M
- Status
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Regarding the impact on children he has some good points. But the “Hate speech” issues are part of the slippery slope of having hate speech laws.
M
MaryT777
Guest
How frightening to see what’s happened In Canada. I can only pray for some miracle that the same does not happen in the US if gay marriage becomes the law of the land
Mary
Mary
M
Murmurs
Guest
Reading that article is pretty horrifying.
Now I don’t mean to set a cat among the pigeons, but in the interests of balance, it’s worth pointing out a few things (on the whole I’m playing Devil’s Advocate because I’m an insane person who likes debate for its own sake, so bear with me
)…
edit - seems I’m too wordy for one post so do excuse it being split…
The Witherspoon Int. that publishes Public Discourse is a conservative think tank. This doesn’t make anything it says less (or more) valid than any other, but it’s worth remembering that its activities are predicated on a particular world view (one many of us might largely agree with, but it’s still not entirely neutral in its starting point, which is an indicator that the sense of alarm on the article is maybe overplayed).
Utterly horrifying if true…but again I’m not sure it is. Maybe I just have a different perspective, though?
Now I don’t mean to set a cat among the pigeons, but in the interests of balance, it’s worth pointing out a few things (on the whole I’m playing Devil’s Advocate because I’m an insane person who likes debate for its own sake, so bear with me
)…edit - seems I’m too wordy for one post so do excuse it being split…
The Witherspoon Int. that publishes Public Discourse is a conservative think tank. This doesn’t make anything it says less (or more) valid than any other, but it’s worth remembering that its activities are predicated on a particular world view (one many of us might largely agree with, but it’s still not entirely neutral in its starting point, which is an indicator that the sense of alarm on the article is maybe overplayed).
The author, while making a statement that we would all (even liberals in the proper sense of the word) find rather alarming, doesn’t actually back up her statement with either law citations, or case studies. Now I don’t know much about the SSM debate in Canada, so it could be that examples are so well known they don’t need referencing, but as it is, it’s just a relatively unfounded statement (I’m sure someone who knows more than I can supply some examples, though). Also, “could” face discipline doesn’t mean that one ever “would”, but maybe that’s hair-splitting.
I couldn’t agree more, and we see it in operation in a much wider context than discussions of SSM in pretty much every country in the western world, and it’s truely horrifying because it’s an awful lot easier for a state (however well meaning) to justify taking away liberties than it is to grant them again.
Again, I’m not sure this is true (examples, anyone?), but as before perhaps a helpful someone could show how it is…
Utterly horrifying if true…but again I’m not sure it is. Maybe I just have a different perspective, though?
M
Murmurs
Guest
(Part 2 of 2)…
The whole section on “Hate Tribunals”, is again not exactly balanced, as any of us would agree who read it. Apart from anything else there’s a glaring lack of actual examples (references to relavent laws, or examples where this has already happened). I’m not burying my head in the sand, I’m just questioning whether the as-yet-unfounded statements are correct. (Please read up on the Lev Tahor case, because it involves allegations of pretty unsavory things like marriage between underage girls and older men, which I’m sure we’d agree isn’t exactly something religious freedom laws should be allowed to permit).
The example of Bill Whatcott, I do find horrifying (as we all would I’m sure, even if what he was distributing was also horrible). But that’s not really related to the same-sex marriage issue. It does raise the question of the tone used by people protesting homosexuality in general or SSM in particular - I find it hard to believe that a more reasonable and diplomatic tone (though making the same point) would have had the same result.
All in all, the author doesn’t make a clear link between the arrival of legalized SSM at a federal level in Canada, and what she claims to be the awful consequences. The consequences of hate-speech laws are (in my view) more a result of a society increasingly intolerent about (ironically) the issue of tolerance, and an (understandable but I think misguided and wrong) desire by the state to wrap citizens in cotton-wool for fear of their being offended.
People need not to fight SSM but to stand up for the right to be offended. That is what will protect free speech.
This is enraging (and should likewise enrage anyone who had a mother). I don’t need to comment further because it’s just nonsense (to imply women can’t or don’t do these things).
This is a biological fact and very different from making a woman or a man a good parent…
Doesn’t existing adoption legislation do the same thing anyway?
The whole section on “Hate Tribunals”, is again not exactly balanced, as any of us would agree who read it. Apart from anything else there’s a glaring lack of actual examples (references to relavent laws, or examples where this has already happened). I’m not burying my head in the sand, I’m just questioning whether the as-yet-unfounded statements are correct. (Please read up on the Lev Tahor case, because it involves allegations of pretty unsavory things like marriage between underage girls and older men, which I’m sure we’d agree isn’t exactly something religious freedom laws should be allowed to permit).
The example of Bill Whatcott, I do find horrifying (as we all would I’m sure, even if what he was distributing was also horrible). But that’s not really related to the same-sex marriage issue. It does raise the question of the tone used by people protesting homosexuality in general or SSM in particular - I find it hard to believe that a more reasonable and diplomatic tone (though making the same point) would have had the same result.
No, it doesn’t. Although, it’s undeniable that some in the movement may push us further in that direction by accident and proponents of legislation be unwittingly complicit. It doesn’t make for an Orwellian conspiracy, however, just that we all have to be careful to guard our freedoms.
All in all, the author doesn’t make a clear link between the arrival of legalized SSM at a federal level in Canada, and what she claims to be the awful consequences. The consequences of hate-speech laws are (in my view) more a result of a society increasingly intolerent about (ironically) the issue of tolerance, and an (understandable but I think misguided and wrong) desire by the state to wrap citizens in cotton-wool for fear of their being offended.
People need not to fight SSM but to stand up for the right to be offended. That is what will protect free speech.
O
Origen52
Guest
As a Canadian I’d like to state that little changed in Canada after the legalization of SSM. Canada does not have tough anti-hate laws, it’s just part of the Canadian character to avoid using derogatory language about anyone. Our one extreme right wing TV news station, tame compared to Fox News, recently shut down. (Sun news network), because most of us don’t like extremist views and hectoring. You would not have been allowed to say negative things about same sex couples before SSM. The courts and government are not seen as enemies of the people, but as a means of helping all Canadians achieve decent living conditions.
Of course, you will find Canadians who will rant against our system, but they are a small ignored minority. In Canada once a decision is made, it’s usually not revisited. There were no attempts to dismantle single payer health care once it was passed. No group is battling abortion laws through the courts or in the legislature, we work against abortion by providing financial and emotional support for pregnant women. SSM was really a non issue in Canada. There were no marches, protests, or fights in the legislature over it.
Live and let live is the Canadian attitude. It gives us a less violent society and a longer life span. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime
Of course, you will find Canadians who will rant against our system, but they are a small ignored minority. In Canada once a decision is made, it’s usually not revisited. There were no attempts to dismantle single payer health care once it was passed. No group is battling abortion laws through the courts or in the legislature, we work against abortion by providing financial and emotional support for pregnant women. SSM was really a non issue in Canada. There were no marches, protests, or fights in the legislature over it.
Live and let live is the Canadian attitude. It gives us a less violent society and a longer life span. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
What “right to be offended?”
Does that entail the concomitant right to decide for ourselves what it is that offends us?
It is unclear how a “right to be offended” will PROTECT free speech since free speech can often be offensive to some who will then demand free speech of some be curtailed because they are offended by that very “free speech” you claim will be protected by the right to be offended. Your “argument” just seems contorted AND false.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The article quoted in the opening post seems to not be available (database error,) but this speech by Chris Kempling to the UN Commission on Human Rights Delegate Briefing would seem to provide specific cases and incidents which are all part of the public record.Reading that article is pretty horrifying.
Now I don’t mean to set a cat among the pigeons, but in the interests of balance, it’s worth pointing out a few things (on the whole I’m playing Devil’s Advocate because I’m an insane person who likes debate for its own sake, so bear with me
edit - seems I’m too wordy for one post so do excuse it being split…
The Witherspoon Int. that publishes Public Discourse is a conservative think tank. This doesn’t make anything it says less (or more) valid than any other, but it’s worth remembering that its activities are predicated on a particular world view (one many of us might largely agree with, but it’s still not entirely neutral in its starting point, which is an indicator that the sense of alarm on the article is maybe overplayed).
The author, while making a statement that we would all (even liberals in the proper sense of the word) find rather alarming, doesn’t actually back up her statement with either law citations, or case studies.
catholiceducation.org/en/uncategorized-articles/religious-freedom-in-canada.html
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Sure you do. But, of course, Canada is a poster child for the kind of politically correct, don’t rock the boat, don’t raise a fuss, go along to get along, malleable society that liberal progressives long for as the ideal Petri dish for “experimentation” with all the new and largely untried ideas their wild imaginations can concoct.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, also as a Canadian, I would say that an awful lot has changed in Canada since the legalization of SSM. The article I quoted several posts back details some of it.
To further add to the case, CBC used to be (several decades back) widely recognized for its in depth coverage of political issues from a neutral ground, a ground which allowed its journalists to analyze events clearly and without bias. Today, it is not much more that a propaganda mill for the left, which largely describes all of Canadian media.
Perhaps, it is part of “the Canadian character” not to cause offense because that same character does not want to be offended.
“Live and let live” also translates to “Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone,” which may appear to work short term, but it is far from being a recipe for an ideal society. A strong society is one that shares a clear and viable vision of the good and works together to achieve it. Canada once had that and still lives of the fumes of that vision, but now is being led by politicians (in all political parties) with no vision, who fear to offend anyone, and who pander to every whim of an increasingly fickle and unstable electorate.
Gay “marriage” was never debated in Canada, at least not with the kind of rigor and depth which is happening in the United States. The stronger arguments are coming from the traditional, conjugal perspective. At least those arguments are being heard and considered. The question now is whether the SCOTUS will actually take those arguments seriously or merely side with what is presumed to be the “acceptable” view merely because the loudest voices demand it should be so.
In Canada, the loudest, most ferocious shouters had their way and the rest merely went silently along with it rationalizing all the way. It takes moral courage to BE moral and that virtue is sorely lacking in all modern western cultures, Canada very much included.
M
Murmurs
Guest
For now the site has crashed, grrr…
Anyway, the right to be offended obviously isn’t exactly enumerated right, anywhere in the world, but more the principle that has to underlie free speech. The reason why “hate crime” legislation is so nefarious is that it shuts down public discourse under the guise of “allowing a discussion to continue will inflame tensions or offend/upset people”. There’a a very fine line between “I hate abortionists” and “I call upon you all burn down all abortionists’ homes and sing comic songs on the ruins”, but one I think is acceptable while the other isn’t (and I’d maintain that if you swapped in ‘Roman Catholics’ or ‘Yankee fans’ for ‘abortionists’)
But I’m getting away from the point…of course we are free to decide what is offensive to us, because no one else can, self evidently - but I don’t think anyone (least of all the state) has a right to prevent someone else from making an offensive comment, even if that prevention comes from the very well-meaning desire to protect people from emotional harm. If no one actually accepts the bait offered when something offensive is said, there can be no justification for a law which protects the feelings of those purportedly offended.
M
Murmurs
Guest
I absolutely agree and this could be said of any modern democracy in the Western world. Here in the UK we have this coming Thursday a general election after the most asinine, “don’t rock the boat” campaign in many decades (even including the final maturity of regional nationalist/independence parties, which in themselves don’t really offer anything new either).
I’m not sure if the problem is with the politicians/candidates, or the electorate, or the state of journalism and the media (not in a left-right wing/liberal-conservative perspective, just the quality of the actual journalism, period) - although it’s probably a combination of all three (there was an interesting article in I think the Washington Post quite recently arguing that the state of US politics is as much the fault of the electorate as the politicians). However, while may have some personal misgivings about SSM from the religious perspective, I don’t think that this is a case where its legalisation has contributed to the “decline” of a strong society, but rather the maturing of a longstanding desire of equality. Of itself, (civil) same-sex marriage is fine, although it may represent the weakening of an older way of organising societies, and it may be that we all have to find a way to work within, or at least with, developing and newer social frameworks. I don’t think we should intrinsically mistrust all of them.
Now I’m waffling and adding nothing to the debate
I hope that made sense and wasn’t just a vague meandering thought…
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This fails to explain and justify all the fuss over women’s rights and the feminist movement. In virtually every country in the world women have a longer life span than men and an overall average life span that is 5 years longer worldwide than men. If life span is your metric for well-being and happiness, then it is the well-being and happiness of men that ought to be advocated for (let men live and quit hounding them about the rights of women) at least until some semblance of parity is achieved.
Yes, I understand this point is not on topic, but opportunity raised its timid little head and being Canadian I had to let it live.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
It isn’t that contorted. I stand for free speech. That means I also stand for the right of someone to say that which offends me deeply to my very core.
For example, the WBC say some really vile and hateful stuff, but I stand for their right to do that which greatly upsets me. Same with racist and so forth.
B
bmaj
Guest
Interesting and VERY relevant article for those of us in the US concerned about the future of our country. Thanks, MonikaBarbara, for sharing.
R
RACJ
Guest
Ditto to that. With the left, there is no such thing as compromise. You will agree with them, or remain silent. One day, people may need to pledge fealty to the USSA before they can receive their paltry “benefits”. The people who issue these compulsory decrees are truly purveyors of hatred toward anything decent and normal, b/c they themselves are filled with unhappiness and rage.
W
WillyAL
Guest
I often look with envy at our neighbors to the north. It seems so much more civilized up there.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Why would a “right” exist to say “vile and hateful stuff” about others? What are the grounds for such a right?
This is akin to dumping hazardous materials into the environment. Why would anyone have a “right” to do so?
Is that where your notion of liberty takes you? The right to do whatever for its own sake? Why would that be a desireable state of things?
You say you stand for the right for others to say what offends you deeply to your core, yet why should others have such a “right.”
What you seem to be confusing is…
- the “right” of others not to be restricted in their free speech merely because you find it offensive.
- granting others the right to be offensive to you just for the sake of causing offense.
Why would that be a good thing? It simply detracts from the dignity owed all human beings.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Because, what one may find hateful another may believe to be true. In my real life example, their is a good chance the WBC sees their message as the truth instead of hateful.
Horse poo is hazardous waste, yet for some it is fertilizer.
Yes. I’m against using governmental power to essentially force us to be nice to each other. Doing so only breeds resentment, so the real goal is to teach and encourage people to be respectful of each other.
Why shouldn’t they. If they truly feel that way then why make it a crime to express that verbally? Sometimes one’s opinion themselves are offensive to others.
And who determines what is justifiable grounds to offend another? The problem is that policing expression to your standards opens the possibility of abuses like those indicated in the article and more. It’s already clear that there is no consensus in the US regarding what’s offensive, so why should an one point of view get to determine what is lacking in merit to be offensive? I’m basically erring on the side of free expression taken a bit to far while you are erring on it being unduly restricted.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The problem I see is that no-fault divorce, surrogacy, artificial birth control, and freely-chosen out-of-wedlock pregnancy had anesthesitized the public to the importance of marriage as the guardian of the goods of biological parenthood well before the introduction of the “debate” about same-sex “marriage.” The public had chewed and digested the lie that it is not even necessarily unfortunate for a child to be denied the chance to grow up in the same home of biological parents who are securely married, who love and respect both each other and the child. There are people who truly believe that to decide whether or not to have children is a choice akin to whether or not to rent or to buy! In that environment, there was no “debate.” There was a propaganda campaign, and the groundwork for it was so well-prepared that there was hardly any stopping it once it commenced. Pushing over a house is far easier when its foundations have been dissolved before you even start pushing.
People have become so confused about the profound nature of the parent-child relationship that they call their pets “our kids” and admit no difference between a family member who is the fruit of their marriage and a dog or a cat!! If you actually think you can be the “mom” or “dad” to a terrier, what does that say about what parenthood means to you? We have so twisted our understanding of marriage and parenthood that many of us who have had to explain the miracle of sexual reproduction on a biology exam still cannot articulate why someone who still says there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality should not immediately be condemned as a hate-monger!!
The unique nature of actual marriage goes without recognition any more. Sex and marriage aren’t believed to go hand in hand–you can easily have either one without the other, and what of it? Marital infidelity means nothing, except to the ones cheated on: there are more serious financial and social repercussions for cheating on a business contract than there are for cheating on a spouse! It is no wonder that the general public will actually tell you with a straight face that they can’t see any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality and that marriage, all its legal rights and its increasingly empty trappings, ought to be available to anyone professing to love each other enough for the time being to commit to letting a judge oversee any unilateral break-ups that might naturally be expected to occur.
The world has gone nuts, or perhaps I should say that it has gone more obviously nuts, since of course there has always been sin. The problem is that the problem of hypocrisy was “fought” in our times by eliminating the sense that there is such a thing as sin. I have no reason to believe that the erosion will stop at same-sex marriage. There is no rational reason to believe that is the stopping point.
People have become so confused about the profound nature of the parent-child relationship that they call their pets “our kids” and admit no difference between a family member who is the fruit of their marriage and a dog or a cat!! If you actually think you can be the “mom” or “dad” to a terrier, what does that say about what parenthood means to you? We have so twisted our understanding of marriage and parenthood that many of us who have had to explain the miracle of sexual reproduction on a biology exam still cannot articulate why someone who still says there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality should not immediately be condemned as a hate-monger!!
The unique nature of actual marriage goes without recognition any more. Sex and marriage aren’t believed to go hand in hand–you can easily have either one without the other, and what of it? Marital infidelity means nothing, except to the ones cheated on: there are more serious financial and social repercussions for cheating on a business contract than there are for cheating on a spouse! It is no wonder that the general public will actually tell you with a straight face that they can’t see any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality and that marriage, all its legal rights and its increasingly empty trappings, ought to be available to anyone professing to love each other enough for the time being to commit to letting a judge oversee any unilateral break-ups that might naturally be expected to occur.
The world has gone nuts, or perhaps I should say that it has gone more obviously nuts, since of course there has always been sin. The problem is that the problem of hypocrisy was “fought” in our times by eliminating the sense that there is such a thing as sin. I have no reason to believe that the erosion will stop at same-sex marriage. There is no rational reason to believe that is the stopping point.
- Status