Total posts: 3,383
-->
@PressF4Respect
Does protecting various minority groups against this type of stuff seem arbitrary to you?And remember:Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.
absolutely, using words like "extreme" "ill-will" pretty much most of the words associated with the links laws etc, they are subjective and arbitrary since they use a lot of words open to interpretation.
I detest the Latin gangs and ms13 I detest the violent blm groups, they should be vilified as well, or does the law only apply to those whom are deemed "good people" worthy of legal protection?
detestation: Extreme dislike; hatred; abhorrence; loathing: with of.
those are personal opinions and expressions aka free speech.
goes far beyond
again who decides that, what's the criteria? more subjective and arbitrary wording.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Even if I do concede that the US has more free speech than Canada, would that necessarily make it better? I'm asking for your opinion here.
of course it would, we constantly talk about the erosion of our rights or the possibility of, it's already happened/happening in Canada :(
why would anyone want less freedom?
Created:
Posted in:
not one person had condemned or punished him for what he said, when you can attack someone and involve their children in that setting without reprisal that should say a lot about the state of society. they have NO moral authority over President Trump.
interesting how that furthers division and harmony in our society, gotta fire up the riots and looters I guess.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I will, because I thought that was an arrest able offense.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
A breach of the peace is defined in Brown v Durham Regional Police Force, [1998] O.J. No. 5274 (CA) as an “act or actions which result in actual or threatened harm to someone” (para 71).
right words which are hateful do neither of those, words that threaten, are a threat, which has been addressed in laws, so hate speech laws have expanded what is considered an "actual threat or threatened harm"
From Wikipedia:The various laws which refer to "hatred" do not define it. The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the term in various cases which have come before the Court. For example, in R v Keegstra, decided in 1990, Chief Justice Dickson for the majority explained the meaning of "hatred" in the context of the Criminal Code:Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.[4]More recently, in 2013, Justice Rothstein, speaking for the unanimous court, explained the meaning of "hatred" in similar terms, in relation to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code:In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.[5]
insensitivity, bigotry, insensitivity isn't arbitrary to you? values of our society.? so personal values don't matter I guess, not the ones you disagree with anyway. most extreme emotion that belies reason, emotion isn't arbitrary? who defines what belies reason? seems arbitrary. individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect. how authoritarian. enmity and extreme ill-will against the, more feelings again.
so we circles back to what I said, this is more about feelings than anything else, your speech is limited by your government so certain people, with special protections don't get their feelings hurt.
you agree that it's not defined I guess since that's the very first line in the quote, it's in bold now. Judges under some guide lines determine if it's hate speech or not, again arbitrary.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The term "likely" shouldn't ever be a standard of evidence. It either is or it is not.
yeah because it would almost make it sound............arbitrary.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
wow I'm really confused now, you mean you COULD incite people before the hate speech laws but now you can't?
best I can tell it's not really defined but rather someone would accuse another of hate speech and a court would decide it, is that about right?
I don't see where your government has made a legal definition of hate/hatred.
Section 319(3): Four defences[edit]Section 319(3) provides specific defences to the offence of promoting hatred. A person will not be convicted if:
- the person establishes that the statements communicated were true;
- in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
- the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or
- in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.[15]
so that's interesting because that really reads as guilty until proven innocent
R v Krymowski (2005)
R v Presseault (2007)
The sentencing judge called Presseault's remarks "despicable, evil, and nauseating". The judge also referred to Pressault's more than twenty tattoos, including several Ku Klux Klan and Nazi symbols covering the defendant's torso, in his decision to give jail time:
could of good cases right there, apparently not his body not his choice LOL
In 2017, James Sears and LeRoy St. Germaine, the editor and publisher of a newsletter promoting rape legalization and Holocaust denial, were charged with willful promotion of hatred against women and Jews.
wow
Warrant of seizure
- 320 (1) A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.
- Marginal note:Summons to occupier
(2) Within seven days of the issue of a warrant under subsection (1), the judge shall issue a summons to the occupier of the premises requiring him to appear before the court and show cause why the matter seized should not be forfeited to Her Majesty.
judge makes the decision because there is not real definition but rather arbitrary language.
how does one determine what will "incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace"?
couldn't find how the Canadian defines "breach of the peace"
best I could find is
section 175. (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
so If I say something and that causes the person breaks out in song I guess that's breach of the peace even though the one singing is doing it, pretty backwards.
In the U.S. protests would fit that definition as would a street corner preacher.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
That's your interpretation of it...The US also has laws against this too (incitement and fighting words).
totally different.
in essence they made the person saying words the criminal instead of the violent person reacting to them, I mean I totally get it, it's b.s. but I get it.
you don't have to react to words do you? is there some strange lack of control in Canada that people can't?
let's say you are a protected class and I say something that's hate speech, you are so weak minded that you might result to violence because I said something that hurt your feelings, these laws protect the mentally fragile, this is the government you have so enjoy it, I'll keep the freedom I have thanks.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
"incites hatred" is not arbitrary or capricious at all LOL
This definition of "Hate speech" is pretty objectively defined and isn't arbitrary.
riiigghhhttt emotions certainly aren't arbitrary, um sure thing, isn't the word hate arbitrary though?
Why Your Brain Hates Other People
alt-f then type in arbitrary.
arbitrary: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
hate is arbitrary since it's based on or determined by individuals.
where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace
ahhh here we go, in other words Canadians can't control themselves when people talk bad to them, it all makes sense now, bunch of overly sensitive, easily made violent society.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
it may have been a funny movie but that part was totally based on reality imo.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
right, so you don't disagree with what I said, I mean there was no need for further posts but that's cool. If hate speech fits your government criteria then certainly many other things would easily as well, at least compared to the U.S. constitution....well not that it's really comparable.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I looked up Oakes test
R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada which established the famous Oakes test, an analysis of the limitations clause (section 1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if it can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
Charter rights are not absolute and it is necessary to limit them in order to achieve "collective goals of fundamental importance".
It was in 1986??? wow The government made up its own rules that they could use to limit your rights and freedoms. Do you thank them for giving them to you?
The right to free speech is only needed to protect the speech you don't like and not protect hurt feelings, right?
The limits on free speech come from the basic principle that you're not allowed to harm others to get what you want. speech to threaten to hurt someone, either verbally or nonverbally. And you're not allowed to deceive people to get what you want – that's called fraud.
this is why hate speech isn't a real thing other that it could hurt someone's feelings :(
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
benevolent? perhaps, but wouldn't that be in part to encourage participation, new members and compete with competition? maybe more self serving/interest than benevolent?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Again, what do you consider hate speech? Because there are obviously things that shouldn't be said in a public forum.
it's not what I consider hate speech it's what the Canadian government has classified hate speech, which could NOT happen in the U.S. because of the constitution, but did happen in Canada. You keep trying to skirt the point by playing dumb, but it's not working.
The Canadian government can change rights far more easily than the U.S. can change the constitution which is proved by the hate speech laws.
that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional.Charter proves that freedom of expression, which is a basic right, may be limited when its exercise causes harm to the public interest or the rights of others.
and who makes those determinations???? THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT LOL
which is extremely different than "shall not be infringed"
so you have "rights" (more like permission) until such a time the Canadian government chooses to change, modify or alter it so long as they can justify it, which means they aren't actual rights because they are given, that which is given can also be taken as evidenced by hate speech.
the Canadian government has a lot more authority to infringe on rights than the U.S. government. The U.S. constitution limits government, Canadian government limits itself, but I'm not sure you can see that.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
morality? I'm sorry to tell you but those days have been long gone. It's moral to loot, kill, beat up, riot etc Families and religion are major pillars of morality and you can see the state of those. It's a sad reality there is very little morality left. There's really nothing that isn't acceptable, hell even the pedophiles were trying to claim it's a disorder or some garbage, they may actually get legitimacy some day. Given all the orientations etc is it that far fetched? Whatever morality standards are left are rock bottom, not much it taboo or off limits anymore. Sorry but this ruling is close to pandering or appeasing. The laws I've read leads me to believe what I have said, much to do about nothing. Most work places is not the time or place to discuss anything about sex and I certainly would have a policy about that. How about Muslim business? It's against their religion do they have to hire gays/trans whatever? Can they not fire them if they find out?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
who is saying anything of the kind? I haven't read anything about discrimination being ok, maybe I missed those posts. It's really a non issue which I thought I made clear. An employer could easily find another reason or in many cases not have to give a reason to fire someone. Nothing was really solved, read up on your state's labor laws.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Canada doesn't have anything like libel laws? do you know what they are and what they do? I'm quite frankly shocked. Your link shows the U.S. has whistle blower protections. Cases that are proven to violate the constitution are overturned there are thousands of cases you can read.
so your not going to deny my points on hate speech, I mean you could have just admitted it but that would be expecting too much I guess.
the fact that your government can restrict your speech like that is really all that needs to be said, you don't have a right to free speech because it's been restricted and could be further right? why not? hate speech is vague, abstract etc since your government is defining it they can further define it, what's to stop them?
There are no inalienable rights in Canada.
A legal right is a claim to a benefit. The law sets legal rights, and the courts will enforce them if no one else will.What good is a right if the government can scrap it? That’s where a constitution comes into play. It’s a superlaw that tells the government what laws it can and cannot write. And it’s very difficult for the government to change the constitution. The Canadian Charter is the part of our constitution that orders the government to respect certain human rights.The Charter promises us this safety, but it doesn’t really deliver. There are several loopholes in the Charter that let the federal parliament, provincial legislatures, or the courts take away rights.If the government can justify this law as reasonable “in a free and democratic society,†it can get away with it
it speaks for itself, I guess you wanted me to read up on the charter because you didn't understand it? you don't have rights, you have privileges granted to you by the government subject to change by the government. Maybe you don't understand the difference between that and the U.S. constitution?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If the US attacks Canada, it would also be facing (at least) 28 other countries.
got a bit of a chuckle out of that one, why would they risk all for Canada? they would bitch and moan and do nothing just like when any other country invades another, they give token help but the U.S. always takes the lead. Let Canada deal with N.K. I'd be ok with turning a blind eye to most of the world really.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
hate speech is a made up bs term, but content that wouldn't be permitted in Canada would be permitted in the U.S. because of the constitution so....
the U.S. citizens have a God given right to free speech/press, a right the government must recognize, does Canada? or is Canada's freedom of the press given to them by the government?
the U.S. has overreaching interference from the state? any examples to back up that claim?
the list of censorship examples doesn't help your case, they get overturned in court because of the constitution, unlike Canada's hate speech laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
it was, one of my "issues" is the misuse and overuse of the word Racism(ist) etc the impact that word should have has been diminished imo, and that's not a good thing. Much of our language has gone that way so it's no surprise that word has as well. There really is no profanity anymore, certainly no reaction to it as it once was. We've become too desensitized to these things and there's no going back. Society will continue its downward spiral until it's ultimate demise, but that's another topic I guess.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
At least our press has significantly more freedom (Canada is 16th in the world. US is 45th) ;)
LOL a list, with no actual context and at best biased and loaded questions, if that's the best ya got you have my sympathy.
I read they equated freedom with criticism of the media as if the more you criticize it the less freedom, um yeah, ok, sure thing.
Freedom of the press is not construed as an absence of interference or outside entities, such as a government or religious organization, rather as a right for authors to have their works published by other people.
Doesn't Canada have hate speech laws?
sounds like Canada has more censorship than the U.S. too?
Canada Says It Has Authority to Censor Internet in United States
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
sounds like we mostly agree then, if you aren't familiar I would encourage you to look up "compassion fatigue" it's normally used in healthcare but probably applies more to the police but given their training, job etc I doubt it's ever been talked about or even thought about.
certain color of cars get pulled over more than others
we are human and biased, that's just the way it is I guess. We can't eliminate bias but perhaps we could reduce it. That would require a big change in society to be less violent and kinder which is not the trend and I don't ever see that happening tbh.
In a potential life threatening situation bias is a defensive mechanism in many ways, perhaps even a logical one. It would escalate and be at the level dependant on the threat level I would think.
Think of it this way (about bias) gang members dress in certain ways, colors, tattoos etc so they are recognized as a gang member and a threat. If I see someone who looks like they could be a gang member wouldn't it be logical to act accordingly, like avoiding them? It's similar to the instinct of fight or flight imo.
I think this is a far more complex issue than most people think, don't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
it suggests there is racial bias, suggests is not fact right? I wouldn't deny there is bias or even racial bias but context matters. Regardless I don't think I have ever seen anyone claim that racial bias is the same as racism. Do you think they are the same or different?
I also noticed they use the term officers but not white officers, so if "officers" doesn't differentiate then that's a problem isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
that short snippet of the meta analysis left out too many variables which is why I went to those studies, but maybe columbia law and yale are wrong. None of it shows racism, at best all of it says, we don't know for certain, including your meta analysis. So I still stand by my statement "you need to have some actual proof of racism within all the police departments in the U.S. otherwise you are just stoking the fires without facts."
You haven't changed my mind yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It's to do with poverty, desperation to earn due to having zero inheritance and big families per house to spread money between.
perhaps that is a factor that pushes someone over that edge, but a majority choose otherwise and do not murder because of their circumstances. couldn't that be true for anyone regardless of skin color? Some very wealthy people and most notably some rappers have murdered and committed violent crimes and they are multimillionaires. Perhaps what you said are factors but how much I'm not really sure
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find no racial differences in officer-involvedshootings on either the extensive or intensive margins
Using data from Houston, Texas – wherewe have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions withpolice where lethal force may have been justified – we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely
Partitioningthe data in myriad ways, we find no evidence of racial discrimination in officer-involved shootings.
we argue that the results are most consistent with, but in no way proof of, tastebased discrimination among police officers who face convex costs of excessive use of force. Yet, thedata does more to provide a more compelling case that there is no discrimination in officer-involvedshootings than it does to illuminate the reasons behind racial differences in non-lethal uses of force.
in short you need to have some actual proof of racism within all the police departments in the U.S. otherwise you are just stoking the fires without facts.
Moreover, the reason why African Americans commit more crime does date back to racism as well.
racism makes blacks kill each other at a higher rate than any other group? wow you'll have to explain that to me because I don't get that at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
ok so they are reacting out of fear, it does not prove racism. Your impossible hypothetical of 2 identical situations does not include the officers previous experiences right? If they have encountered a disproportionate number of violent black people wouldn't you expect that to change their behavior?
Officers ought to use force based on the actions of the criminal in that situation
and I think that is true but also it's based on their experience, they are still human after all right? No 2 people or situations are ever the same are they?
of the police shootings what is the percentage race of the officers involved? that doesn't seem readily available but maybe you know.
would you say that blacks have a disproportionate rate of murder and other violent crimes even if it's only media driven?
what perception have the present and past riots given to police do you think?
if police patrol more in the high crime areas, the high crime areas are generally poor urban areas and predominantly a black population how could that NOT affect the percentages?
People don't wish to be hurt, brutalized, victimized etc right? So they would act in ways they think will minimize their risk and that includes bias. I don't go to certain parts of the city because whatever actual risk there is, isn't worth it to me, bias or not doesn't matter to me.
this is really long and I didn't read it all.
IV. RESULTSA. Descriptive Statistics1. Race, Age, and GenderThe analysis sample for the study is 3757 police-involved fatalities. Due tomissing data on names, race, ethnicity, or the circumstances of the killing, 161cases from Table 1 were excluded from this analysis.Table 2 shows that about one in four (25.2%) police-involved fatalities wereBlack, while just over half (51.9%) were white. Just under one in five (18.7%)were Latinx, and there were small percentages of Asians, Pacific Islanders,Native Americans, and Others (together 4.3%).
when you look at results like these they don't take out the ones that were armed, resisting or in some other way "justified" When you account for that the numbers drop pretty significantly and doesn't show this systemic problem in the context of all police interactions. I think I've posted that somewhere else, maybe I'll see if I can find it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
well we need to be able to divide people somehow right? A very pale redhead I knew of had a couple of kids with a black guy, they were also pale. I'm not sure if mixed race people count or not, for the longest time they were rejected by those who thought they were pure bloods. I guess some accuse others of not being dark enough still.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
I didn't see where they accounted for high crime areas. If blacks commit a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes, much of which happens in poor urban areas and if those areas population is mostly blacks then you should expect the other disproportions as well right? so is the reaction time, whatever their claim due to bias or statistical fear?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
one is biology, the other "feelings", how does a man know what it feels like to have a real vigina? and vise versa, how do you know you are missing something you never had and don't know anything about?
It's a mental disorder not a physical one.
the ruling is a feel good ruling that is all, anyone can be fired generally for any reason or no reason. If this was an issue for me I'd keep really good records on lateness, productivity etc and if I had to "down size" then that's the excuse I would use, they really solved nothing other than telling employers don't make it obvious if that's your reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
but are all dark skinned people African? seems jamaicans and others may disagree. Now if someone wants to argue their roots are from Africa then congratulations everyone's roots are thus we are all of African descent. Which means they are being distinguished not by who they are or what they do, but solely on the darkness of their skin. Seems rather superficial but if that's your only distinguishing quality, that's your choice to be identified by your skin color I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
it doesn't matter what he thinks if the process couldn't convict them then that's it, I fail to see how this makes him a racist though and that doesn't negate the irony of it happening in yet another Democrat controlled city. he says a lot of shit, there's no denying that but does that make him a racist or just insensitive and perhaps ignorant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
right don't judge people by their skin color....oh wait, I mean unless it's a members only kind of thing and so long as those members are black or if there is some made up bigotry of low expectations to get votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
oh thought that was talking about Robert Byrd, my mad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BiblicalChristian101
of course they are
From "Dreams From My Father", page #147:
"A plantation. Black people in the worst jobs. The worst housing. Police brutality rampant. But when the so-called black committeemen came around election time, we’d all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our soul for a Christmas turkey.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Envisage
do the police attire look so different than police of other countries?
could it be possible that only 12.1% of the police force is black because that's the % based on applicants and those who meet and pass the criteria? should be just hire them based on their skin color? maybe have a darkness rating like they do for window tint? sorry he's darker than you, he in, you are out.
stats show a disproportionate crime rate too, do you think the pool who would go into law enforcement and doesn't have a record is much smaller than the population pool?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
those should be one of many new ways to train and learn, but how and what they are taught are seemingly different. I don't know so I can't understand how and why certain things happen with police encounters. In several videos I wonder why they just don't wait it out, eventually the person will tire or give in but the police often try to end the situation as fast as possible. Maybe it's been studied and it makes sense to end things as fast as possible, I don't know.
Let's be honest some cops are so fat they couldn't be physical with anyone and would need a taser or gun.
again I maybe wrong, but if someone hurts themselves while handcuffed, under police control then the police are help responsible/liable for their injuries. Point being I'm not sure these lines are all that clear.
I forget the guys name in NYC who they were trying to arrest for selling single cigarettes on the street. How long should they have waited for him to comply and after that time period what should they have done? A hugely complex issue. Far more than just yelling de-fund the police.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
have you seen the latest and greatest fake news video edit?
Man drives car into Seattle protesters, shoots bystander
but if you watch the whole video of the "bystander" who is trying to pull him out of the car much further up the street, the whole narrative seems to change, they must be so depressed it wasn't a white guy, pretty sure hispanic, otherwise the titles would have read white man drives car into protesters blah blah blah.
but his plays into the hand of cops bad, President bad, military bad and so on. The leftist doesn't care about the truth or bothers to look for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
First Step act, how about the minorities he pardoned, yeah such a tyrant lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
lots are clueless including yourself, make no mistake and I certainly don't know everything which is why I don't generally make statements like the heading, just makes you look bad rather than what you are attempting to make look bad. Afaik you are not an expert on law enforcement, psychology, human nature, training etc and not really interested in learning or being informed, just judgemental. In an attempt to enlighten you a tad please search and read up on "compassion fatigue" that should also lead you down a rabbit hole that you should explore if you truly want to learn and understand instead of just judge.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
it's illogical in my mind to want equality by having special things only available to certain people, somehow making inequalities makes people equal. Everyone is the same, except for "African Americans" the rest of the people are just Americans. Why these obvious difference can't be seen is beyond me. Either accept and stop trying to fight the differences or don't and stop this bs of equality, one people etc.
Created:
Posted in:
George Floyd and Derek Chauvin "bumped heads" while working at nightclub, former coworker says
The Floyd family says they believe what happened on May 25 was in part personal.
interesting because the claim was they didn't know each other since the start of all this, I wonder what else was a lie and they got wrong.
could it be this was personal and not a cop racist thing but just a bad person thing? if so doesn't that mean the deaths, looting and riots can't be legitimized (as if they can anyway).
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
If we don't teach our kids that we are all from Planet Earth and therefore all basically the same, then you will never end up with an adult population that is integrated...lighter skin tone or darker skin tone, makes no difference to the shared problem.
I totally agree, but can that happen when there are special services, organizations etc which basically all you need to do to qualify for is have the correct about of melanin in your skin? There are dark skinned people from places other than Africa as well. Do you think they are willing to give those things up that only they can qualify for or belong to because of the color of their skin? How do you teach our kids that we are all basically the same when these programs, special clubs and organizations obviously do NOT show we are the same? how about hate crime laws? some are punished more which makes them more valuable? If someone is murdered but determined it's a "hate crime" of a protected group they are sentenced more harshly. If the punishment for murder did not deter this person from murdering you think this additional hate crime charge will?
so much pandering which does not treat everyone equal so how could children be taught that we are?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I just heard something rather disturbing but can't remember the exact details as I was in the car. the gist of it, someone was questioning why police have to respond to domestic disturbances carrying guns and some other insane situations that I, personally, would not go to without a gun. Progressives want power and control, so while in certain instances they are anarchanist still others tolleterian. They want the freedom to commit crimes and kill their own so long as no one else does. Like protecting your favorite hunting or fishing spot.
Black lives do matter as do all, except in places like Chicago, Baltimore, D.C. etc places the democrats have ran and controlled for many decades and have done what exactly to preserve those black lives, if they believe they mattered.
let's not forget in 2016 the guy the cops killed by kneeling on him, remember those riots? oh I forgot he was white, my bad.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
United Negro college fund, Miss Black America etc etc We assume someone is from Africa because of their skin color? What if they are from Jamaica, Hati, Dominican republic, Australian aborigines? Are they still "African Americans"?
anyone find it ironic we classify an entire group by their skin color no matter where they came from? We identify one group by their skin color and really nothing else, that IS their identity apparently.
this does not sound like people who want to be treated equally, integrate but rather their only identity and characteristic is the color of their skin seemingly. There seems to be a real lack of comprehension about this is staggering imo.
they don't even "police" their own communities which is painfully obvious with places like Chicago, but NOW they are going to do that??????? The violent crime is disproportionately committed by black men and nothing has been done to address that or it can't be addressed. So the answer is to defund the police and go to more community based systems? I'm not sure how they are trying to square that circle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It looks like it throws out the old system and will replace it. Interesting approach to the problem
obviously not well thought out.......at all, consider the laws won't/haven't changed, nor the criminals. Chicago just had another banner weekend, bunch of black lives that didn't matter.
Now add in the rise of militias forming and the timing for these calls to defund the police is epic really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
it's politically popular with the leftist, not much else need be known or questioned, those in favor or supporting will be elected/re-elected that's all that really matters, keeping or gaining power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
if there's something strange in the neighborhood, who ya gonna call?!?!?!?
sad part is NY, especially NYC is very anti gun, talk about short sighted and unintended consequences, or maybe not.... we will only have big box stores revamped with security like banks, including armed guards, that would less some need for police and people can fend for themselves I guess, in freer states anyway.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I blame Elmer Fudd.
Created:
that's more of a perfect world scenario. when someone's rights are infringed by someone else is when conflict arrises. We've strayed far from maximum freedom under the guise of safety and peace.
Created: