I guess you're making a point of some kind so I'll leave you to it.
The point is this is a can of worms. Put this in the hands of people who think the First needs to be eliminated because it allows offensive speech (and yes there are more than one or two) and attempts to charge would swamp the courts. Here in the US this would hopefully be struck down because we do have the First. Offensive? OK I can see that? Criminal? Hell no.
The point is this is a can of worms. Put this in the hands of people who think the First needs to be eliminated because it allows offensive speech (and yes there are more than one or two) and attempts to charge would swamp the courts. Here in the US this would hopefully be struck down because we do have the First. Offensive? OK I can see that? Criminal? Hell no.
This is Canada. Different laws.
The difference here is this is no way changes existing Canadian law that has been in place for years. What the bill does is adds the same single phrase "gender identity or expression to two areas. Human Rights code, Which prevents federal institutions from discriminating against employees and to 2 ares of the Criminal Code which are already in place relating to Hate Speech and Hate Crimes. Hate Speech is not simply someone gets offended. It's the specific incitement of violence against protected groups.I get that and for Canada do as you please. I understand the intent of the bill, but in the US we have a Supreme Law and that is The Law of Unintended Consequences. Any such bill here would have to be expressly limited in very specific language what would be not permitted and the scope vanishingly small or else it would be used in ways not intended. Even then that would not block groups from trying and defending against spurious suits eventually dismissed would need to be addressed before passage.
This is Canada. Different laws.
We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is enshrined in our Constitution. This probably confuses the Americans quite a bit.I get that and for Canada do as you please. I understand the intent of the bill, but in the US we have a Supreme Law and that is The Law of Unintended Consequences. Any such bill here would have to be expressly limited in very specific language what would be not permitted and the scope vanishingly small or else it would be used in ways not intended. Even then that would not block groups from trying and defending against spurious suits eventually dismissed would need to be addressed before passage.
can you usa english that up a bit?Yeah that Marois is something else. She single handedly sank the PQ
the woman in the sparta meme is Pauline Marois, ex Premier of Quebec. PQ is the Parti Québéqois, French separatists.can you usa english that up a bit?
the woman in the sparta meme is Pauline Marois, ex Premier of Quebec. PQ is the Parti Québéqois, French separatists.
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.
I think nearly anyone can explain anything better than you ever could, from every possible angleThis professor explains everything in 20 minutes far better than I ever could, from top to bottom.
...and why it's a big deal.
HorHorHorHorHorHorHorrrrrrI think nearly anyone can explain anything better than you ever could, from every possible angle
HorHorHorHorHorHorHorrrrrr
Genius rebuttal.
Your opinion. Regardless, how about what the professor had to say on the bill and the problems we now face from it?Dude, you keep forgetting, you never have anything that's actually worth rebutting.
Your opinion. Regardless, how about what the professor had to say on the bill and the problems we now face from it?
That people like you now have the power to punish anyone you want, with the weapon of "hate speech".
In other words, no - you're not going to argue the subject only hurl insults.More froth needed.
In other words, no - you're not going to argue the subject only hurl insults.
Business as usual.
You (and your pals) keep repeating it, though it's always wrong.VICTIM!!!!!
well, it was a clear, coherent sentence. yours? not so much.HorHorHorHorHorHorHorrrrrr
Genius rebuttal.
You (and your pals) keep repeating it, though it's always wrong.
...so... how is it you say I am, or claim to be, a victim. Eh?
No weaseling out. Be specific. Just how am I victim, or claim to be one.Never read your own posts?