about it? Did anyone else? And just how did that discrimination come up? As it stands, some of these gender expressions are less likely to run into trouble simply because of their origins. You don't exactly see many hate groups urging discrimination against androgynous people.

The science is still being worked out, but my inclination right now is to believe that any reasonably sincere gender expression is valid. We know that sex and gender identity aren't always joined at the hip, so it stands to reason that there are people whose gender is somewhere between cis- and transgender. That and, as a general rule, I'd rather trust that someone knows their own sexuality instead of assuming that they're lying.

 

[Darwin333]

^ It is explained in the bill regulation. Here is a link.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/identity-identite/about-apropos.html

I just want to make it clear that I think that is perfectly reasonable, I just disagree with the court system that will be used to enforce parts of the bill or regulation or whatever it is, assuming what was said is true. I am admittedly ignorant of the Canadian court system and the supposedly extra-judicial court system that will be handling parts of it. So my opinion of said court system is based upon the assumption that what the speaker said was true.

 

[Darwin333]

As for others? It's more complicated, but I suspect any court case would have to consider that person's history, their testimony and the nature of the accusations. If someone says they're genderfluid, for example, did the perpetrator already know about it? Did anyone else? And just how did that discrimination come up? As it stands, some of these gender expressions are less likely to run into trouble simply because of their origins. You don't exactly see many hate groups urging discrimination against androgynous people.

What if you are the accused and you are not allowed to present any evidence whatsoever and the court, completely on it's own without any rules of evidence at all, decides what evidence it will consider? Now pretend that the court has a very obvious and perhaps even publicly stated agenda. Would you consider that fair or just?

 

[Commodus]

What if you are the accused and you are not allowed to present any evidence whatsoever and the court, completely on it's own without any rules of evidence at all, decides what evidence it will consider? Now pretend that the court has a very obvious and perhaps even publicly stated agenda. Would you consider that fair or just?

That's a potential issue with other subjects as well, and the truth is that we'll likely have to see what happens if/when there's a real-world case. Don't let the justice system off the hook, but also don't assume that people will be railroaded in the name of protecting gender expression freedoms.

 

[jackstar7]

The gender expression piece is the part I disagree with.

Who established these gender expressions? Why? What are the criteria for meeting one of these expressions? If none exists, can anyone arbitrarily choose an expression and cloak themselves in the protections this bill affords?

Hate crimes against things people can't control such as ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, etc. are perfectly reasonable but not against things people can choose like toppings on a pizza unless we can establish that these "gender expressions" are scientifically valid and not just willed into existence by a consensus on Tumblr.

Why? What is the threat as you see it to justify this position?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh no, we can no longer act like completely horrid cunts to women, transgenders and hermaphrodites! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the sexists!?

Edit: Relevant.

Stop being such a woman.

 

[MajinCry]

Stop being such a woman.

Stop stifling free speech. Why do you hate the constitution, Mr. Red Menace?

 

[Moonbeam]

I remember watching this talk on psychopaths (pro'lly a TED-X thing), and one of the main tells is when they accuse others of doing exactly what they are guilty of, and playing innocent all the while.

I would agree that it is especially obvious when psychopaths do it, but I believe is is true of all of us, that we project our unconscious feelings for ourselves on others and assume they feel that way about us. Sadly, this is why everywhere we look we see worthless people.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Stop being such a woman.

And that means?

 

[Darwin333]

That's a potential issue with other subjects as well, and the truth is that we'll likely have to see what happens if/when there's a real-world case. Don't let the justice system off the hook, but also don't assume that people will be railroaded in the name of protecting gender expression freedoms.

The court is already in place and there are already real world examples from what the speaker said, he even encouraged people to look online at their existing rules.

I have no problem with protecting gender expression freedoms and actually agree with it but I don't see why it can't be handled in a regular court instead of an extra-judicial court.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And that means?

Exactly.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Exactly.

I guess you're making a point of some kind so I'll leave you to it.