would it be so terrible if we were a bit more like Canada

Author: PaulVerliane ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 35
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    People think the nation would collapse if lIBERALS ran the show, but in Canada over the last 100 years liberals have ruled for abut 70 of those 100, look at the amazing job they did! 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @PaulVerliane
    Is 'we' referring to America? Your Profile says you're from Canada.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,958
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @RationalMadman
    America will never be a Soy Nation.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    America will never be a Soy Nation.
    please explain what a "soy nation" is and why america shouldn't be one. 


  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    --> @Greyparrot
    name calling is not an argument its a sign you dont have an argument
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    at any one point by body weigh is 70% molson ale
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,958
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    You do realize America is the highest-ranked nation in free speech.

  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    --> @Greyparrot
    that sir is about the most unreliable index you could have gone to heres a better one more accepted by credible minds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index norway is best canada is ok beter than us, and we  we are about the same as Romania
    Romania,  ok? so , excuse me but according to a credible source you are wrong
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,958
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @PaulVerliane
    Excuse me? Why the hell are you citing an index that includes self- censorship?


    Safe space much?

    Not to mention, this is a bunch of opinions from people in Paris who don't have a constitutional right to free speech.

    Of course, the Paris organization rates France high while Charlie Hebdo gets massacred and Paris started jailing anyone with an opinion of Mohammed.

    PARIS - France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and those glorifying terrorism and announced Wednesday it was sending an aircraft carrier to the Middle East to work more closely with the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.


    Authorities said 54 people had been arrested for hate speech and defending terrorism since terror attacks killed 20 people in Paris last week, including three gunmen. The crackdown came as Charlie Hebdo's defiant new issue sold out before dawn around Paris, with scuffles at kiosks over dwindling copies of the satirical weekly that fronted the Prophet Muhammad anew on its cover.

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    You do realize America is the highest-ranked nation in free speech.
    As you haven't explained what your comment even meant, I honestly don't know what freedom of speech has to do with anything. Are you suggesting Canada doesn't have freedom of speech?


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,958
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff


    Canada's 22nd Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, prior to becoming Prime Minister, stated "Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

    PEN Canada, an organization that assists writers who are persecuted for peaceful expression, has called on "the federal and provincial governments to change human rights commission legislation to ensure commissions can no longer be used to attempt to restrict freedom of expression in Canada."

    According to Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, "[h]uman rights commissions were never intended to act as a form of thought police, but now they're being used to chill freedom of expression on matters that are well beyond accepted Criminal Code restrictions on free speech."

    A group of several dozen professors from the 7,000-member American Political Science Association contend that recent free speech precedents in Canada put academics at risk of prosecution. The group includes Robert George and Harvey Mansfield, and they have protested holding the scheduled 2009 APSA annual meeting in Canada for this reason. The leadership of APSA selected Toronto as the meeting location.

    There have been multiple lawsuits claiming that censorship violates multiple basic human rights, such as Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protects the fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, and opinion. These accusations have been of the violation of the rights and freedoms through certain types of censorship.

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    Canada's 22nd Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, prior to becoming Prime Minister,
    Stephen harper is/was a right wing loon whose main goal as prime minister was to weaken the federal government. He had to hide what his actual beliefs were once he ran for leadership because he was seriously further right than the vast majority of the population. 

    PEN Canada, an organization that assists writers who are persecuted for peaceful expression, has called on "the federal and provincial governments to change human rights commission legislation to ensure commissions can no longer be used to attempt to restrict freedom of expression in Canada."
    I went and checked the reference. They were saying that a human rights commission received a complaint about 2 writers. It doesn't say the commission in any way prevented their free speech as it doesn't say the commission did anything other than receive the complaint.


    According to Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, "[h]uman rights commissions were never intended to act as a form of thought police, but now they're being used to chill freedom of expression on matters that are well beyond accepted Criminal Code restrictions on free speech."
    I tried to check this reference but it doesn't exist. I have no way of knowing if that quote is real or what her objection really was. 

    A group of several dozen professors from the 7,000-member American Political Science Association contend that recent free speech precedents in Canada put academics at risk of prosecution.
    In Canada it is illegal to engage in hate speech. So if you publish something that incites violence or hate against a specific group, that is against the law. In my opinion that creates greater freedom, not less. If guarantees that minority groups are free from being targeted. America already has limits on free speech (libel laws, NDAs etc), this is really no different. 


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,958
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    In fact, a 2017 SCOTUS ruling re-affirmed that hate speech is free speech, meaning the rest of the world lives under a blanket of authoritarian censorship where anyone in the government can have you criminally jailed for speaking forbidden words to the wrong people.



  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    In fact, a 2017 SCOTUS ruling re-affirmed that hate speech is free speech, meaning the rest of the world lives under a blanket of authoritarian censorship where anyone in the government can have you criminally jailed for speaking forbidden words to the wrong people.
    You already live in a society where you can be jailed for speaking "forbidden words to the wrong people." Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. If you tell someone not to testify in court, that is witness tampering and is definitely a crime. There are lots of ways to be arrested for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. So please stop pretending like you can just say whatever you want whenever you want in America, it is a lie. 

    You already have libel laws. If you publish things that aren't true about an individual, that is also against the law. 

    You pretend like laws against hate speech are different in some way, but they aren't. They are just laws that protect people from being attacked. I would say protecting minorities from calls to violence is more important than an individual's "right" to advocate for violence against minorities. 


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,958
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    All of those examples need multiple other components for a criminal conviction. Words by themselves have no meaning.

    Words are not enough for a corrupt authoritarian government to imprison its enemies.


    In other countries, this is not the case, especially Canada.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    All of those examples need multiple other components for a criminal conviction. Words by themselves have no meaning.
    That sentence has no meaning. Words by themselves, mean exactly what those words mean. The context is of course important, but words in and of themselves can be a crime. If you tell a witness not to testify that is crime. It doesn't need to be threat, it doesn't need to be a bribe. If you try to convince a witness not to testify, it is witness tampering. 

    If you advocate for violence against a group, that should be illegal. No one should have the right to advocate for violence against a group of people. Allowing that doesn't make a society freer, it makes it more oppressive. But it is usually minorities that the ones being oppressed. And since i'm guessing you aren't in one of those minorities, you don't care if they are oppressed.   

    Words are not enough for a corrupt authoritarian government to imprison its enemies.
    Then america must be a corrupt authoritarian government because you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong words to the wrong person. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,958
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Then America must be a corrupt authoritarian government because you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong words to the wrong person. 

    Scotus disagrees with you. Hate speech is free speech.

    A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

    The idea that the government may restrict specific speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 31
    Forum posts: 8,126
    4
    5
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    Canada is gei
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    Scotus disagrees with you. Hate speech is free speech.
    SCOTUS decided that a person's right to incite violence is more important than a person's right to not be the subject of violence. I strongly disagree. Amendments to the constitution can be reinterpreted. SCOTUS could decide otherwise tomorrow. 

    the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
    that is freedom for you. It is tyranny for the people who are the subject of the hate. You are not advocating for a free society. You are advocating for a society that can attack minorities at will. That is not what america was supposed to be. 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,631
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    They decided that our right to have controversial opinions is more important than your right to not have your fee fees hurt. Would you really like Republicans deciding what YOU can and cannot say? I don't want Democrats doing that to me.

    What if they say that anything attacking religion is hate speech? What if promoting socialism is considered hate speech based on the millions killed by it in the past?

    And minorities can attack the majority in the same exact way that the majority can attack minorities: with words. Discrimination is not allowed by either side.
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    --> @Greyparrot
    the united states is practically a fascist state there isnt one credible index that considers your shit hole nation "free' not even the cato institute

    The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Germany (13), the United States and Sweden (17), Republic of Korea (27), Japan (31), France and Chile (32), Italy (34), South Africa (63), Mexico (75), Kenya (82), Indonesia (85), Argentina and Turkey (tied in 107th place), India and Malaysia (tied in 110th place), United Arab Emirates (117), Russia (119), Nigeria (132), China (135), Pakistan (140), Zimbabwe (143), Saudi Arabia (146), Iran (153), Egypt (156), Iraq (159), Venezuela (161), and Syria (162).  https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new your nation is a rotting right wing corpse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjMqda19wk
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,631
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    Well, I take that back. Minorities can discriminate against the majority. AfFiRmAtIvE aCtIoN
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Well, I take that back. Minorities can discriminate against the majority. AfFiRmAtIvE aCtIoN
    That doesn't even make sense. Affirmative action is used to level the playing field between minorities and the majority. It is also usually done by the majority to protect the minority. So it isn't discrimination and it isn't done by the minority. 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,631
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Maybe back in the 1960s it seemed 'necessary'. After multiple generations of availability, the argument can hardly be made that it works or could feasibly be needed. Putting kids in colleges above their level of ability leads to plenty of drop outs.

    I'll give you the point on it being enforced by the majority.

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @PaulVerliane
    lol you think the population and other difference are a fair comparison?  How about Quebec that wanted to succeed at one time?  You think we should have their hate speech laws?  We couldn't be like Canada because of our constitution which they do not have.