V
Vim71
Guest
It’s really sad to see this too in Canada.
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Why should speech that someone else might find vile and hateful be protected? Speech that some find hateful ought to be preserved because the truth is liable to be hated just as surely as falsehood is, and perhaps more so, because it is far more uncomfortable to stand in the light of the truth. Those who do good and those who do evil are natural adversaries. Because of our concupiscence, we often find those who deceive us easier to listen to. The society that protects us from ever hearing words that could upset us will eventually do us harm by leaving our self-deceptions and the deceptions of others go unchallenged.
The evildoer is an abomination to the just, and he who walks uprightly is an abomination to the wicked. Prov. 29:27
By letting all speak, we ensure that truth is not muzzled.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So you are claiming the truth is so indistinguishable from the “vile and hateful” that our filters must allow the vile and hateful just in case they block out the truth?
Are we that incapable?
Are there not words and deeds that are - without question - just vile and hateful?
What about deeds? Should we apply this incapacity not just to words but to deeds as well? Should we allow all deeds so that we do not, unintentionally, block right actions from happening because of our self-deceptions might prevent us from seeing the rightness of things we mistakenly believe are wrong?
Beheading innocent people, then, should be permitted, just in case it is only our blindness that prevents us from seeing the rightness of such things?
Colour me perplexed :ehh:
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Well Peter, isnt that always the answer we’re given when one questions the horrific deeds of the Israelites? “God sees things we dont, because his ways are not our ways so therefore they may very well be moral even if we cant understand it”?
As to free speech, I agree that everything should be permitted. Someone might fight quoting the Bible hateful and try to censor that, which would upset most Christians no doubt.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Since it has been deemed hate speech to say that homosexuality and heterosexuality are meaningfully different sexual orientations, such that heterosexuality is in accord with the nature of marriage and homosexuality is not, I would have to say, “Yes, we are that incapable.” Sad, perhaps, but true.
This is not an isolated incident. The first thing totalitarian government will do is to suppress the truth and brand it a lie. It never fails; it is as predictable as the sun coming up.
How you made the leap from free speech to freedom to take hostages and behead them perplexes me, too.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Speech is an act. As an act it has repercussions and outcomes. It is causally efficacious. Speech leads to further action - always has, always will. If we cannot distinguish between right and wrong action, neither can we distinguish between right and wrong spoken words, especially when free speech advocates have no moral compass or intention to limit wrong acts at the same time they are willing to tolerate free speech.Since it has been deemed hate speech to say that homosexuality and heterosexuality are meaningfully different sexual orientations, such that heterosexuality is in accord with the nature of marriage and homosexuality is not, I would have to say, “Yes, we are that incapable.” Sad, perhaps, but true.
This is not an isolated incident. The first thing totalitarian government will do is to suppress the truth and brand it a lie. It never fails; it is as predictable as the sun coming up.
How you made the leap from free speech to freedom to take hostages and behead them perplexes me, too.
Unfortunately, the people who often argue for free speech do not mean what they say - they place limitations at the same time as they claim not to.
As to totalitarian governments suppressing truth, isn’t that what libertarians are doing (seeking to suppress the truth) by claiming freedom of speech is a right at the same time as seeking to legally punish, citing bigotry, anyone who disagrees with their views on, say, gay marriage? They aren’t for free speech, as much as for their right to speak for what they want to come about. When that has been realized, free speech becomes an expendable commodity.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
We have the right not to be stampeded from a theater by a false alarm. We don’t have a right to be free from hearing opinions we find offensive. You would think from hearing some people talk that we cannot possibly be expected to endure the damage of hearing that others have a dim view of us, but that really isn’t true.
Now, if you mean that speech that stirs up harmful actions against others is not protected, that is true. The line of what it means to “stir up” those actions needs to be as generous as possible in favor of speech, however. Speech that only indirectly disposes someone to take a dim view of someone else or their agenda does not meet the standard of stirring up specific harmful actions against them.
E
Estevao
Guest
Some Christian university in Canada tried to open a law school and it has had to fight tooth and nail in the courts to get it to open. Latest news article on it:
news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-crusade-against-trinity-western-law-school-runs-up-against-an-intelligent-judge
news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-crusade-against-trinity-western-law-school-runs-up-against-an-intelligent-judge
D
dreamer29
Guest
I can’t imagine the U.S emulate anybody. Seems they must be the original thinkers of it first before they do something. However, they are good at messing up an awful lot. We really need to get back to the way the Founding Fathers thought. Not perfect, but reasonably fair.
C
centerbe
Guest
The article quoted by the OP is not reflective of what has gone on here since SSM was legalized. As noted by several other posters, life goes on; live and let live. The federal act that legalized SSM, is called the Civil Marriage Act. There is nothing in this Act that requires officials of religious groups to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. No church has been forced to perform a marriage against there beliefs that I am aware of. I think there is a bit of a grey area with municipal officials who perform marriages that refuse to because of their own personal religious beliefs.
The Human Rights tribunals are controversial but generally get things right in the end either directly or on appeal through the courts. Hate speech prosecutions are rare here and generally unsuccessful. While we are not as zealous as our neighbours to the south on defending free speech, most expressions are tolerated.
As noted by another poster, heterosexuals have devalued marriage substantially over the years. Marriages are very easy to walk away from at the slightest hint of dissatisfaction. I am not sure what the answer to this problem is.The Church is not always the solution. The Church dominated life in Quebec well into the 1960’s (until the Quiet Revolution) but now the vast majority of couples do not get married, even after years of being together.
The Human Rights tribunals are controversial but generally get things right in the end either directly or on appeal through the courts. Hate speech prosecutions are rare here and generally unsuccessful. While we are not as zealous as our neighbours to the south on defending free speech, most expressions are tolerated.
As noted by another poster, heterosexuals have devalued marriage substantially over the years. Marriages are very easy to walk away from at the slightest hint of dissatisfaction. I am not sure what the answer to this problem is.The Church is not always the solution. The Church dominated life in Quebec well into the 1960’s (until the Quiet Revolution) but now the vast majority of couples do not get married, even after years of being together.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So, the reporter who orchestrated the stampede of hate, death threats and boycotts of Memories Pizza had a “right” to yell “Fire!” merely because the co-owner voiced an opinion about not catering a same-sex wedding? Suppose some demented person actually did carry out a crime against the business or its owners, how is this not like shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, especially when the story was reported specifically to rouse emotion in a tense situation?
My suspicion is that free speech advocates rely heavily on the “crowded theatre” analogy to suppress those speech acts they don’t want to hear, but have great difficulty with the finer points of distinguishing legitimate speech from useless, unhelpful or, even harmful, codswallop. I also suspect that an inability to recognize or define the true moral “good” leads to this incoherent advocacy of “free speech” for its own sake, even though most purported free speech acts are useless, unhelpful or worse. Why should such worthless acts be defended or tolerated for their own sake? Obviously, because we need to be comforted that our unwillingness or inability to recognize the truth in the first place is legitimated by the existence in our midst of diverse “opinions” regarding the truth.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
"In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. "
This.
You won’t be allowed to have an opinion anymore, at least legally.
This.
You won’t be allowed to have an opinion anymore, at least legally.
B
BCole
Guest
The classic libertarian view of free speech is that any speech is protected as long as it isn’t fraudulent, i.e. yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is wrong only if it’s a lie.
- Status