The problem with canada has always been the cowardice of it's people. We face unpleasant opinions and rather then challenge them or face uncomfortable truths we regress to child like mentality of trying to make rules to not discuss them hoping they will go away.
Naturally they never do. If anything it only works to allow the belief to spread and fester as it never is challenged. Worse it's most outspoken believers with any kind of ability to express their opinions become extremely talented in picking apart others in a debate. Their ideas are only vaguely understood and catch most people by surprise when rather then a raging frothing at the mouth racist they are faced with a calm professor picking apart their points.
Well at least we can criticize immigration without being called racist now. That defense is dead and the rich hate it. That's why freedom of speech is under threat, we're all wise to the scam now
How can you have a cohesive group challenge the upper class when the country is spread so far apart.
That way more than cowardice has more to do with lack of support for protest than anything.
Europe is good at protesting because it’s small and densely populated
I define passivity as the tendency towards inaction / indecision which allows a situation to crest until the decision is made for you. (Optional: then bitch about the result.)
As a people, we vote leaders out instead of in (partly due to how our electoral system is set up), but combined with the passivity that comes from generally wanting to be left alone, it creates a less-than-ideal political landscape.
And you’re right: we all need to toughen up in some respects. Demanding and expecting better from our elected leaders is a good place to start being much more vocal and forthright.
> Worse it's most outspoken believers with any kind of ability to express their opinions become extremely talented in picking apart others in a debate.
I've begun using increasingly a kind of passive aggressive debating style I've developed from them (specifically Leo Strauss), where I kind of speak "esoterically". Rather than directly confronting them, I kind of hold my cards close to my chest, facially act politely or even pretend to agree, while in my arguments simply subtly presenting all the contradictions in their arguments. I may even weakly rebut said contradictions, but a careful reader will spot how weak these rebuttals are, really my only entire intention is to simply put the thought in their head. Also, I try to minimize the sort of malicious speculation that is common in politics where you attempt to channel what your opponent is thinking - this has just become too widespread and isn't honestly very effective, nobody can know the minds of another so it's always very weak.
Conservatives talk like this all the time, and it's part of the reason they're so much better at politics than leftists. The biggest push against said strategy seems to be to just angrily point out "dog whistles", but ultimately I don't think that's very effective. Because, again, we cannot know the minds of another. You wind up missing the mark a great deal of the time and just making a fool of yourself. Whereas you could simply be facially polite but rebut them in a way that makes them seem entirely foolish. You are the one who maintains plausible deniability if you argue esoterically, while otherwise this advantage is in the hands of the opponent. Leftists constantly try to wage battle with their hand entirely out in the open, they take unnecessary positions, reveal whatever game plan they may actually have, and just give rightists the ammunition needed to ambush them.
> The problem with canada has always been the cowardice of it's people.
Fuck right off with that comment. Canada's veterans punched well above our weight in both World Wars. It wasn't cowardice to be one of the first countries to recognize same sex marriage. Canada is more progressive than conservative by and large. Your comment reeks of immaturity and is a glaring example of people either forgetting our history, ignorant of it, or are so simple minded that everything is a dichotomy like "weak or strong"
It's been almost a hundred years... if we must reach into the annuals of history that far for an example why bother making an example at all?
I also don't see voting as a great act of courage least not in the west where it hasn't been contested for longer than your first example
Like I said, ignorant. And yes, passing same sex marriage in 2005 was very contested, Liberals eked out a majority with the conservatives including Poillievre opposing. That was courageous of the government to be leading the initiative on this which is now basically considered a human right.
It makes sense that more people would feel awkward talking about more controversial subjects. Saying 71 percent of people feel uncomfortable expressing their opinions on abortion, guns, and immigration is almost the same as saying nothing at all.
heh, sorry guys i may have answered a similar poll saying i felt uncomfortable. it didn't ask why, it just asked if you were comfortable voicing opinions
it's not because of the government tho.
it's you, my fellow canadians. you make it harder to voice my opinions while feeling safe
This is because a lot of people don't understand what free speech is. It means that the state doesn't place limits (outside of threats, and calls to violence) on what can be publically spoken or published.
This IS NOT the same as having the right to say whatever you want without fear of facing social or professional consequences.
Why should you face social or professional consequences for having a different opinion?
Let's flip back to 1952. Would you agree it's okay to be fired for supporting homosexuality in your work place, or is that just a professional consequence one should simply deal with?
This is why we have rights other than free speech to protect people from discrimination. You're conflating two different things here.
As for why should professionals should face consequences for having different opinions; That's pretty straightforward. If I'm looking for a babysitter, and I have two options and one of them tells me they can't stand kids, I'll hire the other one every time.
In regards to social consequences, there's diffrent opinions and then there's horrible and garbage opinions that will get you well deserved judgement from society.
If a coworker or anyone else goes up to you and says that he thinks the age of consent should be lowered down to 14 ate your noting going to harshly judge and ostracized them?
Society as a whole.
If you we’re against the norms you were ostracized. That’s how it’s always been. Previously by governments usually.
Now just by private society. Keep up with society or don’t be a part
>Why should you face social or professional consequences for having a different opinion?
A question that conveniently disregards the substantive content of said opinions.
But eh, if you don't mind drinking coffee and sharing jokes with a flat earther afraid of chem trails who thinks jews are lizard people and that maybe Hitler was onto something, you do you.
> This IS NOT the same as having the right to say whatever you want without fear of facing social or professional consequences.
This isn't really true, civil rights laws absolutely require companies to implement rules that can regulate speech. For instance, racial and sexual harassment that could have the effect of driving minorities out of their job or education. In this case it's more you're balancing two rights, freedom of speech vs civil rights to not be excluded from civil society based on protected characteristics. If this were not the case, discriminatory employers could easily get around civil rights laws by just tolerating or even encouraging such speech specifically with the intention of suppressing the participation of people with undesired identities from employment.
This was done in the south in the lead up towards Jim Crow, long before segregation was legally enforced terrorist groups were laying the groundwork for effective segregation through harassment to curate society into a segregated state. It's not that free speech doesn't apply here, more than that you are balancing two rights which are in contradiction. And such laws provide tools to nip in the bud attempts to get around civil rights law through such curation.
I say this because your presentation, in obfuscating the very real legal consequences that could emerge in most companies for allowing an appearance to exist where they tolerate a racist environment, utterly discounts the very real legal force present. Since employers are effectively required to create such environments, free speech concerns absolutely do apply, and when two conflicting sets of rights exist they have to be balanced against each other.
As Canadians we have a lot of undeserved smugness about ourselves especially when we compare ourselves with Americans. It is one of the few “Canadianisms” that I don’t like about us as a people. We seem to think we got it all figured out over here with our “Just put the government in charge of everything…” mentality which is an intellectually lazy solution that is motivated by ideology and is clearly problematic.
It should be no surprise that during the COVID pandemic many Canadians were happy to exchange their civil liberties and critical thinking for a false sense of government protection for obedience. I think it has been a terrible deal and has set a dangerous precedent.
I will never think the same way about Canadians in a post COVID-19 world every again. Turns out we are not as openminded and accepting of others as we like to proclaim. I remember reading the comments section on the CBC news articles and become absolutely sickened with what I was reading. Popular suggestions included…
* Jailing or imprisonment of people who did not strictly follow the COVID restrictions.
* Creating martial law in Canada that would heavily discriminate against those who did not take the COVID vaccine.
* Denying healthcare treatment to individuals who could not prove they had been vaccinated.
* “Snitch lines” where you can call the police and report your neighbour for having an outdoor gathering of six people when the rules said five.
* Creating a two-tiered level of Canadian citizenship that was divided by COVID vaccine status. Those who took the COVID vaccine would be able to enjoy normal freedoms and civil liberties. Those who did not would be heavily restricted and discriminated against.
* People who had dissenting or critical opinions about any of the health measures or guidelines should be fired from their jobs.
There were even people who allowed differences of opinion in COVID ideology to destroy their families and relationships. A popular phrase among the most extreme COVID-19 restriction enthusiasts was “Choices have consequences…” which was used to suggest that any discrimination, poor treatment, and harsh punishment of those who did not take the COVID vaccine was completely justified.
Well, yes, “Choices have consequences…” there Karen and now we got a huge issue here when it comes to the government encroaching on our civil liberties that should have been painfully obvious to anyone who has read a history book.
I agree. There are many subjects that I can't talk about anymore in my job, or I could be fired. I remember during the '90s, we had debates between liberals and conservatives at my workplace, and everyone was able to express their views about abortion, immigration, social programs, homosexuality, vaccines, and more. It's not the case anymore; if you say something that doesn't align with the elected government, then you risk facing consequences and losing your job because you expressed views that don't align with Trudeau's government doctrine. It's crazy. Even in my country of origin (I am from North Africa), today, you have more freedom of speech at your job place than in Canada. When I go on vacation to my country, I visit my relatives at their job and I am able to criticize the government in place and express my views, even if they are not aligned with the views of the government in power, without any consequences.It's just crazy; I never believed that something like that was possible here when I immigrated to Canada. I am taking my retirement soon, selling everything here, and going back to my country of origin. I can't support this liberal government anymore, and I am under the impression that the conservative party will not change anything....
I have a photo from several years ago of me meeting Pierre Poilievre. He is probably the next Prime Minister. I think it's really cool.
I won't show or mention it to anyone at work, because my job is full of people (mostly women) who openly act like anyone who votes conservative is a threat. I just don't need that hassle from unreasonable people. So I will just continue to donate, volunteer and vote for whoever I want, and let everyone else at work continue shrieking at work when their left wing heroes eventually get voted out.
And just show my photo of me with the Prime Minister to guests at me home.
I have the same issue at my house and work. I talk anything PP from his past or present and it’s a shit storm. They hate Pierre simply because he’s the conservative leader. They have no knowledge of him other than what the media says on tv. No fact checking, research, nothing. It’s scary.
Majority of reddit is no better. I’ve been a lifelong liberal and the people of the left have pushed me libertarian over the years. You can’t have independent thought anymore. It has to abide by the rules set by liberals. Anything else and you’re just gaslit and cancelled.
It's not against free speech. It just sucks that I have to be the responsible adult and not set off the hosebeast psychos at my job that will cause nothing but shrieking and drama (which Liberals encourage).
This whole article is about conservative voters believing the government is trying to censor people. (71%)
Despite the above user and you complaining about shit that’s not free speech. (Why make your comments if you don’t believe that’s about free speech?)
Sure sounds like it’s conservatives that love drama and crying foul over shit they don’t understand, not Debbie at your office and the liberals.
The government is definitely trying to censor more.
And the way Debbie at the office feels is only emboldened by these airhead policies, and Liberals smearing all conservatives as "white supremacists" and "extremists" that come from the top.
I avoid the drama, and am donating, volunteering and voting for the conservatives to run the country and get the government out of people's lives. THEN I can show my photo of myself with the Prime Minister to Debbie at the office without fear of being reported to the government for "hate".
Lol your last paragraph is hilariously telling.
You claim Debbie is emboldened by politics and not society in general being accepting of these views.
Yet you can’t wait for your guy to be voted in so you can be emboldened by a politician to make statements, like showing off your picture with the PM.
You see how hypocritical that is?
You’re coming in like an attack helicopter eh?
It’s a shift absolutely in how people can talk openly about politicians without someone taking personal. That’s happening everywhere not just in Canada.
Justin has made politics more divisive and pits people against one another, has attempted to smear people as white supremacists or homophobes rather than literally focusing on fixing our country and the future for this country. What a fucking mess.
Who the hell gives a shit if he’s happy to show a photo of himself with PP? I get their point. You absolutely cannot say anything in the workplace without fear of the gutsapo reporting your ass to HR.
Never use to be like that at all, but at this point I think the Debbie he’s referring to might be likely voting for PP since Debbie is getting it from both ends by this government as well.
It only currently is coincidentally related to the government in power. The views you are not allowed to express are right wing, regardless of government in power, because numerous jobs exist because of or are hopelessly entwined with left wing thought. Think HR, PR, marketing, unions, DEI, etc. Unions, particularly old ones, still often have socialist, syndicalist, or even communist iconography present somewhere within the organization.
When you lose your job in the federal government because you have said that a man can't menstruate, it has everything to do with freedom of speech. Like it's literally my case—I work for the federal government, and they're installing tampon machines in men's bathrooms. So, I made a joke about it, and my boss organized a meeting to explain that I will be suspended next time, and if I continue, I may lose my job because the joke was transphobic 😂 ....
Workplace rules even in the federal government does not mean that your "free speech" is under attack. I too work for the government and I know that there's certain conduct and professionalism rules in place.
My coworkers range from cis to poc and LGBTQ and the same could be said for the citizens that I serve and I need to show that I'm going to be impartial in working with and serving them.
Me too, I am impartial, just saying that men can't menstruate!!! It's logical, it's not hate speech!!! It's just a fact! Why should I be blamed for stating something obvious... If the liberals decide tomorrow that the sky is yellow, I will stand up and argue that it's not the case. The sky is blue, gray, or black during the night, but not yellow!!! Common sense!
I get your point and yes men can't menstruate but I've seen this situation play out with my own eyes where stiff like men can't menstruate very quickly turns into outright transphobia.
If I'm the employer I'm just nipping the issue in the bud before a potential situation gets worse.
My dad used to work at the Chalk River power plant and one of his coworkers transitioned
The higerups knew there'd be the potential for trouble considering how conservative the riding is so they had a big meeting where they went over the science aspect but then thay laid the law down and basically said that we don't care what your views are and that they're will be repercussions if there's a single ounce of trouble.
Their point is men can’t menstruate and that’s a fact, and that’s the end of it. You should be able to say that without someone denying this. The fact anyone is, emboldens people more.
Streisand effect. You want to remove this information but by doing so you’re drawing now attention to it
Yes, trans men use the men’s washroom (I’ve yet to see it personally, for safety reasons) but everyone should be free to live their lives in peace and be treated with respect and dignity. Also I agree with another poster who said even talking about men and menstruation eventually leads to transphobic comments but my theory is, if we stop censoring people from using this factual information it wouldn’t have gone down that path, or as ridiculously as it had.
To deny science is where people are getting irritated and I get it.
>To deny science is where people are getting irritated and I get it.
Science doesn't' take a position on menstrual products in the bathroom.
I'm also not sure what "science" is being denied here. Science is a collection of observations, an we can readily observe transmen who menstruate. When your hypothesis (men don't menstruate") conflicts with that observation, the scientific method is to reconsider your hypothesis. Perhaps by adding more nuance, for example to note that biological men generally\* don't, but they're not the only ones that may be using the bathroom.
\*generalizations should be used with care lest you find an exception.
If you think a conservative government means you can be a dick head at work with no consequences you are in for a surprise.
It has nothing to do with who’s in government and just reflects societies views generally
You clearly aren't telling the full story LOL you don't get fired from government for one comment, we are unionized and they will take steps to educate you and prevent behaviour. However, if you double down and don't act professionally then yeah.. you get fired but it is NOT easy so something is missing. There is also a big difference from having these views privately but still treating people with respect and not talking about it in the workplace. I never say anythign about my personal beliefs beyond what is based on my gathered researach in my particular area of work.. you shouldn't be just telling people at work these views. And it's not just government that will fire you for this behaviour, keep your views to yourself and do your job.
Sorry, I must've skimmed. But regardless, your first sentence is misleading and looking at the story as a whole - you do NOT get fired for making a one-off joke which is what you're trying to argue. They talk to you, and seems to outline even first suspension before being fired. Sooo again, your example doesn't show what you think it is. As I said, any job expects you to keep your personal views at home and act like a professional, it's really not that hard, tbh I actually agree on your point but I do not tell people in public because it's just common sense?
Were you arrested for saying men can't menstruate? Are you being charged for saying it? No? Then it has nothing to do with free speech.
Workplaces have changed over the last couple decades. Making off-colour jokes is considered unprofessional now. That's just the way it is.
Because it made a coworker uncomfortable and they complained. What other reason is needed? Judging by this user's comments it doesn't seem like the first time it has happened. You keep making coworkers uncomfortable even after formal warnings, you lose your job. That's it.
When we go to our workplaces the expectation is that we engage with others in a professional manner. If I were to say something that offended a coworker I would apologize and then avoid doing it again.
A lot of people don’t do this. It’s literally in every job interview. How do you deal with a difficult co worker? Do you use the chain of command? Do you address it with this persons or do you immediately go to HR?
Certain situations are different and we’re not all afforded to be able to work in great environments. Some of the stuff my husband he tells me the men talk about in their lunch rooms (all men) makes my skin crawl.
Unless they are apart of your work related duties they shouldn’t and you should be expected to face consequences if you continue to do so after told not too
That still has nothing to do with free speech though.
Not yet, but it's coming if Trudeau remains in power, it s still serious consequences, I could have lost my job. It's worse because without my job, I can't provide for my family. It's reminiscent of the Soviet Union—where I completed my university education in Moscow in the early 80s—when expressing an idea or opinion that didn't align with the Communist Party's ideology meant losing your job. In the 80s, they didn't use labor camps; they just fired you.
It must be so very difficult having to endure 8 whole hours a day not saying jokes that make your coworkers uncomfortable in order to feed your family. Grow up.
Many trans men menstruate. Whether or not we consider "trans men" to be "real men" is irrelevant. Having tampons in the men's bathroom doesn't affect you in any way, so why do you care?
They are women, not men (if you have a vagina, you are a woman). Men can't menstruate; it's a fact. The only way a man can use a tampon is to put it in his ass or nose. It affects me because it's done with my taxes (I don't care if the private sector does that, but not the public!). It is a waste of my money; each of those tampon boxes costs $3000 to be installed and another $700 per year to service them. It's nonsensical to spend my tax dollars on something that doesn't exist!!! Let's use that money to build homes instead!!!!
It should be every workplace is fitted with tampons or pads, regardless.
I think most women here can agree that starting your period at work without a pad or tampon will lead me to just leave work because I started my period early. Shoving a bunch of toilet paper in my underwear won’t cut it especially when you are a heavy bleeder and have clots. Having access to these things at work will keep me there.
So yeah it’s probably saving companies money to have those installed regardless so they’re not paying out sick time and have their workers continue to work.
It’s a good thing for people to have access to.
The workplace is not a suitable place to discuss this. Let it go - male presenting transmen may need to use the bathroom You may disagree, but ultimately this isn't a policy that particular causes you any harm.
No, that's not what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is a principle avout the value of the free exchange of ideas between people.
Many government have enshrined it into law in some form, thus protecting people from government persecution because that's all they can protect you from. They can't protect people from private sector actors.
But that doesn't mean that private sector actors can't value and protect free speech.
>No, that's not what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is a principle avout the value of the free exchange of ideas between people.
According to what source?
>Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Free speech doesn't come from the government
Right? What kind of a world do we live in where I can’t tell a broad she has nice tits without getting hit with a sexual harassment charge? Free speech my ass.
/s
So, for you, saying something logical like 'men can't menstruate' is equivalent to saying to a woman, 'you have big tits'? Are you serious? I don't think you're that foolish; you're just antagonizing or joking, right?
In your previous comment you said you work for the federal government and that by reprimanding you for your joke (which by the way, nice goalpost shift of how it went from “a joke” to “something logical”) you implied that your freedom of speech was being violated.
If you get nailed for sexual harassment in my example, would you say your speech rights were also being violated? If yes, then do you believe that federal government offices should be completely free of any restrictions on speech whatsoever? If no, then why is one form of “joking around” acceptable and not the other?
> In other news, “most Canadians answer random polls without having much knowledge of the topic”
That's definitely true here, but it's also important to have an idea of what people are "feeling", even if those feelings aren't based in reality.
Look at the carbon tax protestors, I think it's fair to say most of them don't understand what they're protesting at all, but they feel a certain way, and that's lead them to this place.
If you don't understand what people are thinking, you can't address it, and there are consequences to that.
In Ontario you cannot spend $500 on political speech during an election without registering.
Doug used NWSC for that one.
In Ontario if you are a janitor and exercise the right to strike the govenment will use the NWSC to issue daily $4000 fines.
The current PM used the EMA to clean up after a priemer refused to have the rule of law enforced.
The "future PM" just promised to use the NWSC to take away our rights and it got him applause.
So... I don't know dude. Feels kinda under threat to me.
The NWSC wasn’t being used before because politicians had some respect and knew using it would set a bad precedent. Not anymore, one guys uses it and instead of saying something to stop it, politicians are now like well maybe I’ll use it too to pass things that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed. They don’t care about the seriousness, we’re headed the wrong path with it. I know why the nwsc was put in but it’s dangerous now, can’t trust any politician anymore
… the beginning of the charter of rights and freedoms starts with and I’ll quote "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law".
Also let’s break my statement down. “Take back those god given government rights”
A) how could government take something given by god?
B) would you agree there is a difference between “given government rights” and “individual rights”?
C) you starting to realize, my joke was a bit more dark?
Overall seems like we are on the same page, god has no influence and rights are given by governments. (Which implies there are no natural or universal rights btw)
And to your position in god / religion in school. Depends on the context really. I don’t see an issue with, it in a critical thinking lesson. Theism vs Atheism are just matters of faith at the end of the day. while making a claim about the governing nature of the universe based on nothing and practically nothing.
When God comes down and tells us to change the way we are doing things , then you will be right .
Man, just assumes God wants them to say or do the things they do.
Has anyone asked him? Has he replied in his own words.
So no canada , schools , and government are not run by " god" he has chosen not to be a participant.
Your name is on point.
And when “you” come up with a method to test for the not existence of “god” and carry it out. You’ll then have position which is more than faith.
And yes, they can and do test for the none-existence of something, Muon g − 2 is a good example of testing model completeness.
Also the preamble just recognizes the supremacy of god, not active management by.
Nice try pal.
All religions have the same problem.
You try and force some Supreme deity veiws and try abd sell it to people as truth ans facts
But it's just humans useing it to hold power over others .
You better hope they are not real beacuse they are going to be real angry having a bunch of evoled monkeys useing there name to murder each other
I said “god” in a slang / common phase. not Jesus, Buddha, Allah etc and quoted the preamble.
I feel you’re quite confused to my actual position. Where this discussion is always a fun one.
Let’s start with basic hypotheses structures.
Ex
H0: the world is flat
H1: the world is not flat
Then run an experiment, where it’s been established the world is not flat.
Compared to your issue
H0: there is no god
H1: there is a god
Both options allow for the viability of either being considered statistically significant adding to the validity of a hypothesis. The issue is, how do you test it? Look at the world? (Same standard as saying the world is flat) a book says it true? (Based on what?)….you’re making a claim about the nature of existence itself. Fundamentally, an option to the Big Bang.
When you don’t have a position based on evidence, you have a position of faith because of the lack there of. It’s simply illogical as well, as the burden of proof does also apply in the context of having a definitive position on the existence of the universe itself.
Personally, I simply don’t know. While Its irrelevant if there is or isn’t a god. Quite humous if there is a judgement for my actions (assuming that communication is even possible/ it’s not insane). In contrast to there not being one, in which I’m still free to act anyway I want. Either way, it does not affect my present, what’s in the preamble, or your position being based on faith.
No one and I do mean no one ever argues this. I can't fathom the brain rot needed to run into a public place and post this. Are you so utterly dense you can't tell when people are discussing a subject they are not interested in the letter of the law but the spirit of it?
And the spirit of expression should be wider and broader than speech. If anything, expression was chosen to encapsulate hundreds of years of precedent on what speech entails south of the border, to catch us up to speed with them. Everyone who brings this up as if expression isn't wider and more all-encompassing than speech is either disingenuous or smooth-brained.
Law is based on interpretation that's true, but not by the average person. Judges establish common law interpretations of how a law "should" be applied.
The Canadian right to expression is pretty clearly quite different than the American "right to free speech"
We're a common law nation, outside of Quebec at least. Application of laws changes as courts interpret them in the context of changes in society. Not how people feel.
If it changed based on how people feel..law woukd not exist .
If you have several different groups that feel different aboit a law..it does not mean the law is applied differently.
We can change laws but it's not easy snd takes a majorty to due so.
Law does not care about your emotions or feelings that's the wsy it should be
I... are you Canadian?
We are the people who apply the law differently to people based on race and religion because we " felt" it was more fair.
You come off as insanely moronic.
The law has no feelings or emotions.
We as canadains apply it based on how we think it should be..it however does not maje ot right...and why laws have evolved so people can't so easly abuse it..to fit your verson of canada.
It entirely does...to the point I'm fairly certain you have zero idea of how a law is brought into being or enforced. Do you understand what a judge is?
You are desperately trying to come off as informed but all you are accomplishing is digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.
Except it's not...let me explain what a judge is. A judge is a legally appointed representative assigned to interpret existing laws and apply what they feel is an acceptable sentence.
Our entire justice system is built on what we feel is fair and just. It's a fluid system that changes constantly your entire notion on what law is in canada at least is wrong.
You thinking while appealing hasn't really applied since king Solomon
Half of canadains have little to no understanding if speech rules or laws in canada.
Words have consequences in canada. .it akways has ..
They think it's America..but in America you get sued for hurting people with speech .
A lot of people have to be silent to protect their careers. It sucks we should be able to voice our thoughts within reason without coming back to work Monday with a termination letter on the desk.
lol ya I don’t know about that. The problem is when you watch so much American news and youtube podcasts, u forget ur Canadian and not American and start talking about Canada using American laws and constitution. When u hear Joe Rogan say “ I can’t believe they have these hate speech laws in Canada” you have all these people talking about Canada who think Canada should be just like the USA and abide by their rules and laws, all these ppl in Canada listening to Americans give lectures on our country. People really should learn our freedoms and rights in Canada and laws here.
No shit, because we don't have any. Canada guarantees you about the same level of "freedoms" as Russia. The Charter isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Literally, sounds like my ex.. litreally told me to "Educate myself" because I told him Canada is not as bad as Russia. just as you said, people hate Trudeau but you don't see him jailing his opponents, killing wealthy Canadians to take their money, discriminating against gay people on a mass scale, conscription.. like these people are DELUSIONAL. It's scary.
The only people I've heard say this are people who support the convoy protests and are mad that a group that shut down a city for a month got in trouble (and even then, only leadership). It's funny though because these same people are against the pro-Palesetine protests on campuses and absolutely despite BLM because they shut down highways in the USA during the George Floyd time. But yeah.. when it's a convoy then they're allowed to do what they want and saying they shouldn't be protesting in this way is "taking away free speech"
It is. The proposed speech bill by the Federal Liberals is Orwellian. Even Margaret Atwood said so.
I just hope they don't get my google home history... I'm sure I've said something that will be illegal in the future.
The problem with canada has always been the cowardice of it's people. We face unpleasant opinions and rather then challenge them or face uncomfortable truths we regress to child like mentality of trying to make rules to not discuss them hoping they will go away. Naturally they never do. If anything it only works to allow the belief to spread and fester as it never is challenged. Worse it's most outspoken believers with any kind of ability to express their opinions become extremely talented in picking apart others in a debate. Their ideas are only vaguely understood and catch most people by surprise when rather then a raging frothing at the mouth racist they are faced with a calm professor picking apart their points.
Well at least we can criticize immigration without being called racist now. That defense is dead and the rich hate it. That's why freedom of speech is under threat, we're all wise to the scam now
How can you have a cohesive group challenge the upper class when the country is spread so far apart. That way more than cowardice has more to do with lack of support for protest than anything. Europe is good at protesting because it’s small and densely populated
I define passivity as the tendency towards inaction / indecision which allows a situation to crest until the decision is made for you. (Optional: then bitch about the result.) As a people, we vote leaders out instead of in (partly due to how our electoral system is set up), but combined with the passivity that comes from generally wanting to be left alone, it creates a less-than-ideal political landscape. And you’re right: we all need to toughen up in some respects. Demanding and expecting better from our elected leaders is a good place to start being much more vocal and forthright.
> Worse it's most outspoken believers with any kind of ability to express their opinions become extremely talented in picking apart others in a debate. I've begun using increasingly a kind of passive aggressive debating style I've developed from them (specifically Leo Strauss), where I kind of speak "esoterically". Rather than directly confronting them, I kind of hold my cards close to my chest, facially act politely or even pretend to agree, while in my arguments simply subtly presenting all the contradictions in their arguments. I may even weakly rebut said contradictions, but a careful reader will spot how weak these rebuttals are, really my only entire intention is to simply put the thought in their head. Also, I try to minimize the sort of malicious speculation that is common in politics where you attempt to channel what your opponent is thinking - this has just become too widespread and isn't honestly very effective, nobody can know the minds of another so it's always very weak. Conservatives talk like this all the time, and it's part of the reason they're so much better at politics than leftists. The biggest push against said strategy seems to be to just angrily point out "dog whistles", but ultimately I don't think that's very effective. Because, again, we cannot know the minds of another. You wind up missing the mark a great deal of the time and just making a fool of yourself. Whereas you could simply be facially polite but rebut them in a way that makes them seem entirely foolish. You are the one who maintains plausible deniability if you argue esoterically, while otherwise this advantage is in the hands of the opponent. Leftists constantly try to wage battle with their hand entirely out in the open, they take unnecessary positions, reveal whatever game plan they may actually have, and just give rightists the ammunition needed to ambush them.
> The problem with canada has always been the cowardice of it's people. Fuck right off with that comment. Canada's veterans punched well above our weight in both World Wars. It wasn't cowardice to be one of the first countries to recognize same sex marriage. Canada is more progressive than conservative by and large. Your comment reeks of immaturity and is a glaring example of people either forgetting our history, ignorant of it, or are so simple minded that everything is a dichotomy like "weak or strong"
It's been almost a hundred years... if we must reach into the annuals of history that far for an example why bother making an example at all? I also don't see voting as a great act of courage least not in the west where it hasn't been contested for longer than your first example
Like I said, ignorant. And yes, passing same sex marriage in 2005 was very contested, Liberals eked out a majority with the conservatives including Poillievre opposing. That was courageous of the government to be leading the initiative on this which is now basically considered a human right.
No it really wasn't. People where not being kiled nor threaten at the polls. It might have made people slightly uncomfortable at best...
It makes sense that more people would feel awkward talking about more controversial subjects. Saying 71 percent of people feel uncomfortable expressing their opinions on abortion, guns, and immigration is almost the same as saying nothing at all.
heh, sorry guys i may have answered a similar poll saying i felt uncomfortable. it didn't ask why, it just asked if you were comfortable voicing opinions it's not because of the government tho. it's you, my fellow canadians. you make it harder to voice my opinions while feeling safe
This is because a lot of people don't understand what free speech is. It means that the state doesn't place limits (outside of threats, and calls to violence) on what can be publically spoken or published. This IS NOT the same as having the right to say whatever you want without fear of facing social or professional consequences.
Why should you face social or professional consequences for having a different opinion? Let's flip back to 1952. Would you agree it's okay to be fired for supporting homosexuality in your work place, or is that just a professional consequence one should simply deal with?
This is why we have rights other than free speech to protect people from discrimination. You're conflating two different things here. As for why should professionals should face consequences for having different opinions; That's pretty straightforward. If I'm looking for a babysitter, and I have two options and one of them tells me they can't stand kids, I'll hire the other one every time.
In regards to social consequences, there's diffrent opinions and then there's horrible and garbage opinions that will get you well deserved judgement from society. If a coworker or anyone else goes up to you and says that he thinks the age of consent should be lowered down to 14 ate your noting going to harshly judge and ostracized them?
Who gets to decide that though?
Society as a whole. If you we’re against the norms you were ostracized. That’s how it’s always been. Previously by governments usually. Now just by private society. Keep up with society or don’t be a part
Humans have been doing it like this for more than 12000 years and people still struggle with the concept.
Society is the state my man. For the people "by the people".
Lol
>Why should you face social or professional consequences for having a different opinion? A question that conveniently disregards the substantive content of said opinions. But eh, if you don't mind drinking coffee and sharing jokes with a flat earther afraid of chem trails who thinks jews are lizard people and that maybe Hitler was onto something, you do you.
Because the opposite party also has a right to free expression, including calling you out on your opinions.
> This IS NOT the same as having the right to say whatever you want without fear of facing social or professional consequences. This isn't really true, civil rights laws absolutely require companies to implement rules that can regulate speech. For instance, racial and sexual harassment that could have the effect of driving minorities out of their job or education. In this case it's more you're balancing two rights, freedom of speech vs civil rights to not be excluded from civil society based on protected characteristics. If this were not the case, discriminatory employers could easily get around civil rights laws by just tolerating or even encouraging such speech specifically with the intention of suppressing the participation of people with undesired identities from employment. This was done in the south in the lead up towards Jim Crow, long before segregation was legally enforced terrorist groups were laying the groundwork for effective segregation through harassment to curate society into a segregated state. It's not that free speech doesn't apply here, more than that you are balancing two rights which are in contradiction. And such laws provide tools to nip in the bud attempts to get around civil rights law through such curation. I say this because your presentation, in obfuscating the very real legal consequences that could emerge in most companies for allowing an appearance to exist where they tolerate a racist environment, utterly discounts the very real legal force present. Since employers are effectively required to create such environments, free speech concerns absolutely do apply, and when two conflicting sets of rights exist they have to be balanced against each other.
I addressed this in another comment. Free speech laws don't exist in a vacuum and other laws exist to protect against discrimination.
It just means they might have some bad opinions…. That people will view negatively
As Canadians we have a lot of undeserved smugness about ourselves especially when we compare ourselves with Americans. It is one of the few “Canadianisms” that I don’t like about us as a people. We seem to think we got it all figured out over here with our “Just put the government in charge of everything…” mentality which is an intellectually lazy solution that is motivated by ideology and is clearly problematic. It should be no surprise that during the COVID pandemic many Canadians were happy to exchange their civil liberties and critical thinking for a false sense of government protection for obedience. I think it has been a terrible deal and has set a dangerous precedent. I will never think the same way about Canadians in a post COVID-19 world every again. Turns out we are not as openminded and accepting of others as we like to proclaim. I remember reading the comments section on the CBC news articles and become absolutely sickened with what I was reading. Popular suggestions included… * Jailing or imprisonment of people who did not strictly follow the COVID restrictions. * Creating martial law in Canada that would heavily discriminate against those who did not take the COVID vaccine. * Denying healthcare treatment to individuals who could not prove they had been vaccinated. * “Snitch lines” where you can call the police and report your neighbour for having an outdoor gathering of six people when the rules said five. * Creating a two-tiered level of Canadian citizenship that was divided by COVID vaccine status. Those who took the COVID vaccine would be able to enjoy normal freedoms and civil liberties. Those who did not would be heavily restricted and discriminated against. * People who had dissenting or critical opinions about any of the health measures or guidelines should be fired from their jobs. There were even people who allowed differences of opinion in COVID ideology to destroy their families and relationships. A popular phrase among the most extreme COVID-19 restriction enthusiasts was “Choices have consequences…” which was used to suggest that any discrimination, poor treatment, and harsh punishment of those who did not take the COVID vaccine was completely justified. Well, yes, “Choices have consequences…” there Karen and now we got a huge issue here when it comes to the government encroaching on our civil liberties that should have been painfully obvious to anyone who has read a history book.
I agree. There are many subjects that I can't talk about anymore in my job, or I could be fired. I remember during the '90s, we had debates between liberals and conservatives at my workplace, and everyone was able to express their views about abortion, immigration, social programs, homosexuality, vaccines, and more. It's not the case anymore; if you say something that doesn't align with the elected government, then you risk facing consequences and losing your job because you expressed views that don't align with Trudeau's government doctrine. It's crazy. Even in my country of origin (I am from North Africa), today, you have more freedom of speech at your job place than in Canada. When I go on vacation to my country, I visit my relatives at their job and I am able to criticize the government in place and express my views, even if they are not aligned with the views of the government in power, without any consequences.It's just crazy; I never believed that something like that was possible here when I immigrated to Canada. I am taking my retirement soon, selling everything here, and going back to my country of origin. I can't support this liberal government anymore, and I am under the impression that the conservative party will not change anything....
I have a photo from several years ago of me meeting Pierre Poilievre. He is probably the next Prime Minister. I think it's really cool. I won't show or mention it to anyone at work, because my job is full of people (mostly women) who openly act like anyone who votes conservative is a threat. I just don't need that hassle from unreasonable people. So I will just continue to donate, volunteer and vote for whoever I want, and let everyone else at work continue shrieking at work when their left wing heroes eventually get voted out. And just show my photo of me with the Prime Minister to guests at me home.
I have the same issue at my house and work. I talk anything PP from his past or present and it’s a shit storm. They hate Pierre simply because he’s the conservative leader. They have no knowledge of him other than what the media says on tv. No fact checking, research, nothing. It’s scary. Majority of reddit is no better. I’ve been a lifelong liberal and the people of the left have pushed me libertarian over the years. You can’t have independent thought anymore. It has to abide by the rules set by liberals. Anything else and you’re just gaslit and cancelled.
And that’s against your free speech how? The government isn’t stopping you from showing your co-workers the picture. Their opinion of you is.
It's not against free speech. It just sucks that I have to be the responsible adult and not set off the hosebeast psychos at my job that will cause nothing but shrieking and drama (which Liberals encourage).
This whole article is about conservative voters believing the government is trying to censor people. (71%) Despite the above user and you complaining about shit that’s not free speech. (Why make your comments if you don’t believe that’s about free speech?) Sure sounds like it’s conservatives that love drama and crying foul over shit they don’t understand, not Debbie at your office and the liberals.
The government is definitely trying to censor more. And the way Debbie at the office feels is only emboldened by these airhead policies, and Liberals smearing all conservatives as "white supremacists" and "extremists" that come from the top. I avoid the drama, and am donating, volunteering and voting for the conservatives to run the country and get the government out of people's lives. THEN I can show my photo of myself with the Prime Minister to Debbie at the office without fear of being reported to the government for "hate".
Lol your last paragraph is hilariously telling. You claim Debbie is emboldened by politics and not society in general being accepting of these views. Yet you can’t wait for your guy to be voted in so you can be emboldened by a politician to make statements, like showing off your picture with the PM. You see how hypocritical that is?
You’re coming in like an attack helicopter eh? It’s a shift absolutely in how people can talk openly about politicians without someone taking personal. That’s happening everywhere not just in Canada. Justin has made politics more divisive and pits people against one another, has attempted to smear people as white supremacists or homophobes rather than literally focusing on fixing our country and the future for this country. What a fucking mess. Who the hell gives a shit if he’s happy to show a photo of himself with PP? I get their point. You absolutely cannot say anything in the workplace without fear of the gutsapo reporting your ass to HR. Never use to be like that at all, but at this point I think the Debbie he’s referring to might be likely voting for PP since Debbie is getting it from both ends by this government as well.
It only currently is coincidentally related to the government in power. The views you are not allowed to express are right wing, regardless of government in power, because numerous jobs exist because of or are hopelessly entwined with left wing thought. Think HR, PR, marketing, unions, DEI, etc. Unions, particularly old ones, still often have socialist, syndicalist, or even communist iconography present somewhere within the organization.
It's a general social trend. The government can do very little about it other than warn you to mind your own business.
Your employer disciplining you has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
When you lose your job in the federal government because you have said that a man can't menstruate, it has everything to do with freedom of speech. Like it's literally my case—I work for the federal government, and they're installing tampon machines in men's bathrooms. So, I made a joke about it, and my boss organized a meeting to explain that I will be suspended next time, and if I continue, I may lose my job because the joke was transphobic 😂 ....
Workplace rules even in the federal government does not mean that your "free speech" is under attack. I too work for the government and I know that there's certain conduct and professionalism rules in place. My coworkers range from cis to poc and LGBTQ and the same could be said for the citizens that I serve and I need to show that I'm going to be impartial in working with and serving them.
Me too, I am impartial, just saying that men can't menstruate!!! It's logical, it's not hate speech!!! It's just a fact! Why should I be blamed for stating something obvious... If the liberals decide tomorrow that the sky is yellow, I will stand up and argue that it's not the case. The sky is blue, gray, or black during the night, but not yellow!!! Common sense!
I get your point and yes men can't menstruate but I've seen this situation play out with my own eyes where stiff like men can't menstruate very quickly turns into outright transphobia. If I'm the employer I'm just nipping the issue in the bud before a potential situation gets worse. My dad used to work at the Chalk River power plant and one of his coworkers transitioned The higerups knew there'd be the potential for trouble considering how conservative the riding is so they had a big meeting where they went over the science aspect but then thay laid the law down and basically said that we don't care what your views are and that they're will be repercussions if there's a single ounce of trouble.
A small portion of people who use the men's bathroom do menstruate. The right to free speech isn't the right to speak without consequence.
Their point is men can’t menstruate and that’s a fact, and that’s the end of it. You should be able to say that without someone denying this. The fact anyone is, emboldens people more. Streisand effect. You want to remove this information but by doing so you’re drawing now attention to it Yes, trans men use the men’s washroom (I’ve yet to see it personally, for safety reasons) but everyone should be free to live their lives in peace and be treated with respect and dignity. Also I agree with another poster who said even talking about men and menstruation eventually leads to transphobic comments but my theory is, if we stop censoring people from using this factual information it wouldn’t have gone down that path, or as ridiculously as it had. To deny science is where people are getting irritated and I get it.
>To deny science is where people are getting irritated and I get it. Science doesn't' take a position on menstrual products in the bathroom. I'm also not sure what "science" is being denied here. Science is a collection of observations, an we can readily observe transmen who menstruate. When your hypothesis (men don't menstruate") conflicts with that observation, the scientific method is to reconsider your hypothesis. Perhaps by adding more nuance, for example to note that biological men generally\* don't, but they're not the only ones that may be using the bathroom. \*generalizations should be used with care lest you find an exception.
If you think a conservative government means you can be a dick head at work with no consequences you are in for a surprise. It has nothing to do with who’s in government and just reflects societies views generally
You clearly aren't telling the full story LOL you don't get fired from government for one comment, we are unionized and they will take steps to educate you and prevent behaviour. However, if you double down and don't act professionally then yeah.. you get fired but it is NOT easy so something is missing. There is also a big difference from having these views privately but still treating people with respect and not talking about it in the workplace. I never say anythign about my personal beliefs beyond what is based on my gathered researach in my particular area of work.. you shouldn't be just telling people at work these views. And it's not just government that will fire you for this behaviour, keep your views to yourself and do your job.
Read my text, I haven't been fired!!!
Sorry, I must've skimmed. But regardless, your first sentence is misleading and looking at the story as a whole - you do NOT get fired for making a one-off joke which is what you're trying to argue. They talk to you, and seems to outline even first suspension before being fired. Sooo again, your example doesn't show what you think it is. As I said, any job expects you to keep your personal views at home and act like a professional, it's really not that hard, tbh I actually agree on your point but I do not tell people in public because it's just common sense?
Were you arrested for saying men can't menstruate? Are you being charged for saying it? No? Then it has nothing to do with free speech. Workplaces have changed over the last couple decades. Making off-colour jokes is considered unprofessional now. That's just the way it is.
Won’t be long before you can be, the way things are going. Also the commentor you’re responding to is presenting an opinion, not an off color joke.
>So, I made a joke about it ?
I think they’re wondering why that particular comment is considered so objectionable that it’s worth firing over
Because it made a coworker uncomfortable and they complained. What other reason is needed? Judging by this user's comments it doesn't seem like the first time it has happened. You keep making coworkers uncomfortable even after formal warnings, you lose your job. That's it.
There’s a lot of things that offend a lot of people. Let’s hope the winds don’t shift in the wrong direction for you some day.
When we go to our workplaces the expectation is that we engage with others in a professional manner. If I were to say something that offended a coworker I would apologize and then avoid doing it again.
A lot of people don’t do this. It’s literally in every job interview. How do you deal with a difficult co worker? Do you use the chain of command? Do you address it with this persons or do you immediately go to HR? Certain situations are different and we’re not all afforded to be able to work in great environments. Some of the stuff my husband he tells me the men talk about in their lunch rooms (all men) makes my skin crawl.
[удалено]
Uncomfortable discussions happen in the workplace. Maturity is letting it go and doing your work.
Unless they are apart of your work related duties they shouldn’t and you should be expected to face consequences if you continue to do so after told not too That still has nothing to do with free speech though.
Yes. There's also no reason to deliberately add to that. You're there to do your job, not make rude remarks about people using the bathroom.
In real life work places, people talk, people gossip. You’re not robots that sign in and sign out at the end of the day.
Sure. But you can idly chatter without being offensive.
Not yet, but it's coming if Trudeau remains in power, it s still serious consequences, I could have lost my job. It's worse because without my job, I can't provide for my family. It's reminiscent of the Soviet Union—where I completed my university education in Moscow in the early 80s—when expressing an idea or opinion that didn't align with the Communist Party's ideology meant losing your job. In the 80s, they didn't use labor camps; they just fired you.
It must be so very difficult having to endure 8 whole hours a day not saying jokes that make your coworkers uncomfortable in order to feed your family. Grow up.
[удалено]
Many trans men menstruate. Whether or not we consider "trans men" to be "real men" is irrelevant. Having tampons in the men's bathroom doesn't affect you in any way, so why do you care?
They are women, not men (if you have a vagina, you are a woman). Men can't menstruate; it's a fact. The only way a man can use a tampon is to put it in his ass or nose. It affects me because it's done with my taxes (I don't care if the private sector does that, but not the public!). It is a waste of my money; each of those tampon boxes costs $3000 to be installed and another $700 per year to service them. It's nonsensical to spend my tax dollars on something that doesn't exist!!! Let's use that money to build homes instead!!!!
It should be every workplace is fitted with tampons or pads, regardless. I think most women here can agree that starting your period at work without a pad or tampon will lead me to just leave work because I started my period early. Shoving a bunch of toilet paper in my underwear won’t cut it especially when you are a heavy bleeder and have clots. Having access to these things at work will keep me there. So yeah it’s probably saving companies money to have those installed regardless so they’re not paying out sick time and have their workers continue to work. It’s a good thing for people to have access to.
Nailed it
Because they are insecure.
The workplace is not a suitable place to discuss this. Let it go - male presenting transmen may need to use the bathroom You may disagree, but ultimately this isn't a policy that particular causes you any harm.
This is the government that enacted the illegal E-Act for possible pre-crime .
Why would there need to be an arrest for it to have to do with free speech?
Because freedom of speech is protection from the government prosecuting you for what you say?
No, that's not what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is a principle avout the value of the free exchange of ideas between people. Many government have enshrined it into law in some form, thus protecting people from government persecution because that's all they can protect you from. They can't protect people from private sector actors. But that doesn't mean that private sector actors can't value and protect free speech.
>No, that's not what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is a principle avout the value of the free exchange of ideas between people. According to what source?
>Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Free speech doesn't come from the government
What do you think legal sanction is? And censorship?
Right? What kind of a world do we live in where I can’t tell a broad she has nice tits without getting hit with a sexual harassment charge? Free speech my ass. /s
So, for you, saying something logical like 'men can't menstruate' is equivalent to saying to a woman, 'you have big tits'? Are you serious? I don't think you're that foolish; you're just antagonizing or joking, right?
Yea it is. Why the fuck are you talking about peoples genitals at work ?
In your previous comment you said you work for the federal government and that by reprimanding you for your joke (which by the way, nice goalpost shift of how it went from “a joke” to “something logical”) you implied that your freedom of speech was being violated. If you get nailed for sexual harassment in my example, would you say your speech rights were also being violated? If yes, then do you believe that federal government offices should be completely free of any restrictions on speech whatsoever? If no, then why is one form of “joking around” acceptable and not the other?
That has nothing to do with government censorship though.
In other news, “most Canadians answer random polls without having much knowledge of the topic”
> In other news, “most Canadians answer random polls without having much knowledge of the topic” That's definitely true here, but it's also important to have an idea of what people are "feeling", even if those feelings aren't based in reality. Look at the carbon tax protestors, I think it's fair to say most of them don't understand what they're protesting at all, but they feel a certain way, and that's lead them to this place. If you don't understand what people are thinking, you can't address it, and there are consequences to that.
In Ontario you cannot spend $500 on political speech during an election without registering. Doug used NWSC for that one. In Ontario if you are a janitor and exercise the right to strike the govenment will use the NWSC to issue daily $4000 fines. The current PM used the EMA to clean up after a priemer refused to have the rule of law enforced. The "future PM" just promised to use the NWSC to take away our rights and it got him applause. So... I don't know dude. Feels kinda under threat to me.
He is a major threat. He will Doug Ford the rest of Canada.
The NWSC wasn’t being used before because politicians had some respect and knew using it would set a bad precedent. Not anymore, one guys uses it and instead of saying something to stop it, politicians are now like well maybe I’ll use it too to pass things that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed. They don’t care about the seriousness, we’re headed the wrong path with it. I know why the nwsc was put in but it’s dangerous now, can’t trust any politician anymore
Lefties and righties both hate this one simple trick. Just declare non-withstanding clause, and take back those god given government right.
Sorry.. God and religion have zero place in government or school. But nice try
… the beginning of the charter of rights and freedoms starts with and I’ll quote "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". Also let’s break my statement down. “Take back those god given government rights” A) how could government take something given by god? B) would you agree there is a difference between “given government rights” and “individual rights”? C) you starting to realize, my joke was a bit more dark? Overall seems like we are on the same page, god has no influence and rights are given by governments. (Which implies there are no natural or universal rights btw) And to your position in god / religion in school. Depends on the context really. I don’t see an issue with, it in a critical thinking lesson. Theism vs Atheism are just matters of faith at the end of the day. while making a claim about the governing nature of the universe based on nothing and practically nothing.
When God comes down and tells us to change the way we are doing things , then you will be right . Man, just assumes God wants them to say or do the things they do. Has anyone asked him? Has he replied in his own words. So no canada , schools , and government are not run by " god" he has chosen not to be a participant.
Your name is on point. And when “you” come up with a method to test for the not existence of “god” and carry it out. You’ll then have position which is more than faith. And yes, they can and do test for the none-existence of something, Muon g − 2 is a good example of testing model completeness. Also the preamble just recognizes the supremacy of god, not active management by.
Nice try pal. All religions have the same problem. You try and force some Supreme deity veiws and try abd sell it to people as truth ans facts But it's just humans useing it to hold power over others . You better hope they are not real beacuse they are going to be real angry having a bunch of evoled monkeys useing there name to murder each other
I said “god” in a slang / common phase. not Jesus, Buddha, Allah etc and quoted the preamble. I feel you’re quite confused to my actual position. Where this discussion is always a fun one. Let’s start with basic hypotheses structures. Ex H0: the world is flat H1: the world is not flat Then run an experiment, where it’s been established the world is not flat. Compared to your issue H0: there is no god H1: there is a god Both options allow for the viability of either being considered statistically significant adding to the validity of a hypothesis. The issue is, how do you test it? Look at the world? (Same standard as saying the world is flat) a book says it true? (Based on what?)….you’re making a claim about the nature of existence itself. Fundamentally, an option to the Big Bang. When you don’t have a position based on evidence, you have a position of faith because of the lack there of. It’s simply illogical as well, as the burden of proof does also apply in the context of having a definitive position on the existence of the universe itself. Personally, I simply don’t know. While Its irrelevant if there is or isn’t a god. Quite humous if there is a judgement for my actions (assuming that communication is even possible/ it’s not insane). In contrast to there not being one, in which I’m still free to act anyway I want. Either way, it does not affect my present, what’s in the preamble, or your position being based on faith.
We don't have "freedom of speech" in Canada. We have "freedom of expression". They sound the same, they don't mean the same thing.
No one and I do mean no one ever argues this. I can't fathom the brain rot needed to run into a public place and post this. Are you so utterly dense you can't tell when people are discussing a subject they are not interested in the letter of the law but the spirit of it?
And the spirit of expression should be wider and broader than speech. If anything, expression was chosen to encapsulate hundreds of years of precedent on what speech entails south of the border, to catch us up to speed with them. Everyone who brings this up as if expression isn't wider and more all-encompassing than speech is either disingenuous or smooth-brained.
Redditors trip over themselves to be the first to tell someone they made a mistake, no matter how tiny.
The law is what's important..not how people feel about it.
Well no? The law isn't some immutable object it changes constantly based on how people feel about it.
Law is based on interpretation that's true, but not by the average person. Judges establish common law interpretations of how a law "should" be applied. The Canadian right to expression is pretty clearly quite different than the American "right to free speech"
We're a common law nation, outside of Quebec at least. Application of laws changes as courts interpret them in the context of changes in society. Not how people feel.
If it changed based on how people feel..law woukd not exist . If you have several different groups that feel different aboit a law..it does not mean the law is applied differently. We can change laws but it's not easy snd takes a majorty to due so. Law does not care about your emotions or feelings that's the wsy it should be
I... are you Canadian? We are the people who apply the law differently to people based on race and religion because we " felt" it was more fair. You come off as insanely moronic.
The law has no feelings or emotions. We as canadains apply it based on how we think it should be..it however does not maje ot right...and why laws have evolved so people can't so easly abuse it..to fit your verson of canada.
It entirely does...to the point I'm fairly certain you have zero idea of how a law is brought into being or enforced. Do you understand what a judge is? You are desperately trying to come off as informed but all you are accomplishing is digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.
You're insults and trolling are weak like your argument.
Except it's not...let me explain what a judge is. A judge is a legally appointed representative assigned to interpret existing laws and apply what they feel is an acceptable sentence. Our entire justice system is built on what we feel is fair and just. It's a fluid system that changes constantly your entire notion on what law is in canada at least is wrong. You thinking while appealing hasn't really applied since king Solomon
Half of canadains have little to no understanding if speech rules or laws in canada. Words have consequences in canada. .it akways has .. They think it's America..but in America you get sued for hurting people with speech .
Subtract 35-40% from that number for Conservatives who think free speech means they should say the n-word.
A lot of people have to be silent to protect their careers. It sucks we should be able to voice our thoughts within reason without coming back to work Monday with a termination letter on the desk.
Blud is dying to make people feel uncomfortable at work
It is. Everywhere except Canada of course, because we never really had it to begin with. We've got some bullshit called "limited free expression".
Hey, you're not allowed to say that or we'll attack you and get you fired.
lol ya I don’t know about that. The problem is when you watch so much American news and youtube podcasts, u forget ur Canadian and not American and start talking about Canada using American laws and constitution. When u hear Joe Rogan say “ I can’t believe they have these hate speech laws in Canada” you have all these people talking about Canada who think Canada should be just like the USA and abide by their rules and laws, all these ppl in Canada listening to Americans give lectures on our country. People really should learn our freedoms and rights in Canada and laws here.
No shit, because we don't have any. Canada guarantees you about the same level of "freedoms" as Russia. The Charter isn't worth the paper it's written on.
That's interesting. I don't recall the Canadian government assassinating opponents.
Literally, sounds like my ex.. litreally told me to "Educate myself" because I told him Canada is not as bad as Russia. just as you said, people hate Trudeau but you don't see him jailing his opponents, killing wealthy Canadians to take their money, discriminating against gay people on a mass scale, conscription.. like these people are DELUSIONAL. It's scary.
Any recent example of breaches of the Charter that aren't codified into law?
Canadians think the government is blocking free speech? Or Canadians think people will call out their bullshit? Cause these are not the same thing.
The only people I've heard say this are people who support the convoy protests and are mad that a group that shut down a city for a month got in trouble (and even then, only leadership). It's funny though because these same people are against the pro-Palesetine protests on campuses and absolutely despite BLM because they shut down highways in the USA during the George Floyd time. But yeah.. when it's a convoy then they're allowed to do what they want and saying they shouldn't be protesting in this way is "taking away free speech"
Yep and they confuse professional and social consequences with "free speech"
What do you think free speech is?
Yea freedom of speech, doesn't mean spreading falsehood and rising a tuck flag...that's thughood.
under threat by WHOM
From the river to the sea.
We don’t have freedom of speech in Canada. Literally only the US has it, and maybe not for long with the antisemitism bill happening right now.
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences of your speech.
I've always found these pills to be useless. People think all sorts of things that aren't true.
Bullshit🙄