RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada

RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 8:14:55 AM)
Really now - this is unexpected? For the sake of being taken care of by nanny people have surrendered the majority of their income. For political correctness people feel guilty for things they've never done often occurring in times and under conditions no longer existing. The feeling of self-loathing has them surrendering freedoms and liberties which, generations before, their ancestors fought. All under the guise of 'good intent' or 'for the children' rationalizations. When you turn over all responsibility to a 'nanny' you should expect nanny to make some rules you don't like. Most people don't even realize that its their money being used against them. Its similar to those who play the lawsuit lottery and then complain when the prices of goods and services rise or the cost of their personal insurance goes up. Taxes are your money. You would think that people would expect more - but unfortunately most respond to manipulating propaganda designed to perpetuate distraction away from the fundamentally same political agenda - first take away money, then take away freedom, and justify it by 'giving' access to services, most designed to continue the status quo. Some see a world where 'equality' means that everyone is suffering equally. We're getting close to achieving that goal. I remember when equality represented that everyone had an equal chance to succeed or fail. Somehow that's no longer politically correct. Political correctness means that failure is not an option whether in education or in life. The fact that that's become the goal is a crime. Most lessons are learned best by failure, and envy can be a motivating force to achieve and be successful; irrelevant to personal assets and/or wealth. When you turn over the responsibility to your life to any entity you should expect that entity to set rules and enforce them. When personal responsibility and accountability is 'socialized' there is going to be personal and civil liberties compromised. Same as anything else in life. Whoever pays the bill gets to dictate the venue, menu, and who sits where at the banquet. Canada, US, EU; the pervasiveness of 'western' culture self loathing and guilt is a sad phenomena to witness.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 8:53:31 AM)
That's part of the problem... Hate speech is only the first step in political correctness and loss of free speech because most people dont care when a racist or a homophobe is locked up. But it is practice by the government and establishes court precedent. So eventually political thinking becomes the next target. Governments do not voluntarily limit their own power. You give the government an inch and they will force a mile.

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 9:19:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Hate speech is only the first step in political correctness and loss of free speech because most people dont care when a racist or a homophobe is locked up. ...and is shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre exercising your free speech too? Free speech ends where other peoples rights begin. One of those rights ought to be to go about your business without someone saying you ought to have the shit beaten out of you. Free speech does not, in my opinion, trump all other rights.....and inciting someone else to commit a crime ought to be a crime in and of itself. As for the points about the CHRC, well all i can say is Guantanamo. If we're going to suggest that due process and even handed application of law is important, if we're going to say that proof of arrest is very nearly proof of guilt, then let's start somewhere where the penalty for being guilty is death, not mere imprisonment.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 9:26:03 AM)
I dont think any of these people being persecuted in Canada advocated violence of any kind. They simply maintained the belief that homosexuality is a sin against God. That's a religious belief. And the government in Canada thinks they will be able to change that by locking people up? The same thing is being tried in some European countries and it just isnt working. You cannot win a war of ideas through terrorism. Because that is what this is...

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 9:40:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I dont think any of these people being persecuted in Canada advocated violence of any kind. ...i've just spent a fruitless ten minutes trying to find the original text that got the Pastor into trouble. So i can't confirm or deny your above assertion. If you have such a link please post it. quote: They simply maintained the belief that homosexuality is a sin against God. That's a religious belief. ....as is female circumcision to some. As is a range of other even less savoury activities to others. A minority perhaps, but still offensive and illegal. Are you defending the position that religious belief trumps all other laws of a given country? quote: And the government in Canada thinks they will be able to change that by locking people up? The same thing is being tried in some European countries and it just isnt working. You cannot win a war of ideas through terrorism. Because that is what this is... .......er.......Guantanamo? By the standard you've just laid out how is it any different?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 9:46:49 AM)
quote: ....as is female circumcision to some. As is a range of other even less savoury activities to others. A minority perhaps, but still offensive and illegal. Are you defending the position that religious belief trumps all other laws of a given country? Articulating one's religious beliefs is not "trumping the law". Stating that the Christian Bible condemns homosexual activities is hardly comparable to the physical violence of female circumcision.

faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 9:51:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We better condemn Canada pretty quickly on this. Our own native gay bashers and gay beaters might be next. Sure...why not? Why not start in Vancouver and work your way east? oh no...start in halifax (where i lived for 4 wonderful experimental years) cause 75% of it is gay ..the other 25 is seniors though... then work way west...

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 9:51:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ....as is female circumcision to some. As is a range of other even less savoury activities to others. A minority perhaps, but still offensive and illegal. Are you defending the position that religious belief trumps all other laws of a given country? Articulating one's religious beliefs is not "trumping the law". Stating that the Christian Bible condemns homosexual activities is hardly comparable to the physical violence of female circumcision. ...surely depends on the predictable effect of articulating those beliefs? Back to the classical example, shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It's not the having to leave the theatre that the law takes exception to, it's the fact that in such situations people are put at risk of physical damage in the panicked rush to the exits. Without having the original text to pick apart (and i have looked, but no luck so far) we can't be precise.....however, gay-bashing is a real phenomenon. Giving such people a religious justification for such action is problematic, no?

OmegaG -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 9:55:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Hate speech is only the first step in political correctness and loss of free speech because most people dont care when a racist or a homophobe is locked up. ...and is shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre exercising your free speech too? Free speech ends where other peoples rights begin. One of those rights ought to be to go about your business without someone saying you ought to have the shit beaten out of you. Free speech does not, in my opinion, trump all other rights.....and inciting someone else to commit a crime ought to be a crime in and of itself. As for the points about the CHRC, well all i can say is Guantanamo. If we're going to suggest that due process and even handed application of law is important, if we're going to say that proof of arrest is very nearly proof of guilt, then let's start somewhere where the penalty for being guilty is death, not mere imprisonment. Yelling fire in a theater isn't free speech, it's inciting a riot and endangering lives. If you want your right to be on a website such as this and be able to openly discuss Guantanamo Bay (which don't feel I have an informed opinion on as our media is biased), you can't pick and choose what is open to persecution and what is offensive based only on your personal tastes. For some people homosexuality, devient sexual practices, whatever else, is a concern for them. There are some that truly believe that their own welfare is at stake if people are allowed to live beyond their morals. Sometimes the problem with preaching tollerance is that people can be just as intollerant as the ones they are fighting against.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:03:33 AM)
Yeah female circumcision can be considered violence. Nowhere does it say in any article about these pastors in Canada advocating killing homosexuals. They are simply, in the context of their church, interpreting the Bible for thier followers. Apparently the government feels a need to bust down the church's doors and force people to change their religious beliefs. And I will tell you that right now this has been tried countless times before and it doesnt work. You cannot force someone to change their beliefs. They will only grab on and hold those beliefs even stronger. The Soviets were infamous for this type of behavior and no matter what they did, there was always an underground of religious ideas that just would refuse to die. Even though it was illegal, people still clinged to their religion. And it is quite obvious that Canadians dont support freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It is becoming a secular-socialist state up there. Which is probably why so many flood into the United States.

kittinSol -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:14:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 And it is quite obvious that Canadians dont support freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It is becoming a secular-socialist state up there. Which is probably why so many flood into the United States. I have an idea: why don't you directly ask the few Canadian posters on these boards what they think, instead of speaking on their behalf? Perhaps they'll even agree with you.

faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:16:20 AM)
quote: Which is probably why so many flood into the United States. i certainly wouldnt. i would die in the usa. no medication, no health coverage(which i need desperately), no disability(i cant work) i'd be forced to live on the street (because getting on disability in usa is very very hard) where within a week i would have a heart attack. my pacemaker will be replaced this year...i wonder what that would cost me in the usa...few thousand? i am not religious ...i say live and let live...do what you want as long as you dont end up in jail. which is quite easy apparently in some places in the usa. do they still have that 3 strikes rule? or is that like only in california? i am happily living in canada...not in this particular house...but i still wouldnt live any place else...unless i some how become a millionaire through lottery...then i'd probly go to france or to sweden...you need alot of money to live in those places..but you live like queens and kings.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:18:22 AM)
quote: ...surely depends on the predictable effect of articulating those beliefs? Back to the classical example, shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It's not the having to leave the theatre that the law takes exception to, it's the fact that in such situations people are put at risk of physical damage in the panicked rush to the exits. Without having the original text to pick apart (and i have looked, but no luck so far) we can't be precise.....however, gay-bashing is a real phenomenon. Giving such people a religious justification for such action is problematic, no? No. Stating that homosexuality is a sin is not inciting to riot. It creates no clear and present danger, not even to the most expressive homosexual alive. Stating that Christian theology condemns homosexual activity does not create license for any to assault homosexuals--those who would seek justification for violence in mere articulation of religious belief are the ones who create a danger to everyone, religious, homosexual, and innocent bystander. There is a wide gulf between saying a group of people will burn in hell and saying that they should be therefore be burned at the stake.

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:25:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 There is a wide gulf between saying a group of people will burn in hell and saying that they should be therefore be burned at the stake. ..agreed, but we don't know exactly what we are discussing until we get a transcript of the original letter.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:26:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Hate speech is only the first step in political correctness and loss of free speech because most people dont care when a racist or a homophobe is locked up. ...and is shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre exercising your free speech too? Free speech ends where other peoples rights begin. One of those rights ought to be to go about your business without someone saying you ought to have the shit beaten out of you. Free speech does not, in my opinion, trump all other rights.....and inciting someone else to commit a crime ought to be a crime in and of itself. I believe that free speech should pretty much trump all other rights. The problem with the Canadian HRC and "politically correctness" is that it is really attempting to regulate thoughts, not actions. Free speech is predicated on freedom of thought. Once you make certain thoughts illegal, and punishable, the "right" to free speech is redundant. You can't "force" someone to believe a certain way. Just like there are certain people who are racist, attempting to force them to be otherwise results in just the opposite from what you intend: they become even more committed to their point of view, although they may hid it from public view. In a civil society, if a person is racist, but will rent an apartment to any qualified applicant, serve food in their restaurant, and refrain from assault and murder ... then they should be left in peace, as far as the government is concerned. Please use other societal methods to change their minds, as long as their actions comport with the law. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy As for the points about the CHRC, well all i can say is Guantanamo. If we're going to suggest that due process and even handed application of law is important, if we're going to say that proof of arrest is very nearly proof of guilt, then let's start somewhere where the penalty for being guilty is death, not mere imprisonment. Big difference, even if I accepted your view of Git-mo. The difference is that the people going before the HRC in Canada, are citizens of the nation which is holding the courts. Disregarding their "basic civil rights" in a government approved forum and manner makes it not only easy to start down the "slippery slope", but likely. Firm

Mercnbeth -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:34:44 AM)
quote: Once you make certain thoughts illegal... They already are laws on the books based upon the "thoughts" of perpetrator. They are called 'hate crimes'; and being accused of one is akin to being labeled racist as well as guilty. The 'Thought Police' already exist. Next step is renaming the criminal justice system the 'Ministry of Love'.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:42:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Once you make certain thoughts illegal... They already are laws on the books based upon the "thoughts" of perpetrator. They are called 'hate crimes'; and being accused of one is akin to being labeled racist as well as guilty. The 'Thought Police' already exist. Next step is renaming the criminal justice system the 'Ministry of Love'. I agree. Hate crimes are Orwellian by definition. Firm

cyberdude611 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:48:01 AM)
You may favor the government now when they go after hate mongers or people who hold religious beliefs different than yours. Like in this article I posted in the original post, the author says he contacted several journalists in Canada and asked why they dont cover the injustice of these court verdicts and the response is always, "I dont care about those people." But sooner or later, inevitably, the government will eventually come after you. Eventually a belief you hold will be considered a threat against society and you will end up in jail. The issue of homosexuality and catholicism is a side issue for the pawns to fight over. That issue is designed to distract you and the media away from what is really going on. The real core of this issue has to do with civil liberties and government control. The government doesnt want that part debated in the open forum. So they mask it by pitting homosexuals against the church and force the public to choose the side of the church or the government. I dont fall for it.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:49:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Once you make certain thoughts illegal... They already are laws on the books based upon the "thoughts" of perpetrator. They are called 'hate crimes'; and being accused of one is akin to being labeled racist as well as guilty. The 'Thought Police' already exist. Next step is renaming the criminal justice system the 'Ministry of Love'. I agree. Hate crimes are Orwellian by definition. Firm Yeah Firm, but how can you deny and argue their 'good intent'? The most effective way to insure continuing prejudice and racism is by legislating it. The result is pointed to the goal - maintaining the status quo by continuing the bickering and infighting between people who, without it, would realize that they have a common goal not being served by the political powers that be. It is akin to a magician' having a half naked assistant on stage; serving to distract the gaped mouthed naive audience from realizing how easily they are being fooled.

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 10:53:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I believe that free speech should pretty much trump all other rights. ......a clear declaration, thank you. though i'm not sure i share it. quote: The problem with the Canadian HRC and "politically correctness" is that it is really attempting to regulate thoughts, not actions. Free speech is predicated on freedom of thought. Once you make certain thoughts illegal, and punishable, the "right" to free speech is redundant. .....thoughts are not being prosecuted here, actions are. You appear to have made something of a leap. Now, whether or not the actions constitute something unsavoury we are not, right now, in a position to debate. i've tried to find the original text and failed. i appeal to anyone out there who can help in this regard to come forward...... quote: In a civil society, if a person is racist, but will rent an apartment to any qualified applicant, serve food in their restaurant, and refrain from assault and murder ... then they should be left in peace, as far as the government is concerned. Please use other societal methods to change their minds, as long as their actions comport with the law. .....here we totally agree. However to reiterate, it's not the private thoughts of this Pastor that have sparked the controversy. It's his actions. quote: The difference is that the people going before the HRC in Canada, are citizens of the nation which is holding the courts. Disregarding their "basic civil rights" in a government approved forum and manner makes it not only easy to start down the "slippery slope", but likely. ..again, an area where we disagree somewhat. Civil liberties can be the same as human rights, i'm less comfortable with only allowing citizens of a given country the right to exercise them. Take free speech, if i were to visit the US ought my free speech be curtailed in a manner not applied to US citizens?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125