does an airplane passenger bill of rights even fall under federal jurisdiction?
i guess that's this election's attempt to appeal to the entitled millennial vote.
it's just so absurd that i don't even know how to react.
i'm more interested in opposing the legislation he's introducing to gut the review process around pipelines.
Monday, December 17, 2018
the fact that we have these hate speech laws is actually sort of embarrassing.
we should get rid of them.
we should get rid of them.
at
05:47
i have to be blunt, though - we do have some funny laws in canada that ought to be overturned. "fake news" is actually a legal term, in canada - to our shame.
the americans have a freer society than we do, when it comes to speech. and, we should be reflecting on that, and asking ourselves whether some of the laws that we have in our code are really compatible with a free and democratic society, because some of them really aren't.
our court has not been activist enough in striking these laws down, which have often been ruled as unconstitutional, but saved under s. (1). we have some existent precedent around speech in canada that we should really be ashamed of. i think that canadians are broadly unaware of this - we think we have more freedom of speech than we really have.
i would argue that any laws restricting the utterance of threats are sufficient to protect people from harm, and anything beyond this should be abolished, as it has the potential for abuse.
nonetheless, hate speech does remain protected in canada, so long as it is not directly threatening or harassing anybody, even if the protection for it is in truth disappointingly weak.
the americans have a freer society than we do, when it comes to speech. and, we should be reflecting on that, and asking ourselves whether some of the laws that we have in our code are really compatible with a free and democratic society, because some of them really aren't.
our court has not been activist enough in striking these laws down, which have often been ruled as unconstitutional, but saved under s. (1). we have some existent precedent around speech in canada that we should really be ashamed of. i think that canadians are broadly unaware of this - we think we have more freedom of speech than we really have.
i would argue that any laws restricting the utterance of threats are sufficient to protect people from harm, and anything beyond this should be abolished, as it has the potential for abuse.
nonetheless, hate speech does remain protected in canada, so long as it is not directly threatening or harassing anybody, even if the protection for it is in truth disappointingly weak.
at
05:30
if anything i've posted at this site is untrue, you can believe me when i say i'm honestly mistaken.
i mean, i'd appreciate a fact check - i don't want to post things that aren't true. i'm not infallible; i'm always eager to learn. but, i'm trying to be educational, here - i'm not trying to mislead anybody. any errors are just that.
the reality, whether anybody likes it or not, is that i tend to make an effort to back up the point, and i'm willing to defend my arguments, wherever and whenever necessary.
i mean, i'd appreciate a fact check - i don't want to post things that aren't true. i'm not infallible; i'm always eager to learn. but, i'm trying to be educational, here - i'm not trying to mislead anybody. any errors are just that.
the reality, whether anybody likes it or not, is that i tend to make an effort to back up the point, and i'm willing to defend my arguments, wherever and whenever necessary.
at
05:13
the language that the protestors use is frustrating, granted.
maybe something like this might wake them up a little bit.
maybe something like this might wake them up a little bit.
at
04:10
broadly speaking, hate speech is free speech - the exception coming when somebody is being directly threatened.
but, if we're talking about speech rights, the most important speech right is the right to protest; without the right to protest, there is no meaningful right to free speech.
conversely, nowhere does the right to speak imply the right to be heard.
this is a part of the reason i don't get into this. when you have a group of kids outside yelling that a speaker should be shut down, it is their right to yell that is protected under speech legislation - not the right for the speaker to speak without being interrupted. there is no right for such a thing anywhere, in any law, in any country. all concepts of free speech in this scenario apply exclusively to the protestors.
if the system passes a law that says that people can only speak during certain times, this is a violation of speech rights, and should be challenged under s.2.
but, if we're talking about speech rights, the most important speech right is the right to protest; without the right to protest, there is no meaningful right to free speech.
conversely, nowhere does the right to speak imply the right to be heard.
this is a part of the reason i don't get into this. when you have a group of kids outside yelling that a speaker should be shut down, it is their right to yell that is protected under speech legislation - not the right for the speaker to speak without being interrupted. there is no right for such a thing anywhere, in any law, in any country. all concepts of free speech in this scenario apply exclusively to the protestors.
if the system passes a law that says that people can only speak during certain times, this is a violation of speech rights, and should be challenged under s.2.
at
04:09
does nobody see the irony in this?
the best way to approach something like this is to push it. protests against controversial speakers, for example, should be seen as free speech - and it should be the case that campus cops can now no longer interfere when an ann coulter or a jordan peterson shows up on campus to speak.
otherwise, this isn't a free speech policy, but a protected speech policy that gives certain types of speakers extra rights.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-universities-scramble-to-release-common-free-speech-policy/
the best way to approach something like this is to push it. protests against controversial speakers, for example, should be seen as free speech - and it should be the case that campus cops can now no longer interfere when an ann coulter or a jordan peterson shows up on campus to speak.
otherwise, this isn't a free speech policy, but a protected speech policy that gives certain types of speakers extra rights.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-universities-scramble-to-release-common-free-speech-policy/
at
04:03
honestly - it's hard to know if hudson is trying to co-opt these people or has been brainwashed by them, although i guess actually reading the book might make it more clear, but i'm not going anywhere near that kind of crazy, whatsoever.
it's too bad.
it's too bad.
at
00:02
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)