Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Quick Poll Here (That will lead to a debate)

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:15:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I'm an american by birth, but for the majority of my life I've lived in Canada, in which hate speech is in fact illegal.

The thing is, or at least the rationale is that freedom of speech is absolutely fine, but it becomes counter-intuitive when that speech violates the freedom of each persons right to peace (security) and causes a disturbance in the social fabric of our country.

Thing is about the US is hate speech actually is illegal. You just don't call it "hate speech" you call it "fighting words"

Now say what you will about our elitist ideology, but it justified us not allowing the WBC into our country! And if they did get in, it was made very clear here that we couldn't guarantee their safety....
Thank you for voting!
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:32:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 3:15:14 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I'm an american by birth, but for the majority of my life I've lived in Canada, in which hate speech is in fact illegal.

The thing is, or at least the rationale is that freedom of speech is absolutely fine, but it becomes counter-intuitive when that speech violates the freedom of each persons right to peace (security) and causes a disturbance in the social fabric of our country.

Thing is about the US is hate speech actually is illegal. You just don't call it "hate speech" you call it "fighting words"

Now say what you will about our elitist ideology, but it justified us not allowing the WBC into our country! And if they did get in, it was made very clear here that we couldn't guarantee their safety....

The point is, different people consider different things hateful. As long as there is a government, every law and every bill and every idea will be injected with some sort of moral doctrine. So would banning hate speech, I guarantee it, also most definitions the government give on such issues are broad and allow them to expand their idea of hate speech (and contract it, although I doubt they would) at their convenience.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:43:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

The real question, is where to draw the line.
Hate speech in and of itself is not the main problem, it's the fact that it often leads to actions. The question is what types of hate speech lead to actions.
Imagine that your a minority in the area, and hate speech about your group started flowing, with, individual incidents, speeches, rallies, protests, etc. You wouldn't feel too free.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:49:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 3:43:03 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

The real question, is where to draw the line.
Hate speech in and of itself is not the main problem, it's the fact that it often leads to actions. The question is what types of hate speech lead to actions.
Imagine that your a minority in the area, and hate speech about your group started flowing, with, individual incidents, speeches, rallies, protests, etc. You wouldn't feel too free.

Why wouldn't you feel free? You would still be free to make your own rallies and speeches against said hate speech. The laws of the US shouldn't be made to protect people from being offended. No speech should be banned, if someone takes action because another person said something they didn't like to them, the person who took action first should get in trouble, simple as that.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:50:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 3:43:03 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

The real question, is where to draw the line.
Hate speech in and of itself is not the main problem, it's the fact that it often leads to actions. The question is what types of hate speech lead to actions.
Imagine that your a minority in the area, and hate speech about your group started flowing, with, individual incidents, speeches, rallies, protests, etc. You wouldn't feel too free.

The point is, we should not take preventative measures that intimidate people from using free speech to it's fullest extent because there are hotheads who can't simply reply with words in response to words like rational people do.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 4:30:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think that "hate speech" should be banned. To me, the idea that freedom of speech is only ensured when it doesn't offend anyone is just ridiculous.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 4:35:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 4:30:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I don't think that "hate speech" should be banned. To me, the idea that freedom of speech is only ensured when it doesn't offend anyone is just ridiculous.

Agreed, different things offend different people, before you know it talking about anything controversial will be outlawed if we have this logic.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 4:45:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

Lady Royal may be the only one who publicly decried the harmful effect of hate speech. Many, however, keep their options private regarding the issue. As for me, I wouldn't advocate a ban because there is no universal definition of what constitutes the hate speech.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 5:37:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 3:32:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:14 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I'm an american by birth, but for the majority of my life I've lived in Canada, in which hate speech is in fact illegal.

The thing is, or at least the rationale is that freedom of speech is absolutely fine, but it becomes counter-intuitive when that speech violates the freedom of each persons right to peace (security) and causes a disturbance in the social fabric of our country.

Thing is about the US is hate speech actually is illegal. You just don't call it "hate speech" you call it "fighting words"

Now say what you will about our elitist ideology, but it justified us not allowing the WBC into our country! And if they did get in, it was made very clear here that we couldn't guarantee their safety....

The point is, different people consider different things hateful. As long as there is a government, every law and every bill and every idea will be injected with some sort of moral doctrine. So would banning hate speech, I guarantee it, also most definitions the government give on such issues are broad and allow them to expand their idea of hate speech (and contract it, although I doubt they would) at their convenience.

I was just giving you the theoretical side of it?

Besides, pragmatically, it's used differently, not a lot of people are jailed here for "hate speech" there are times, but only in extreme cases.

For instance, this article does a great job of defining hate speech in canada
http://www.cbc.ca...

And while different people consider different things hateful, were only talking about ...say calling someone the n-bomb. We universally know a priori it is hateful, but the person saying it is doing it deliberately to offend. That's asking for trouble.

Also our charter is very clear, and different from the US; it outright says all rights are not inalienable. We have whats called the "Oaks test" to determine when it is okay or not okay for the state to violate certain freedoms. So border crossing, it is reasonable for police to search the car without warrant. But not okay on a highway traffic stop unless they have reasonable suspicions to do so.

That's essentially how it works.
Thank you for voting!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 6:20:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What does it mean to be against hate speech? Like being against personally using it, advocating for changes in culture which would make use of it obsolete, or the ole let's get the gubment to make them stop hurting our feelings routine?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 6:46:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 4:35:15 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 4:30:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I don't think that "hate speech" should be banned. To me, the idea that freedom of speech is only ensured when it doesn't offend anyone is just ridiculous.

Agreed, different things offend different people, before you know it talking about anything controversial will be outlawed if we have this logic.

I agree. "Hate Speech" does not violate the rights of others, because it does not threaten their life, liberty, or property. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded room is not protected speech because it poses a threat to others' right to life.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 6:52:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 6:20:27 PM, Noumena wrote:
What does it mean to be against hate speech? Like being against personally using it, advocating for changes in culture which would make use of it obsolete, or the ole let's get the gubment to make them stop hurting our feelings routine?

There is nothing inherently wrong with words; it is the context of those words that determine if they are good or bad.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 6:55:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I see this as a good parallel on the military's ban on adultery.

Adultery is rarely if ever pursued as a charge in and of itself against soldiers. However, if a soldier was charged with domestic abuse and adultery came out, then that gives the military courts the authority to throw the book at him. Laws again adultery becomes useful in this sense.

Apply to hate speech, and it's something useful to emphasize that if it leads to criminal behavior, the consequences are severe.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 6:56:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*good parallel to

*laws against adultery
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:09:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are laws against hate speech here and they are such BS. The funny thing is, is it has been used against fairly mainstream stuff; for example, people aren't allowed air fairly mainstream religious views (such as people of other religions or homosexuals going to hell or ) in public, or a particularly awful example is when a guy just left a few anti-religious cartoons in an airport prayer room (thats the Jim Belushi of hate crimes).
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:35:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 5:37:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:32:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:14 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I'm an american by birth, but for the majority of my life I've lived in Canada, in which hate speech is in fact illegal.

The thing is, or at least the rationale is that freedom of speech is absolutely fine, but it becomes counter-intuitive when that speech violates the freedom of each persons right to peace (security) and causes a disturbance in the social fabric of our country.

Thing is about the US is hate speech actually is illegal. You just don't call it "hate speech" you call it "fighting words"

Now say what you will about our elitist ideology, but it justified us not allowing the WBC into our country! And if they did get in, it was made very clear here that we couldn't guarantee their safety....

The point is, different people consider different things hateful. As long as there is a government, every law and every bill and every idea will be injected with some sort of moral doctrine. So would banning hate speech, I guarantee it, also most definitions the government give on such issues are broad and allow them to expand their idea of hate speech (and contract it, although I doubt they would) at their convenience.

I was just giving you the theoretical side of it?

Besides, pragmatically, it's used differently, not a lot of people are jailed here for "hate speech" there are times, but only in extreme cases.

For instance, this article does a great job of defining hate speech in canada
http://www.cbc.ca...

And while different people consider different things hateful, were only talking about ...say calling someone the n-bomb. We universally know a priori it is hateful, but the person saying it is doing it deliberately to offend. That's asking for trouble.


Also our charter is very clear, and different from the US; it outright says all rights are not inalienable. We have whats called the "Oaks test" to determine when it is okay or not okay for the state to violate certain freedoms. So border crossing, it is reasonable for police to search the car without warrant. But not okay on a highway traffic stop unless they have reasonable suspicions to do so.

That's essentially how it works.

Even when I read that definition, it seems like Canada's restrictions on the government are virtually none. For example, who interprets what and what isn't a reasonable reason to search your car? Even the oakes test is not actually a test, because there if you can 'justify' your case, you can't be wrong necessarily. Also, blacks call each other the n-bomb all the time, isn't it reverse discrimination to get other races in trouble for doing it? If all rights are technically alienable, then Canada isn't even a constitutional monarchy, constitutions are meant to be edited unless something in the constitution is unconstitutional in itself (like the 3/5's compromise that was in the US constitution).
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:36:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 6:20:27 PM, Noumena wrote:
What does it mean to be against hate speech? Like being against personally using it, advocating for changes in culture which would make use of it obsolete, or the ole let's get the gubment to make them stop hurting our feelings routine?

Basically the last one, the question boils down to if you are morally OK with the government intervening on your personal speech.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:40:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 6:55:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I see this as a good parallel on the military's ban on adultery.

Adultery is rarely if ever pursued as a charge in and of itself against soldiers. However, if a soldier was charged with domestic abuse and adultery came out, then that gives the military courts the authority to throw the book at him. Laws again adultery becomes useful in this sense.

: Apply to hate speech, and it's something useful to emphasize that if it leads to criminal behavior, the consequences are severe.


That's not an extreme position to take by any sense of the word, but while we still have a government, I believe in strictly abiding by the constitution, no exceptions unless something within the constitution is unconstitutional. Without a firm, strong constitution a republic will almost always dissolve in to democracy which dissolves in to mob rule.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:44:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Personally, I love, love, love Hitchen's speech on hate speech:
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:17:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:23:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:44:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Personally, I love, love, love Hitchen's speech on hate speech:



Despite how busy I have been, I said I would take 4 minutes to see it and if I liked it would continue it, thanks for making my day. I am showing this to all my politically active friends at school now.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:25:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:35:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 5:37:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:32:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:14 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I'm an american by birth, but for the majority of my life I've lived in Canada, in which hate speech is in fact illegal.

The thing is, or at least the rationale is that freedom of speech is absolutely fine, but it becomes counter-intuitive when that speech violates the freedom of each persons right to peace (security) and causes a disturbance in the social fabric of our country.

Thing is about the US is hate speech actually is illegal. You just don't call it "hate speech" you call it "fighting words"

Now say what you will about our elitist ideology, but it justified us not allowing the WBC into our country! And if they did get in, it was made very clear here that we couldn't guarantee their safety....

The point is, different people consider different things hateful. As long as there is a government, every law and every bill and every idea will be injected with some sort of moral doctrine. So would banning hate speech, I guarantee it, also most definitions the government give on such issues are broad and allow them to expand their idea of hate speech (and contract it, although I doubt they would) at their convenience.

I was just giving you the theoretical side of it?

Besides, pragmatically, it's used differently, not a lot of people are jailed here for "hate speech" there are times, but only in extreme cases.

For instance, this article does a great job of defining hate speech in canada
http://www.cbc.ca...

And while different people consider different things hateful, were only talking about ...say calling someone the n-bomb. We universally know a priori it is hateful, but the person saying it is doing it deliberately to offend. That's asking for trouble.


Also our charter is very clear, and different from the US; it outright says all rights are not inalienable. We have whats called the "Oaks test" to determine when it is okay or not okay for the state to violate certain freedoms. So border crossing, it is reasonable for police to search the car without warrant. But not okay on a highway traffic stop unless they have reasonable suspicions to do so.

That's essentially how it works.

Even when I read that definition, it seems like Canada's restrictions on the government are virtually none. For example, who interprets what and what isn't a reasonable reason to search your car? Even the oakes test is not actually a test, because there if you can 'justify' your case, you can't be wrong necessarily. Also, blacks call each other the n-bomb all the time, isn't it reverse discrimination to get other races in trouble for doing it? If all rights are technically alienable, then Canada isn't even a constitutional monarchy, constitutions are meant to be edited unless something in the constitution is unconstitutional in itself (like the 3/5's compromise that was in the US constitution).

First of all, this really isn't different from the US; the state can violate rights anytime they wish, it's just a matter of justification in the judicial system. "When" it's okay/not okay (again US has the same stance on border crossings, they can search at will without justification and you just have to accept it)

Secondly what is reasonable? The judicial system. Here the justice system is actually quite popular. Probably because even though the Prime Minister appoints based on the advice from his Minister of Justice, they seem to demonstrate a non-partisan stance ever since 2000. Could be lots of reasons for this, but none the less, our system is similar to the US's, with a lot less partisanship. Abortions is one area, with liberals in control they asked if criminalization of abortions in Canada was constitutional, turns out it was not, and the state never contested it ever since. So the judicial system here has legitimacy

Finally, the US is the only country in the world ardently trying to keep their documents the same. Canada has a "living constitution" which is semi-written. It consists of bills still in Britain, the Charter, and previous court rulings. However nothing legally recognizes our Prime Minister, his legal authority simply does not exist here, but because the model of parliament we use is the same as the British and that tradition has been around for so long, we've naturally adopted it. So yeah, unlike the US which has the common misconception of rights being unalienable, and for whatever reason has taken a far more libertarian view of their constitution than what the Founding fathers wanted, Canadians are just more realistic about our rights. We know they can be taken away, just depends on the context of revoking them if we agree or not which determines our actions.

Finally concerning African-Americans, how stereotypical. Not all of them do that all the time. Furthermore, no it isn't reverse discrimination; that would imply that you can be racist against yourself ... yeah ...
Thank you for voting!
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:35:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:25:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:35:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 5:37:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:32:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:14 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I'm an american by birth, but for the majority of my life I've lived in Canada, in which hate speech is in fact illegal.

The thing is, or at least the rationale is that freedom of speech is absolutely fine, but it becomes counter-intuitive when that speech violates the freedom of each persons right to peace (security) and causes a disturbance in the social fabric of our country.

Thing is about the US is hate speech actually is illegal. You just don't call it "hate speech" you call it "fighting words"

Now say what you will about our elitist ideology, but it justified us not allowing the WBC into our country! And if they did get in, it was made very clear here that we couldn't guarantee their safety....

The point is, different people consider different things hateful. As long as there is a government, every law and every bill and every idea will be injected with some sort of moral doctrine. So would banning hate speech, I guarantee it, also most definitions the government give on such issues are broad and allow them to expand their idea of hate speech (and contract it, although I doubt they would) at their convenience.

I was just giving you the theoretical side of it?

Besides, pragmatically, it's used differently, not a lot of people are jailed here for "hate speech" there are times, but only in extreme cases.

For instance, this article does a great job of defining hate speech in canada
http://www.cbc.ca...

And while different people consider different things hateful, were only talking about ...say calling someone the n-bomb. We universally know a priori it is hateful, but the person saying it is doing it deliberately to offend. That's asking for trouble.


Also our charter is very clear, and different from the US; it outright says all rights are not inalienable. We have whats called the "Oaks test" to determine when it is okay or not okay for the state to violate certain freedoms. So border crossing, it is reasonable for police to search the car without warrant. But not okay on a highway traffic stop unless they have reasonable suspicions to do so.

That's essentially how it works.

Even when I read that definition, it seems like Canada's restrictions on the government are virtually none. For example, who interprets what and what isn't a reasonable reason to search your car? Even the oakes test is not actually a test, because there if you can 'justify' your case, you can't be wrong necessarily. Also, blacks call each other the n-bomb all the time, isn't it reverse discrimination to get other races in trouble for doing it? If all rights are technically alienable, then Canada isn't even a constitutional monarchy, constitutions are meant to be edited unless something in the constitution is unconstitutional in itself (like the 3/5's compromise that was in the US constitution).

First of all, this really isn't different from the US; the state can violate rights anytime they wish, it's just a matter of justification in the judicial system. "When" it's okay/not okay (again US has the same stance on border crossings, they can search at will without justification and you just have to accept it)

I am not disagreeing with you here, the system in the US is equally as flawed.

Secondly what is reasonable? The judicial system. Here the justice system is actually quite popular.

Popularity=/= Objectivity

Probably because even though the Prime Minister appoints based on the advice from his Minister of Justice, they seem to demonstrate a non-partisan stance ever since 2000. Could be lots of reasons for this, but none the less, our system is similar to the US's, with a lot less partisanship. Abortions is one area, with liberals in control they asked if criminalization of abortions in Canada was constitutional, turns out it was not, and the state never contested it ever since. So the judicial system here has legitimacy

Finally, the US is the only country in the world ardently trying to keep their documents the same. Canada has a "living constitution" which is semi-written. It consists of bills still in Britain, the Charter, and previous court rulings. However nothing legally recognizes our Prime Minister, his legal authority simply does not exist here, but because the model of parliament we use is the same as the British and that tradition has been around for so long, we've naturally adopted it. So yeah, unlike the US which has the common misconception of rights being unalienable, and for whatever reason has taken a far more libertarian view of their constitution than what the Founding fathers wanted, Canadians are just more realistic about our rights. We know they can be taken away, just depends on the context of revoking them if we agree or not which determines our actions.

You basically just outlined the ideology of a democrat vs. the ideology of a republican. Want a cookie? :P

You outlined an ideology, but did not really justify it.. What should rights be able to be infringed upon? If rights could be infringed upon with little red tape or limits wouldn't people's right's be changing every time the majority in the parliament shifted from one ideology to another? It seems to me that if there are not at least a few basic rights that everyone agrees should never, under any situation be infringed upon then morals will almost always be imposed upon people. That is what I have a problem with, morals in general are problematic and should hardly, if at all exist in government. The only laws there should be and the only duty the government should perform is to protect other people's right to life, liberty and property. (Pursuit of happiness is too open to subjectivity, so I commonly replace it with property).

Finally concerning African-Americans, how stereotypical. Not all of them do that all the time. Furthermore, no it isn't reverse discrimination; that would imply that you can be racist against yourself ... yeah ...

The point is that it is commonly accepted in black culture, you are speaking of a minority here, the majority of blacks have been completely de sensitized to the n-word when it is their own race saying it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:45:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:40:07 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 6:55:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I see this as a good parallel to the military's ban on adultery.

Adultery is rarely if ever pursued as a charge in and of itself against soldiers. However, if a soldier was charged with domestic abuse and adultery came out, then that gives the military courts the authority to throw the book at him. Laws against adultery becomes useful in this sense.

Apply to hate speech, and it's something useful to emphasize that if it leads to criminal behavior, the consequences are severe.

That's not an extreme position to take by any sense of the word, but while we still have a government, I believe in strictly abiding by the constitution, no exceptions unless something within the constitution is unconstitutional. Without a firm, strong constitution a republic will almost always dissolve in to democracy which dissolves in to mob rule.

The way I see it, if you want to go by a strict constitutionalist stance, it's important to remember that every significant part of the constitution is relative. Freedom of speech is relative...public nudity is illegal, slander/libel have strict restrictions on them, etc.

The right to bear arms is relative, private citizens cannot bear WMDs or Abrams tanks, etc...

Separation of powers is relative...during wartime or martial law, the executive can assume powers more resembling a monarch than a President, etc...

Through this logic, I wouldn't see anything wrong with "exceptions to the rule", although those exceptions better be exceptional. In this particular case, hate speech doesn't really forward society in any way...you could probably consider it to be a group-form of slander/libel, with exactly what constituted hate speech left to court discretion (and probably determined by impact like the adultery stuff I mentioned earlier). I wouldn't consider it a violation of free speech.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:23:28 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:44:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Personally, I love, love, love Hitchen's speech on hate speech:



Despite how busy I have been, I said I would take 4 minutes to see it and if I liked it would continue it, thanks for making my day. I am showing this to all my politically active friends at school now.

Yeah, whatever his flaws, Hitchens was without a doubt one of the greatest rhetoricians of my lifetime, and the man really hits the point home with his usual dazzling clarity and incisive wit.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:58:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:45:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:40:07 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 6:55:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I see this as a good parallel to the military's ban on adultery.

Adultery is rarely if ever pursued as a charge in and of itself against soldiers. However, if a soldier was charged with domestic abuse and adultery came out, then that gives the military courts the authority to throw the book at him. Laws against adultery becomes useful in this sense.

Apply to hate speech, and it's something useful to emphasize that if it leads to criminal behavior, the consequences are severe.

That's not an extreme position to take by any sense of the word, but while we still have a government, I believe in strictly abiding by the constitution, no exceptions unless something within the constitution is unconstitutional. Without a firm, strong constitution a republic will almost always dissolve in to democracy which dissolves in to mob rule.

The way I see it, if you want to go by a strict constitutionalist stance, it's important to remember that every significant part of the constitution is relative. Freedom of speech is relative...public nudity is illegal, slander/libel have strict restrictions on them, etc.

Slander/Libel is a slippery slope, won't go there. But I am actually fully for public nudity.

The right to bear arms is relative, private citizens cannot bear WMDs or Abrams tanks, etc...

You have the right to keep and bear arms, if the government makes it illegal to distribute or sell WMD's and Tanks it is still within the constitution.

Separation of powers is relative...during wartime or martial law, the executive can assume powers more resembling a monarch than a President, etc...

You are assuming I agree with an army that is even under federal control, I am not for a standing army, only state militias when we are being invaded on the home front.

Through this logic, I wouldn't see anything wrong with "exceptions to the rule", although those exceptions better be exceptional. In this particular case, hate speech doesn't really forward society in any way...you could probably consider it to be a group-form of slander/libel, with exactly what constituted hate speech left to court discretion (and probably determined by impact like the adultery stuff I mentioned earlier). I wouldn't consider it a violation of free speech.

With the supreme court being appointed by subjective presidents, I don't have much confidence in their ability to fairly define hate speech. If you watch the video that was posted in this thread with Christopher Hitchens on hate speech, you will see why your logical is fallible. Who would you trust, or what small group of people would you trust to tell you what you can and cannot say?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 10:24:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:35:04 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 8:25:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:35:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 5:37:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:32:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/21/2013 3:15:14 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Even when I read that definition, it seems like Canada's restrictions on the government are virtually none. For example, who interprets what and what isn't a reasonable reason to search your car? Even the oakes test is not actually a test, because there if you can 'justify' your case, you can't be wrong necessarily. Also, blacks call each other the n-bomb all the time, isn't it reverse discrimination to get other races in trouble for doing it? If all rights are technically alienable, then Canada isn't even a constitutional monarchy, constitutions are meant to be edited unless something in the constitution is unconstitutional in itself (like the 3/5's compromise that was in the US constitution).

First of all, this really isn't different from the US; the state can violate rights anytime they wish, it's just a matter of justification in the judicial system. "When" it's okay/not okay (again US has the same stance on border crossings, they can search at will without justification and you just have to accept it)

I am not disagreeing with you here, the system in the US is equally as flawed.

Flawed? Well, it isn't as simple as you put it; lets say 9/11 happens again. Do you surrender a right or two for increased national security? Or do you sacrifice national security for liberty? I don't know the answer, but you can see the dilemma.

Secondly what is reasonable? The judicial system. Here the justice system is actually quite popular.

Popularity=/= Objectivity

No and I agree, but it does give it a level of legitimacy over other branches of government.

Probably because even though the Prime Minister appoints based on the advice from his Minister of Justice, they seem to demonstrate a non-partisan stance ever since 2000. Could be lots of reasons for this, but none the less, our system is similar to the US's, with a lot less partisanship. Abortions is one area, with liberals in control they asked if criminalization of abortions in Canada was constitutional, turns out it was not, and the state never contested it ever since. So the judicial system here has legitimacy

Finally, the US is the only country in the world ardently trying to keep their documents the same. Canada has a "living constitution" which is semi-written. It consists of bills still in Britain, the Charter, and previous court rulings. However nothing legally recognizes our Prime Minister, his legal authority simply does not exist here, but because the model of parliament we use is the same as the British and that tradition has been around for so long, we've naturally adopted it. So yeah, unlike the US which has the common misconception of rights being unalienable, and for whatever reason has taken a far more libertarian view of their constitution than what the Founding fathers wanted, Canadians are just more realistic about our rights. We know they can be taken away, just depends on the context of revoking them if we agree or not which determines our actions.

You basically just outlined the ideology of a democrat vs. the ideology of a republican. Want a cookie? :P

No I didn't, to the best of my knowledge I have never herd either republicans nor democrats proclaim a "living constitution" in the US...one in which is actually flexible.

You outlined an ideology, but did not really justify it.. What should rights be able to be infringed upon? If rights could be infringed upon with little red tape or limits wouldn't people's right's be changing every time the majority in the parliament shifted from one ideology to another?

No, your confusing the judicial branch of government with the legislative/executive (our Leg and exec are put together, meaning the Prime minister actually can introduce bills along with all his ministers, and the bachbencher MP's vote on said bills)
The checks and balances on Parliament include the Governor General, The Judicial system, the party actually in power at that time, the opposition (or shadow cabinet), Elections Canada, and the Senate, along with a few others.

It seems to me that if there are not at least a few basic rights that everyone agrees should never, under any situation be infringed upon then morals will almost always be imposed upon people. That is what I have a problem with, morals in general are problematic and should hardly, if at all exist in government. The only laws there should be and the only duty the government should perform is to protect other people's right to life, liberty and property. (Pursuit of happiness is too open to subjectivity, so I commonly replace it with property).

Problem is morality doesn't have a thing to do here in this discussion, why are you introducing it now? I never claimed it was more "moral" to ban hate speech just that it was used as a measure to keep the peace. (Look up the greyhoud decapitation, and WBC's response to it and what Canada did, if they would have shown up out west, where almost everyone has a gun, I would think they wouldn't last very long, it was to protect people from doing stupid stuff)
As for the duty of government, well, that's your ideals, I don't think I'd endorse that. Especially if on those grounds you think the state has -- by implication -- a responsibility to the people, I should think government be used as a tool to bring about good instead of viewing it as some evil thing.

Finally concerning African-Americans, how stereotypical. Not all of them do that all the time. Furthermore, no it isn't reverse discrimination; that would imply that you can be racist against yourself ... yeah ...

The point is that it is commonly accepted in black culture, you are speaking of a minority here, the majority of blacks have been completely de sensitized to the n-word when it is their own race saying it.

Right, imposed by Caucasians. You can't forget contexts here.

Also with this so-called living constitution, it enables us to have far more progressivism here in Canada. So, our laws reflects the values of Canadians when they change to better represent the people. (If the values of people change ought the laws to change as well? I think so, otherwise slavery never would have been abolished)
Thank you for voting!
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,766
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:06:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 2:46:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is royal the only person who believes in banning hate speech and expression of hate?

Is there anyone else who does?

If so, please outline the justification for banning 'hate speech' or 'hateful expressions'.

I believe in banning hate speech. A good example of would be banning the Westboro Baptist Church. Why should the be allowed to go to funerals of dead soldiers and heroes, and taunt their family by saying that "God killed him because he was a fagg"? Why would people allow the WBC to do what they do?

If the purpose of a speech is to incite hatred and it is not backed up by opinion or argument, why should it be allowed? Obviously, there would be restrictions to prove hate speech. You can say "I hate Obama", "Or I hate Mexicans because they take jobs". But, if like the WBC, the purpose is to incite hatred, why should it be allowed?