FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on March 05, 2016, 03:47:34 pm
-
http://thelaughbutton.com/news/comedian-mike-ward-currently-trial-joke-told-everyone-pay-attention/ (http://thelaughbutton.com/news/comedian-mike-ward-currently-trial-joke-told-everyone-pay-attention/)
What the hell, Canada?
-
The ethicality of comedy aside,
- there's a league of difference between "I don't like a joke" and "this person is publicly making jokes where the punchline is that I, a physically disfigured person, am not dead and that's terrible (also that defending me is idiotic because I'm alive)"
- Mike Ward is a hack
- the Human Rights Tribunal is, as noted in the article, not a court
So in conclusion, UP doesn't read his sources and simplifies facts to spin a narrative.
-
The ethicality of comedy aside,
- there's a league of difference between "I don't like a joke" and "this person is publicly making jokes where the punchline is that I, a physically disfigured person, am not dead and that's terrible (also that defending me is idiotic because I'm alive)"
- Mike Ward is a hack
- the Human Rights Tribunal is, as noted in the article, not a court
So in conclusion, UP doesn't read his sources and simplifies facts to spin a narrative.
1. That's hardly a tasteful joke, but the fact remains that this is essentially a lawsuit over hurt feelings.
2. What does his talent (or lack thereof) have to do with anything?
3. Alright, I'll give you this one. I typed "in court" without thinking. However, this can have actual, legal consequences. So I'd say the difference really isn't that relevant.
-
Here I was predicting UP would return here bemoaning Twitter taking away his special blue checkmark. Guess not.
It's another kind of social justice doom-and-gloom this time around. Watch as UP backpedals away from his flimsy claims.
-
While I realise that it's fun to hate UP, all the same I have to say having a comedian sent to a tribunal because one of their jokes hurt your feelings is really fucked up.
-
The problem is that this one is close to the edge which is why a tribunal is looking at it. The complainant makes it sound like it is on the wrong side of the law so they have to look at it formally and as a result a comedian is called on the carpet and given a chance to tell his side of the story. That's not actually a bad thing; the alternative is we ignore a possible victim who made a formal complaint.
The reason it is on the edge is because you could interpret it as a threat and he is a visible and often targeted minority. We're a fair bit stricter on hate speech than America is and as a consequence have a broader scope of things that are unpermissible. I don't think it rises to the level of hate speech unless there is a lot more to the soundbite this story is centered around, and will be quickly tossed out by the tribunal. If it is held to be hate speech, it WILL go before a higher court since it is a constitutional matter and the media who stand to be most affected by this won't take it lying down and have plenty of resources to fight it.
Go die in a fire -- the real world debate, Canadian edition. It was a discussion we had to have eventually.
-
The ethicality of comedy aside,
- there's a league of difference between "I don't like a joke" and "this person is publicly making jokes where the punchline is that I, a physically disfigured person, am not dead and that's terrible (also that defending me is idiotic because I'm alive)"
- Mike Ward is a hack
- the Human Rights Tribunal is, as noted in the article, not a court
So in conclusion, UP doesn't read his sources and simplifies facts to spin a narrative.
1. That's hardly a tasteful joke, but the fact remains that this is essentially a lawsuit over hurt feelings.
2. What does his talent (or lack thereof) have to do with anything?
3. Alright, I'll give you this one. I typed "in court" without thinking. However, this can have actual, legal consequences. So I'd say the difference really isn't that relevant.
People bring lawsuits over hurt feelings quite regularly.
People also bring frivolous lawsuits quite regularly.
This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.
You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?
-
The ethicality of comedy aside,
- there's a league of difference between "I don't like a joke" and "this person is publicly making jokes where the punchline is that I, a physically disfigured person, am not dead and that's terrible (also that defending me is idiotic because I'm alive)"
- Mike Ward is a hack
- the Human Rights Tribunal is, as noted in the article, not a court
So in conclusion, UP doesn't read his sources and simplifies facts to spin a narrative.
1. That's hardly a tasteful joke, but the fact remains that this is essentially a lawsuit over hurt feelings.
2. What does his talent (or lack thereof) have to do with anything?
3. Alright, I'll give you this one. I typed "in court" without thinking. However, this can have actual, legal consequences. So I'd say the difference really isn't that relevant.
People bring lawsuits over hurt feelings quite regularly.
People also bring frivolous lawsuits quite regularly.
How regularly? And how far do they usually get?
This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.
You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?
What I think is that there needs to be some kind of reform.
-
Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.
As to how regularly, that is difficult to say. But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.
-
Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.
As to how regularly, that is difficult to say. But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.
Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal. And it follows different rules.
I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:
1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.
2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.
3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.
4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.
As for the "reform" bit, how about making sure stuff like this doesn't get this far? You shouldn't be able to sue somebody because they told a joke that hurt your feelings.
-
Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.
As to how regularly, that is difficult to say. But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.
Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal. And it follows different rules.
I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:
1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.
2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.
3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.
4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.
As for the "reform" bit, how about making sure stuff like this doesn't get this far? You shouldn't be able to sue somebody because they told a joke that hurt your feelings.
As I understand it, those tribunals were set up because the court system was becoming inaccessible due to expense.
-
Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal. And it follows different rules.
I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:
1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.
2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.
3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.
4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.
If you yourself can't even be sure of the veracity of your information, how could you possibly expect the rest of us to trust you on it?
-
Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal. And it follows different rules.
I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:
1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.
2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.
3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.
4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.
If you yourself can't even be sure of the veracity of your information, how could you possibly expect the rest of us to trust you on it?
Fair point. I'll double-check this information.
-
I agree we need reform for the thing that I don't understand and about which I am ill informed. I just think there needs to be reform. Also I don't think everyone should be able to bring lawsuits. I think women and disabled people should have to get their husband or guardian's consent to bring an action.
-
I see nothing wrong with this.
I am certain that even in USA there are laws about libel and slander so going to court because you said something mean is not unheard of. In Finland there are also laws concerning harassing and insulting a perso. And when a celebrity publicly makes hurtful jokes about a regular person this is abuse as the message gets spread a lot more than had it been said by a regular Joe in a pub.
-
Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.
As to how regularly, that is difficult to say. But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.
1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.
Standards of evidence for the Human Rights Tribunal are contained in the relevant pdf here (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/NS/pdf/rules-regles-04.pdf).
You're welcome.
-
Far from being unusual it is exceedingly common in Commonwealth Countries for Tribunals to relax the strict rules of evidence. Usually this is so that lay people do not have to grapple with the rather complex and sometimes arcane rules of evidence.
-
Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.
As to how regularly, that is difficult to say. But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.
Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal. And it follows different rules.
I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:
1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.
2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.
3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.
4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.
As for the "reform" bit, how about making sure stuff like this doesn't get this far? You shouldn't be able to sue somebody because they told a joke that hurt your feelings.
Do you realize that no one is being sued here? Show me a dollar figure that the kid is going after if you don't believe me.
This is a tribunal that's purpose is determine if somebody is having their human rights violated and stop it. Right now they are only in the determination phase. Even if your four points are true the tribunal is subordinate to the court system. In other words if it tries to pull any shenanigans that violate the spirit of the law it will get slapped down so hard the person pulling it out of the ground will be crowned king/queen of England. Given this balance of power I'm pretty sure that the tribunal follows the spirit of the law and even if it doesn't we have ample mechanisms in place to make sure it has no choice but to.
-
Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.
As to how regularly, that is difficult to say. But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.
1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.
Standards of evidence for the Human Rights Tribunal are contained in the relevant pdf here (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/NS/pdf/rules-regles-04.pdf).
You're welcome.
Alright, guess I was wrong about that.
Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.
As to how regularly, that is difficult to say. But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.
Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal. And it follows different rules.
I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:
1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.
2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.
3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.
4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.
As for the "reform" bit, how about making sure stuff like this doesn't get this far? You shouldn't be able to sue somebody because they told a joke that hurt your feelings.
Do you realize that no one is being sued here? Show me a dollar figure that the kid is going after if you don't believe me.
This is a tribunal that's purpose is determine if somebody is having their human rights violated and stop it. Right now they are only in the determination phase. Even if your four points are true the tribunal is subordinate to the court system. In other words if it tries to pull any shenanigans that violate the spirit of the law it will get slapped down so hard the person pulling it out of the ground will be crowned king/queen of England. Given this balance of power I'm pretty sure that the tribunal follows the spirit of the law and even if it doesn't we have ample mechanisms in place to make sure it has no choice but to.
Well, considering some other rulings (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/supreme-court-upholds-decision-to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbian-heckler), pardon me if I'm not reassured.
-
Turns out lesbophobic slurs and abuse directed towards lesbians (particucarly lesbians with pre-existing mental conditions involving anxiety and panic) can cause legitimate trauma. Who knew.
-
Well, considering some other rulings (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/supreme-court-upholds-decision-to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbian-heckler), pardon me if I'm not reassured.
You should really read your own links here, UP. You make a post claiming that you're not reassured that these human rights tribunals follow the spirit of the law, and yet in the very link you use to back up your point, we see the Supreme Court of British Columbia upholding the decision of a human rights tribunal, which is a rather strong suggestion that they are, indeed, following the spirit of the law just fine. In fact, it's exactly the sort of link I would use to rebut the point you're trying to make.
That said, to an American it might seem ridiculous that the man could be fined for simply yelling at a couple and telling, quote, "increasingly offensive quips" towards them, it makes perfect sense in Canada, where free speech is not enshrined above literally all else, and obvious hate speech is condemned and fined - yes, even in comedy clubs, which are not and never have been places where anything goes with regards to speech. There is literally nothing wrong with this case.
Which is probably why the BC Supreme Court, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, upheld the ruling.
-
This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.
You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?
What I think is that there needs to be some kind of reform.
Look into tort reform and the Hot Coffee lawsuit as to why I think this is an entirely asinine thing to say. It's not even worth my time to argue with you, or even present sources. So, from now on, take the time to do some reading. It will help you learn things and not be wrong so often.
-
Well, considering some other rulings (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/supreme-court-upholds-decision-to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbian-heckler), pardon me if I'm not reassured.
You should really read your own links here, UP. You make a post claiming that you're not reassured that these human rights tribunals follow the spirit of the law, and yet in the very link you use to back up your point, we see the Supreme Court of British Columbia upholding the decision of a human rights tribunal, which is a rather strong suggestion that they are, indeed, following the spirit of the law just fine. In fact, it's exactly the sort of link I would use to rebut the point you're trying to make.
That said, to an American it might seem ridiculous that the man could be fined for simply yelling at a couple and telling, quote, "increasingly offensive quips" towards them, it makes perfect sense in Canada, where free speech is not enshrined above literally all else, and obvious hate speech is condemned and fined - yes, even in comedy clubs, which are not and never have been places where anything goes with regards to speech. There is literally nothing wrong with this case.
Which is probably why the BC Supreme Court, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, upheld the ruling.
That's not exactly what I meant. It may follow the spirit of the law, but the problem is that Canadian law is severely flawed.
This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.
You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?
What I think is that there needs to be some kind of reform.
Look into tort reform and the Hot Coffee lawsuit as to why I think this is an entirely asinine thing to say. It's not even worth my time to argue with you, or even present sources. So, from now on, take the time to do some reading. It will help you learn things and not be wrong so often.
I'm not talking about tort reform. What I'm saying is that some lawsuits are bogus to begin with, and should be laughed out of court. This guy is literally suing over hurt feelings.
-
Oversimplifying a matter of public harassment and dehumanization into "hurt feelings" to delegitimize the psychological harm of having your death advocated for in public because you're disabled.
- justUPthings
Seriously though, a lot of things that are legitimately harmful and should be addressed before this kind of tribunal (or court) can be stripped down to "hurt feelings". Emotional and mental domestic abuse, for one. Emotional and mental parental abuse, for another. Does it follow that these things are not worth addressing, and their perpetuators should not be brought to justice? Is UP being an apologist for these things as well?
-
Okay, maybe I don't read shit and I'm forced to retract my statements when people with brains take notice. But I'm still going to make fun of those damned PC SJW bolshevists, and so help me God, here's another dastardly thing (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/09/twitter-declares-war-on-conservative-media-unverifies-breitbart-tech-editor) they were up to!
So pardon me if I'm outraged about the manufactroversy of the week.
-
That's not exactly what I meant. It may follow the spirit of the law, but the problem is that Canadian law is severely flawed.
In your opinion. As a person from a very different culture. Which I covered in my second paragraph of the previous post.
-
Oversimplifying a matter of public harassment and dehumanization into "hurt feelings" to delegitimize the psychological harm of having your death advocated for in public because you're disabled.
- justUPthings
Seriously though, a lot of things that are legitimately harmful and should be addressed before this kind of tribunal (or court) can be stripped down to "hurt feelings". Emotional and mental domestic abuse, for one. Emotional and mental parental abuse, for another. Does it follow that these things are not worth addressing, and their perpetuators should not be brought to justice? Is UP being an apologist for these things as well?
Apples and oranges. A single joke does not qualify as emotional abuse.
-
Well, considering some other rulings (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/supreme-court-upholds-decision-to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbian-heckler), pardon me if I'm not reassured.
You should really read your own links here, UP. You make a post claiming that you're not reassured that these human rights tribunals follow the spirit of the law, and yet in the very link you use to back up your point, we see the Supreme Court of British Columbia upholding the decision of a human rights tribunal, which is a rather strong suggestion that they are, indeed, following the spirit of the law just fine. In fact, it's exactly the sort of link I would use to rebut the point you're trying to make.
That said, to an American it might seem ridiculous that the man could be fined for simply yelling at a couple and telling, quote, "increasingly offensive quips" towards them, it makes perfect sense in Canada, where free speech is not enshrined above literally all else, and obvious hate speech is condemned and fined - yes, even in comedy clubs, which are not and never have been places where anything goes with regards to speech. There is literally nothing wrong with this case.
Which is probably why the BC Supreme Court, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, upheld the ruling.
That's not exactly what I meant. It may follow the spirit of the law, but the problem is that Canadian law is severely flawed.
(http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv17/canadian_mojo/12418003_10207065769336934_7200006752173317758_n_zpssyquekov.jpg) (http://s665.photobucket.com/user/canadian_mojo/media/12418003_10207065769336934_7200006752173317758_n_zpssyquekov.jpg.html)
-
On the one hand, I tend to support free speech as a matter of principle. If offensive speech is not protected then what is even the point, etc.
On the other hand, the reason I care about free speech is protecting unpopular opinions, because most true ideas were at some point unpopular. Making fun of a kid is not an opinion.
It might be that a world where being a giant asshole to a kid has consequences is at least somewhat kinder. It might also be that this extends to actual views on fact that people find intensely offensive (plenty of those going around).
-
This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.
You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?
What I think is that there needs to be some kind of reform.
Look into tort reform and the Hot Coffee lawsuit as to why I think this is an entirely asinine thing to say. It's not even worth my time to argue with you, or even present sources. So, from now on, take the time to do some reading. It will help you learn things and not be wrong so often.
I'm not talking about tort reform. What I'm saying is that some lawsuits are bogus to begin with, and should be laughed out of court. This guy is literally suing over hurt feelings.
No, there is already a function for that, called dismissal on the pleadings or summary judgment.
So, you are talking about tort reform. You are advocating making changes to the legal system that will make it harder to bring torts against various people. Tort reform is not just economic caps, it is raising and shifting burdens of proof, which will reduce successes that plaintiffs have in court. Much like the hot coffee lawsuit, there will be collateral effects beyond the change you wish to effect, and plaintiffs will have a harder time bringing and being successful in lawsuits.
And please do not attempt to pull a fast one on me in legal matters.
-
UP How can you still suggest that Canadian Law requires law reform after admitting that you don't know what you're talking about?
Do you not understand how fucking stupid you sound?
Finally I find your disregard for hurt feelings in this context hilarious given what you think is appropriate in regard to your own hurt feelings.
-
This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.
You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?
What I think is that there needs to be some kind of reform.
Look into tort reform and the Hot Coffee lawsuit as to why I think this is an entirely asinine thing to say. It's not even worth my time to argue with you, or even present sources. So, from now on, take the time to do some reading. It will help you learn things and not be wrong so often.
I'm not talking about tort reform. What I'm saying is that some lawsuits are bogus to begin with, and should be laughed out of court. This guy is literally suing over hurt feelings.
No, there is already a function for that, called dismissal on the pleadings or summary judgment.
So, you are talking about tort reform. You are advocating making changes to the legal system that will make it harder to bring torts against various people. Tort reform is not just economic caps, it is raising and shifting burdens of proof, which will reduce successes that plaintiffs have in court. Much like the hot coffee lawsuit, there will be collateral effects beyond the change you wish to effect, and plaintiffs will have a harder time bringing and being successful in lawsuits.
And please do not attempt to pull a fast one on me in legal matters.
You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me. Trying to make this about tort reform. Quit it.
-
UP, this is literally well within the field of tort reform. These are torts and you are calling for reform about them.
-
Yeah Queen, please don't distract UP from his inane mental flatulence with coherent thoughts articulately expressed.
Otherwise you'll get in the road of UP's "think of the children people who resemble him" moment.
I mean this is as stupid as me calling for nursing home reform because almost all of the patients die in them.
-
You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me. Trying to make this about tort reform. Quit it.
Okay big guy, what is it then?
What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.
edit: typo
-
You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me. Trying to make this about tort reform. Quit it.
Okay big guy, what is it then?
What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.
edit: typo
Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues. Not people getting pissy over jokes.
-
You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me. Trying to make this about tort reform. Quit it.
Okay big guy, what is it then?
What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.
edit: typo
Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues. Not people getting pissy over jokes.
And here is where you miss the point that they are trying to decide if this is a human rights issue or not.
Complainant says: "my rights have been violated"
Tribunal says: "okay, lets see (and rather than jump to conclusions lets ask the accused to come in and give his side of the story)"
What mechanism do you want to see in place that will preempt getting to that stage? What filter do you propose we use to keep people from getting a chance to formally air their grievances?
-
You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me. Trying to make this about tort reform. Quit it.
Okay big guy, what is it then?
What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.
edit: typo
Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues. Not people getting pissy over jokes.
It's a shame they don't have you there to help them UP. Perhaps you could be a permanent addition to the Tribunal telling them which cases should be allowed to proceed.
Given that your distaste for the phrase 'Die Cis Scum' spawned multiple pages of shit on this forum, I'm a little shocked that you aren't more on the side of the particular individual who is being publicly shamed for 'not being dead yet'.
-
You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me. Trying to make this about tort reform. Quit it.
Okay big guy, what is it then?
What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.
edit: typo
Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues. Not people getting pissy over jokes.
And here is where you miss the point that they are trying to decide if this is a human rights issue or not.
Complainant says: "my rights have been violated"
Tribunal says: "okay, lets see (and rather than jump to conclusions lets ask the accused to come in and give his side of the story)"
What mechanism do you want to see in place that will preempt getting to that stage? What filter do you propose we use to keep people from getting a chance to formally air their grievances?
Ask a simple question: what harm has been done?
-
Ask a simple question: what harm has been done?
I'm glad you asked! Let's ask the complainant what he has to say:
Gabriel said Ward went too far in his jokes about him. He said the jokes hurt his confidence and his career and led to intimidation at his school.
"It was horrible during all those years to endure, to be a teen, to be a successful artist, with all those comments, with all those laughs. So I wanted to say that it's not acceptable for me and for my family. And I think for the entire society too," Gabriel testified before the tribunal Wednesday afternoon.
"When we make a joke about someone, about a disabled person, we can laugh, we can make comments, but we always have to do that in full respect."
Taken from this article here (http://"http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-petit-jeremy-human-rights-tribunal-1.3461693") from the CBC. Sounds to me like, in his opinion at least, some pretty substantial harm has been done! In fact, while I'm not saying Mike Ward should be declared guilty, that sort of testimony would at least convince me that there's a trial to be done!
So I'm glad we got that out of the way.
-
You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me. Trying to make this about tort reform. Quit it.
Okay big guy, what is it then?
What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.
edit: typo
Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues. Not people getting pissy over jokes.
And here is where you miss the point that they are trying to decide if this is a human rights issue or not.
Complainant says: "my rights have been violated"
Tribunal says: "okay, lets see (and rather than jump to conclusions lets ask the accused to come in and give his side of the story)"
What mechanism do you want to see in place that will preempt getting to that stage? What filter do you propose we use to keep people from getting a chance to formally air their grievances?
Ask a simple question: what harm has been done?
I believe the complaint mentions something about pain and suffering. That's probably why the tribunal is looking into the matter since if the complaint had read "I'm pissy about a joke" they would have turned it down.
Dammit Eiki, you beat me.
-
UP, have you stopped molesting kids and raping women yet? You know, since you're a Christian.
Oh wait, this isn't working. I'd have to be saying this in public, incorporating this into an act I give to dozens of people. With your real name. With your employment possibilites suffering, with your name being a laughing-stock and with you being associated in the public eye with child molestation and rape. And harassed IRL. Yeah, that should be appropriate by your standards.
And you're not allowed to complain about this to the Human Rights Tribunal: otherwise, you're just "being pissy about a joke".
-
Ask a simple question: what harm has been done?
I'm glad you asked! Let's ask the complainant what he has to say:
Gabriel said Ward went too far in his jokes about him. He said the jokes hurt his confidence and his career and led to intimidation at his school.
"It was horrible during all those years to endure, to be a teen, to be a successful artist, with all those comments, with all those laughs. So I wanted to say that it's not acceptable for me and for my family. And I think for the entire society too," Gabriel testified before the tribunal Wednesday afternoon.
"When we make a joke about someone, about a disabled person, we can laugh, we can make comments, but we always have to do that in full respect."
Taken from this article here (http://"http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-petit-jeremy-human-rights-tribunal-1.3461693") from the CBC. Sounds to me like, in his opinion at least, some pretty substantial harm has been done! In fact, while I'm not saying Mike Ward should be declared guilty, that sort of testimony would at least convince me that there's a trial to be done!
So I'm glad we got that out of the way.
The article's not working for me. So before we continue, I'd like to ask if the article answers either of these questions:
1. How much of that was caused by his joke?
2. Why didn't he sue the people who directly bullied him?
-
Try this link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-petit-jeremy-human-rights-tribunal-1.3461693
-
Try this link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-petit-jeremy-human-rights-tribunal-1.3461693
Well, okay, it answered one of my questions. It repeated the claim that Ward's joke did lead to bullying. Wish it said how much, but you can't have everything.
-
Try this link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-petit-jeremy-human-rights-tribunal-1.3461693
Well, okay, it answered one of my questions. It repeated the claim that Ward's joke did lead to bullying. Wish it said how much, but you can't have everything.
I am so glad you are finally interested in the actual facts of the case. Now what do you say you stop listening to the click bait bullshit and promptly assuming the sky really is falling like they claim.
-
Try this link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-petit-jeremy-human-rights-tribunal-1.3461693
Well, okay, it answered one of my questions. It repeated the claim that Ward's joke did lead to bullying. Wish it said how much, but you can't have everything.
Part of the hearing no doubt will be to determine 'how much'. So do you think you were justified in calling for Canadian Law Reform? Or are you prepared to concede that it's probably unwise to call for intervention around matters of which you are painfully ignorant?
Frankly this all leads to the inescapable conclusion that Canada would be better off taking law reform advice from Kafka than from UP.
-
UP, our system works fine for us. It's based on different documents, different judicial philosophies, and different precedents than the American system, so while there certainly are similarities, you can't just outright declare one better than the other. Does it have problems? Sure, but those are for us to debate and, if necessary, fix, not for you to lecture about and declare that you know better how to fix our system than we do.
And just saying that something is wrong with offering any specifics (and being wrong about what's wrong, if anything is wrong--the two systems aren't different enough that Queen's knowledge of legal matters is irrelevant) isn't at all helpful and just makes me tune you out.
-
No, there is already a function for that, called dismissal on the pleadings or summary judgment.
So, you are talking about tort reform. You are advocating making changes to the legal system that will make it harder to bring torts against various people. Tort reform is not just economic caps, it is raising and shifting burdens of proof, which will reduce successes that plaintiffs have in court. Much like the hot coffee lawsuit, there will be collateral effects beyond the change you wish to effect, and plaintiffs will have a harder time bringing and being successful in lawsuits.
And please do not attempt to pull a fast one on me in legal matters.
You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me. Trying to make this about tort reform. Quit it.
Convincing rebuttal. Also, you have no right to label others as "getting pissy about a joke." Have you read anything you posted over the last, ever.
And here is where you miss the point that they are trying to decide if this is a human rights issue or not.
Complainant says: "my rights have been violated"
Tribunal says: "okay, lets see (and rather than jump to conclusions lets ask the accused to come in and give his side of the story)"
What mechanism do you want to see in place that will preempt getting to that stage? What filter do you propose we use to keep people from getting a chance to formally air their grievances?
Ask a simple question: what harm has been done?
Fortunately, that's why we have a court system: to determine if a fucking harm occurred for which the complainant is entitled to relief. Literally, your answer to what the courts should do to fix themselves is that they should do what they already do.
And it's a goalpost shift to go from "the courts should have ANOTHER* tool to dispose of cases" to "what is the harm?:
* "Another" being the keyword, as you're essentially saying that courts should create another obstacle to a plaintiff's ability to recover from a tortfeasor. That is why it is tort reform and why the law will inevitably have the collateral effect of defeating otherwise valid lawsuits.
UP, our system works fine for us. It's based on different documents, different judicial philosophies, and different precedents than the American system, so while there certainly are similarities, you can't just outright declare one better than the other. Does it have problems? Sure, but those are for us to debate and, if necessary, fix, not for you to lecture about and declare that you know better how to fix our system than we do.
And just saying that something is wrong with offering any specifics (and being wrong about what's wrong, if anything is wrong--the two systems aren't different enough that Queen's knowledge of legal matters is irrelevant) isn't at all helpful and just makes me tune you out.
And yeah. I know this is specific to Canada, I just know there are a fair amount of similarities. Similarly, I don't think Paragon is intellectually honest enough to warrant the time it would take me to invest in looking into this matter. Finally, since the debate focuses on legal philosophy, I can carry on a debate with him without doing that much research.
-
UP wants to nominate himself and his 8chan buddies as worldwide gatekeepers to the justice system. For the purpose of having reals trump feels, you see.
-
Just to clarify UP, are you suggesting that law is frivolous or the case is, or both?
Also do you have a problem with a tribunal hearing the case, would you prefer it be dealt with in another setting?
As of now none of these things are clear to me.
-
Just to clarify UP, are you suggesting that law is frivolous or the case is, or both?
Also do you have a problem with a tribunal hearing the case, would you prefer it be dealt with in another setting?
As of now none of these things are clear to me.
To answer your question, I think the case is frivolous, and I suspect that there might be some pretty serious flaws in the Canadian legal system.
-
The job of a human rights tribunal is to look into cases where one or more parties feel their human rights have been violated.
A party feels this way, and they aren't happy about it.
Do you disagree with anything I've said UP?
-
Just to clarify UP, are you suggesting that law is frivolous or the case is, or both?
Also do you have a problem with a tribunal hearing the case, would you prefer it be dealt with in another setting?
As of now none of these things are clear to me.
To answer your question, I think the case is frivolous, and I suspect that there might be some pretty serious flaws in the Canadian legal system.
Well, how about you do some research, and get back to us with specific faults in the Canadian legal system and how those faults may be addressed; does that sound fair?
I think two weeks is an appropriate amount of time to give you.
-
Just to clarify UP, are you suggesting that law is frivolous or the case is, or both?
Also do you have a problem with a tribunal hearing the case, would you prefer it be dealt with in another setting?
As of now none of these things are clear to me.
To answer your question, I think the case is frivolous, and I suspect that there might be some pretty serious flaws in the Canadian legal system.
Well, how about you do some research, and get back to us with specific faults in the Canadian legal system and how those faults may be addressed; does that sound fair?
I think two weeks is an appropriate amount of time to give you.
Alright.
-
Just to clarify UP, are you suggesting that law is frivolous or the case is, or both?
Also do you have a problem with a tribunal hearing the case, would you prefer it be dealt with in another setting?
As of now none of these things are clear to me.
To answer your question, I think the case is frivolous, and I suspect that there might be some pretty serious flaws in the Canadian legal system.
Well, how about you do some research, and get back to us with specific faults in the Canadian legal system and how those faults may be addressed; does that sound fair?
I think two weeks is an appropriate amount of time to give you.
Alright.
I'm gonna hold you to this playa. Expect a post on this thread on March 7th, at 5PM asking for some more specifics.
-
Me, I'm gonna order two matching sides to be delivered in a fortnight.
This'll be good.
-
All this is going to do is result in a a stream of ill thought out unread links claiming to support his already announced bias.
I'll be impressed if he manages to assert that Native rights have gone too far in Canada.
-
All this is going to do is result in a a stream of ill thought out unread links claiming to support his already announced bias.
I'll be impressed if he manages to assert that Native rights have gone too far in Canada.
I wouldn't put it past him, but at least it gives him two weeks to study the issue and coherently organize his thoughts. It also makes it harder for him to say at a later date "I didn't say/mean that." So, hopefully giving him this time to do some research and return to us with specifics will help facilitate a decent debate.
-
I am going to take a stab at the future and say you're being far too generous Queen.
-
I am going to take a stab at the future and say you're being far too generous Queen.
Even then, we still get a 2 week reprieve from this atrocity of a debate
-
Debate? Again you are being far too generous. Its more like watching someone repeatedly fall down while trying to tie up their shoes. Then they get up and start to walk only to fall down because they've tied the laces together all the while ranting about free speech.
-
Debate? Again you are being far too generous. Its more like watching someone repeatedly fall down while trying to tie up their shoes. Then they get up and start to walk only to fall down because they've tied the laces together all the while ranting about free speech.
An apt simile
-
Debate? Again you are being far too generous. Its more like watching someone repeatedly fall down while trying to tie up their shoes. Then they get up and start to walk only to fall down because they've tied the laces together all the while ranting about free speech.
Not only that, but the shoes don't even fit them because they're not their shoes.
-
It's been two weeks, 14 days, UP. Any thoughts to Canada's messed up free speech laws you were researching?
-
<gets the crickets ready, just in case>
<checks the time...>
-
Doubters, the lot of you.
I have faith that two weeks has been enough time to mobilize UP's intelligence network and compile, if not entirely exhaustive, certainly an in-depth, damning report on the flaws of the Canadian legal system.
-
Remember the GAE thing?
http://www.genuinewitty.com/2016/03/05/gae-twitter-trial-apology-hearing-raises-questions-of-injustice-media-ethics-feat-toronto-star/ (http://www.genuinewitty.com/2016/03/05/gae-twitter-trial-apology-hearing-raises-questions-of-injustice-media-ethics-feat-toronto-star/)
Well, the court mistakenly attributed a homophobic tweet to him. To be fair, the Judge acknowledged his mistake and apologized. But the fact that they used limited third-party software and not full records subpoenaed from Twitter is rather disconcerting, to say the least.
-
That's not a report. We waited two weeks for this?
EDIT:
Seriously, though. I thought we had a direct question rule in part because ignoring direct questions showed complete contempt for FQA's userbase. Being given two weeks to answer a direct question and waiting two weeks to completely ignore it is a special kind of fuck-you.
-
That's not a report. We waited two weeks for this?
EDIT:
Seriously, though. I thought we had a direct question rule in part because ignoring direct questions showed complete contempt for FQA's userbase. Being given two weeks to answer a direct question and waiting two weeks to completely ignore it is a special kind of fuck-you.
I'm in agreement, that was less than underwhelming. We gave you two weeks to get us a report on injustices in the Canadian legal system, and you go back to your standard M.O. of "here's a news article that I didn't read that has something that says there may be a flaw."
In sum, I think this thread is done; Paragon doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore.
-
I'm just getting started. While I'm talking about GAE, he was released on bail... provided he didn't use Twitter or any computer with Internet access. Essentially, he was being punished for something he hadn't been convicted of. And since he made his living using the Internet, this really hurt him financially.
-
I'm just getting started. While I'm talking about GAE, he was released on bail... provided he didn't use Twitter or any computer with Internet access. Essentially, he was being punished for something he hadn't been convicted of. And since he made his living using the Internet, this really hurt him financially.
And if he had been jailed that would have also hurt him financially. If a truck driver lost his license because he drove drunk then that would also hurt him financially as he would be unable to do his job. When court hands out a punishment it usually hurts the criminal but that is why they consider the punishment to be fitting for the crime and the particular individual who got punished.
-
I'm just getting started. While I'm talking about GAE, he was released on bail... provided he didn't use Twitter or any computer with Internet access. Essentially, he was being punished for something he hadn't been convicted of. And since he made his living using the Internet, this really hurt him financially.
And if he had been jailed that would have also hurt him financially. If a truck driver lost his license because he drove drunk then that would also hurt him financially as he would be unable to do his job. When court hands out a punishment it usually hurts the criminal but that is why they consider the punishment to be fitting for the crime and the particular individual who got punished.
Except he hadn't been convicted of anything, and was eventually found not guilty.
-
Okay, when your evidence is an opinion blog where the very first paragraph uses the term "social justice warrior" unironically...
-
Okay, when your evidence is an opinion blog where the very first paragraph uses the term "social justice warrior" unironically...
You want another source?
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/03/04/twitter-harassment-ruling-amended-to-omit-homophobic-tweets.html (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/03/04/twitter-harassment-ruling-amended-to-omit-homophobic-tweets.html)
I just chose that one first because it was more in-depth.
-
Okay, when your evidence is an opinion blog where the very first paragraph uses the term "social justice warrior" unironically...
You want another source?
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/03/04/twitter-harassment-ruling-amended-to-omit-homophobic-tweets.html (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/03/04/twitter-harassment-ruling-amended-to-omit-homophobic-tweets.html)
I just chose that one first because it was more in-depth.
We don't want another god damned source. We wanted a detailed report that you couldn't run away from and goal-post shift. We wanted specifics on why certain parts of the Canadian legal system were flawed and how you would fix them. We don't want opinions and anecdotes that prove nothing. Now, you've just wasted all of our time; I hope you feel ashamed of yourself.
-
Okay, then. One grievance I have is that Canadian hate speech laws are too strict. Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to "willfully [promote] hatred against any identifiable group." This law is, in my opinion, overly broad. To fix it, I'd make it so that the law doesn't impact purely expressive speech. There should be a distinction between ordering your dog to attack somebody, and saying that somebody deserves to be attacked by a dog.
-
I'm just getting started.
Clearly. If those few sentences had actually been the result of two weeks of research, you would have shown us your best claim first. As far as we can tell, you did nothing except feed us bits and pieces of your right-wing-echo-chamber grab-bag -- effort-free evangelism, in other words.
What a sorry excuse for a conservative manufactroversy.
-
I'm just getting started. While I'm talking about GAE, he was released on bail... provided he didn't use Twitter or any computer with Internet access. Essentially, he was being punished for something he hadn't been convicted of. And since he made his living using the Internet, this really hurt him financially.
And if he had been jailed that would have also hurt him financially. If a truck driver lost his license because he drove drunk then that would also hurt him financially as he would be unable to do his job. When court hands out a punishment it usually hurts the criminal but that is why they consider the punishment to be fitting for the crime and the particular individual who got punished.
Except he hadn't been convicted of anything, and was eventually found not guilty.
Except for the fact that bail conditions are all part of a balancing act to reduce impact on the accused while at the same time protect the community. Bail conditions regularly impede on a person's freedoms, including the freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of association. Quite often bail conditions will mean that a person is unable to continue working in their job. This is unfortunate but as I said comes out of the balancing act between community safety and the rights of the accused. Nor is this something which is unique to Canadian law, any investigation would show the same sorts of things happening all over the common law world and the US as well.
The real injustice which happens when courts are too busy is people being held in jail pending bail on charges which would either not result in jail time or would have resulted in a sentence less that the time held pending charge. But that would probably result in you having to look at some real injustice rather than the rights of some people to insult others.
Yet again, I am astounded at your lack of self awareness given how you react to 'die cis scum'.
Finally I just wanted to say even though my expectations were set incredibly low. You have failed to meet even that low bar.
-
Yeah, man. I have to say that I am really upset with Paragon. I gave him two weeks to make a coherent argument. I thought he could do it. I even stood up to Davedan, believing that Paragon would pull through. So, let this be a lesson to you all: never bet on Paragon's intelligence.
-
Not even with odds and a margin. The only thing UP's a sure bet on is that he will disappoint.
Oh and Queen, I'm sure you like standing up to me as much as I do.
-
Not even with odds and a margin. The only thing UP's a sure bet on is that he will disappoint.
Oh and Queen, I'm sure you like standing up to me as much as I do.
It is pretty easy to stand up to you, I saw you get punched in the face during boxing.
-
Okay, then. One grievance I have is that Canadian hate speech laws are too strict. Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to "willfully [promote] hatred against any identifiable group." This law is, in my opinion, overly broad. To fix it, I'd make it so that the law doesn't impact purely expressive speech. There should be a distinction between ordering your dog to attack somebody, and saying that somebody deserves to be attacked by a dog.
So I guess you won't be immigrating any time soon? ::)
In all seriousness, I think this limiting of rights is the fundamental difference between Canada and America.
We do it. We all know we do it and why it is necessary. Hell, we even have a "fuck-you" clause that allows parliament to override our rights and freedoms (the notwithstanding clause) if they think it's necessary. This is a serious amount of power and because we know that, it gets serious debate about just how far things should go and little niceties like "for the greater good."
In America you pretend that your rights are untouchable. The cult of the individual is so strong you can't even begin to have civil discourses about how to deal with social problems you face. Too many would sooner burn the place to the ground than compromise on anything.
One more quick little thought specifically for you UP. In Canada, just like in the U.S, legislators can write and pass any law that they want to. That doesn't really mean shit though because it has to be consistent our rights and freedoms or it gets thrown right out the window with a constitutional challenge. Having said that, a law might linger for a long time if it is used intelligently and as intended and doesn't present a opening for such a challenge.
-
Unless you're Floyd Mayweather that's how boxing works. I think it just makes you worried about breaking your highly discriminatory 'no aussies' policy. Although to be fair I have a 'only fuck sepo's that drink' policy. Temperance Americans carry the prospect of being really weird.
I think its just worth remembering how accurate my prediction was. The only thing I got wrong was that rather than a screed of links he decided to save each link for a different post.
-
Yeah, man. I have to say that I am really upset with Paragon. I gave him two weeks to make a coherent argument. I thought he could do it. I even stood up to Davedan, believing that Paragon would pull through. So, let this be a lesson to you all: never bet on Paragon's intelligence.
Well, my computer's being a pain in the ass, so I'm operating under a handicap.
I'm just getting started. While I'm talking about GAE, he was released on bail... provided he didn't use Twitter or any computer with Internet access. Essentially, he was being punished for something he hadn't been convicted of. And since he made his living using the Internet, this really hurt him financially.
And if he had been jailed that would have also hurt him financially. If a truck driver lost his license because he drove drunk then that would also hurt him financially as he would be unable to do his job. When court hands out a punishment it usually hurts the criminal but that is why they consider the punishment to be fitting for the crime and the particular individual who got punished.
Except he hadn't been convicted of anything, and was eventually found not guilty.
Except for the fact that bail conditions are all part of a balancing act to reduce impact on the accused while at the same time protect the community. Bail conditions regularly impede on a person's freedoms, including the freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of association. Quite often bail conditions will mean that a person is unable to continue working in their job. This is unfortunate but as I said comes out of the balancing act between community safety and the rights of the accused. Nor is this something which is unique to Canadian law, any investigation would show the same sorts of things happening all over the common law world and the US as well.
And I wouldn't have a problem with that if the government compensated the defendant in the event of acquittal. But it doesn't, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Yes, I acknowledge that this is a flaw with the American system too. Nevertheless, that doesn't absolve Canada, it just means that the problem is more widespread.
The real injustice which happens when courts are too busy is people being held in jail pending bail on charges which would either not result in jail time or would have resulted in a sentence less that the time held pending charge. But that would probably result in you having to look at some real injustice rather than the rights of some people to insult others.
Fallacy of relative privation. Don't get me wrong, that legitimately is worse, but it's no reason to dismiss this issue.
-
Yeah, man. I have to say that I am really upset with Paragon. I gave him two weeks to make a coherent argument. I thought he could do it. I even stood up to Davedan, believing that Paragon would pull through. So, let this be a lesson to you all: never bet on Paragon's intelligence.
Well, my computer's being a pain in the ass, so I'm operating under a handicap.
Kid, you had 2 weeks!
-
Yeah, man. I have to say that I am really upset with Paragon. I gave him two weeks to make a coherent argument. I thought he could do it. I even stood up to Davedan, believing that Paragon would pull through. So, let this be a lesson to you all: never bet on Paragon's intelligence.
Well, my computer's being a pain in the ass, so I'm operating under a handicap.
Kid, you had 2 weeks!
What I mean is I'm having technical difficulties, so it's hard for me to use my computer. I'm taking it in tomorrow.
-
Yeah, man. I have to say that I am really upset with Paragon. I gave him two weeks to make a coherent argument. I thought he could do it. I even stood up to Davedan, believing that Paragon would pull through. So, let this be a lesson to you all: never bet on Paragon's intelligence.
Well, my computer's being a pain in the ass, so I'm operating under a handicap.
I'm just getting started. While I'm talking about GAE, he was released on bail... provided he didn't use Twitter or any computer with Internet access. Essentially, he was being punished for something he hadn't been convicted of. And since he made his living using the Internet, this really hurt him financially.
And if he had been jailed that would have also hurt him financially. If a truck driver lost his license because he drove drunk then that would also hurt him financially as he would be unable to do his job. When court hands out a punishment it usually hurts the criminal but that is why they consider the punishment to be fitting for the crime and the particular individual who got punished.
Except he hadn't been convicted of anything, and was eventually found not guilty.
Except for the fact that bail conditions are all part of a balancing act to reduce impact on the accused while at the same time protect the community. Bail conditions regularly impede on a person's freedoms, including the freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of association. Quite often bail conditions will mean that a person is unable to continue working in their job. This is unfortunate but as I said comes out of the balancing act between community safety and the rights of the accused. Nor is this something which is unique to Canadian law, any investigation would show the same sorts of things happening all over the common law world and the US as well.
And I wouldn't have a problem with that if the government compensated the defendant in the event of acquittal. But it doesn't, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Yes, I acknowledge that this is a flaw with the American system too. Nevertheless, that doesn't absolve Canada, it just means that the problem is more widespread.
The real injustice which happens when courts are too busy is people being held in jail pending bail on charges which would either not result in jail time or would have resulted in a sentence less that the time held pending charge. But that would probably result in you having to look at some real injustice rather than the rights of some people to insult others.
Fallacy of relative privation. Don't get me wrong, that legitimately is worse, but it's no reason to dismiss this issue.
So how much compensation do you think OJ Simpson should receive?
-
Yeah, man. I have to say that I am really upset with Paragon. I gave him two weeks to make a coherent argument. I thought he could do it. I even stood up to Davedan, believing that Paragon would pull through. So, let this be a lesson to you all: never bet on Paragon's intelligence.
Well, my computer's being a pain in the ass, so I'm operating under a handicap.
Kid, you had 2 weeks!
What I mean is I'm having technical difficulties, so it's hard for me to use my computer. I'm taking it in tomorrow.
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q88/comicbook482/Dilbert/image029.gif)
-
Yeah, man. I have to say that I am really upset with Paragon. I gave him two weeks to make a coherent argument. I thought he could do it. I even stood up to Davedan, believing that Paragon would pull through. So, let this be a lesson to you all: never bet on Paragon's intelligence.
Well, my computer's being a pain in the ass, so I'm operating under a handicap.
I'm just getting started. While I'm talking about GAE, he was released on bail... provided he didn't use Twitter or any computer with Internet access. Essentially, he was being punished for something he hadn't been convicted of. And since he made his living using the Internet, this really hurt him financially.
And if he had been jailed that would have also hurt him financially. If a truck driver lost his license because he drove drunk then that would also hurt him financially as he would be unable to do his job. When court hands out a punishment it usually hurts the criminal but that is why they consider the punishment to be fitting for the crime and the particular individual who got punished.
Except he hadn't been convicted of anything, and was eventually found not guilty.
Except for the fact that bail conditions are all part of a balancing act to reduce impact on the accused while at the same time protect the community. Bail conditions regularly impede on a person's freedoms, including the freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of association. Quite often bail conditions will mean that a person is unable to continue working in their job. This is unfortunate but as I said comes out of the balancing act between community safety and the rights of the accused. Nor is this something which is unique to Canadian law, any investigation would show the same sorts of things happening all over the common law world and the US as well.
And I wouldn't have a problem with that if the government compensated the defendant in the event of acquittal. But it doesn't, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Yes, I acknowledge that this is a flaw with the American system too. Nevertheless, that doesn't absolve Canada, it just means that the problem is more widespread.
The real injustice which happens when courts are too busy is people being held in jail pending bail on charges which would either not result in jail time or would have resulted in a sentence less that the time held pending charge. But that would probably result in you having to look at some real injustice rather than the rights of some people to insult others.
Fallacy of relative privation. Don't get me wrong, that legitimately is worse, but it's no reason to dismiss this issue.
So how much compensation do you think OJ Simpson should receive?
Depends. How much would you estimate he lost from his arrest to his acquittal?
-
His character was also terribly damaged and he lost all his movie endorsements.
Edit: I was trying to make the point that the US Legal system (and most of the rest of the common law) doesn't actually find you innocent. Rather they find that there is insufficient evidence to prove you guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is apart from the fact that if the state compensated every person who was acquitted following accusation there would be even less money available for those people who need to rely on legal aid and public defenders.
Also I should note that my point about the real injustice of the bail system was not a fallacy of relative privation. My point was that the whole system is part of a societal compromise. I think what you were complaining of is simply part of that compromise. Whereas being detained for substantial periods of time prior to trial for minor offences is outside of that compromise. It is also creates another anomaly and problem with the system where innocent people plead guilty to get out of jail rather than waiting even longer for a trial.
But seeing as you are clearly so well versed in both canadian and US law please tell us how you would improve the Canadian Bail system. Also if you intend to compensate every acquitted person how you propose to pay for such compensation.
-
Yeah, man. I have to say that I am really upset with Paragon. I gave him two weeks to make a coherent argument. I thought he could do it. I even stood up to Davedan, believing that Paragon would pull through. So, let this be a lesson to you all: never bet on Paragon's intelligence.
Well, my computer's being a pain in the ass, so I'm operating under a handicap.
My argument was destroyed waiting for that update to download, damn you windows and your nagware.
When the 25th security update comes through I'll bring an argument that will destroy all the SJWs and their unamerican Canadian laws!!! Just you wait...loading...this may take several minutes...
-
Okay, then. One grievance I have is that Canadian hate speech laws are too strict. Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to "willfully [promote] hatred against any identifiable group." This law is, in my opinion, overly broad. To fix it, I'd make it so that the law doesn't impact purely expressive speech. There should be a distinction between ordering your dog to attack somebody, and saying that somebody deserves to be attacked by a dog.
But there is a distinction. I am certain that even in Canada, if I sic my dog on someone I will be tried with different criminal charges than I would be if I said that someone deserves to be attacked by a dog.
Likewise if some Canadian kills a person because he didn't like the victim's ethnicity they will be tried for murder and hate crime while if they had merely said that the person deserves to be killed because they are of ethnic group X they will be charged with hate speech only.
And I will say it again but the US way of thinking that only the Government can infringe on "Freedom of speech" and that is the only thing that a person should be protected from is a rare way of thinking. In most countries it is understood that even the freedom of speech should have limits. There are laws to make sure that the governments don't silence people on a whim (at least there are in countries that aren't North Korea or such) but there are also restrictions to protect other people from people hurting them under the guise of freedom of speech.
-
Yet despite all these supposed freedoms they could still make it illegal to join the communist party. They tried the same thing in Australia, and even though we don't have a bill of rights, it was held to be unconstitutional. How bout that
-
It's worth remembering that laws, including the mighty constitution of the USA are only as good as the will to enforce them-kinda like the eighth amendment and the total absence of excessive fines, bail amounts or cruel and unusual punishment in the United States resulting from that document. ::)
-
<reads UP's first response after a two week wait...releases the crickets after instructing them to chirp only while I'm reading his posts. Cuz I'm ignoring the Constitution, like a good American>
-
Okay, then. One grievance I have is that Canadian hate speech laws are too strict. Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to "willfully [promote] hatred against any identifiable group." This law is, in my opinion, overly broad. To fix it, I'd make it so that the law doesn't impact purely expressive speech. There should be a distinction between ordering your dog to attack somebody, and saying that somebody deserves to be attacked by a dog.
But there is a distinction. I am certain that even in Canada, if I sic my dog on someone I will be tried with different criminal charges than I would be if I said that someone deserves to be attacked by a dog.
Likewise if some Canadian kills a person because he didn't like the victim's ethnicity they will be tried for murder and hate crime while if they had merely said that the person deserves to be killed because they are of ethnic group X they will be charged with hate speech only.
And I will say it again but the US way of thinking that only the Government can infringe on "Freedom of speech" and that is the only thing that a person should be protected from is a rare way of thinking. In most countries it is understood that even the freedom of speech should have limits. There are laws to make sure that the governments don't silence people on a whim (at least there are in countries that aren't North Korea or such) but there are also restrictions to protect other people from people hurting them under the guise of freedom of speech.
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
-
Okay, then. One grievance I have is that Canadian hate speech laws are too strict. Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to "willfully [promote] hatred against any identifiable group." This law is, in my opinion, overly broad. To fix it, I'd make it so that the law doesn't impact purely expressive speech. There should be a distinction between ordering your dog to attack somebody, and saying that somebody deserves to be attacked by a dog.
But there is a distinction. I am certain that even in Canada, if I sic my dog on someone I will be tried with different criminal charges than I would be if I said that someone deserves to be attacked by a dog.
Likewise if some Canadian kills a person because he didn't like the victim's ethnicity they will be tried for murder and hate crime while if they had merely said that the person deserves to be killed because they are of ethnic group X they will be charged with hate speech only.
And I will say it again but the US way of thinking that only the Government can infringe on "Freedom of speech" and that is the only thing that a person should be protected from is a rare way of thinking. In most countries it is understood that even the freedom of speech should have limits. There are laws to make sure that the governments don't silence people on a whim (at least there are in countries that aren't North Korea or such) but there are also restrictions to protect other people from people hurting them under the guise of freedom of speech.
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
Well, some bloggers write game reviews I don't like...
There oughtta be a law.
-
Okay, then. One grievance I have is that Canadian hate speech laws are too strict. Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to "willfully [promote] hatred against any identifiable group." This law is, in my opinion, overly broad. To fix it, I'd make it so that the law doesn't impact purely expressive speech. There should be a distinction between ordering your dog to attack somebody, and saying that somebody deserves to be attacked by a dog.
But there is a distinction. I am certain that even in Canada, if I sic my dog on someone I will be tried with different criminal charges than I would be if I said that someone deserves to be attacked by a dog.
Likewise if some Canadian kills a person because he didn't like the victim's ethnicity they will be tried for murder and hate crime while if they had merely said that the person deserves to be killed because they are of ethnic group X they will be charged with hate speech only.
And I will say it again but the US way of thinking that only the Government can infringe on "Freedom of speech" and that is the only thing that a person should be protected from is a rare way of thinking. In most countries it is understood that even the freedom of speech should have limits. There are laws to make sure that the governments don't silence people on a whim (at least there are in countries that aren't North Korea or such) but there are also restrictions to protect other people from people hurting them under the guise of freedom of speech.
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
You know what? If I wanted to see a chimp trying to seduce a lawnmower I could probably find it on youtube. Why don't you give this topic away and admit you have no meaningful contribution to make regarding Canadian Law. This is a topic on which many people much smarter than you have pondered, and tested, for more than a couple of centuries. It's like you wandered into Lockheed and said "you know you should really make that stealth plane faster and more maneuverable and capable of dropping a heavier payload from a greater range. The fact that it doesn't means your design is inherently flawed."
-
Okay, then. One grievance I have is that Canadian hate speech laws are too strict. Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to "willfully [promote] hatred against any identifiable group." This law is, in my opinion, overly broad. To fix it, I'd make it so that the law doesn't impact purely expressive speech. There should be a distinction between ordering your dog to attack somebody, and saying that somebody deserves to be attacked by a dog.
But there is a distinction. I am certain that even in Canada, if I sic my dog on someone I will be tried with different criminal charges than I would be if I said that someone deserves to be attacked by a dog.
Likewise if some Canadian kills a person because he didn't like the victim's ethnicity they will be tried for murder and hate crime while if they had merely said that the person deserves to be killed because they are of ethnic group X they will be charged with hate speech only.
And I will say it again but the US way of thinking that only the Government can infringe on "Freedom of speech" and that is the only thing that a person should be protected from is a rare way of thinking. In most countries it is understood that even the freedom of speech should have limits. There are laws to make sure that the governments don't silence people on a whim (at least there are in countries that aren't North Korea or such) but there are also restrictions to protect other people from people hurting them under the guise of freedom of speech.
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
You know what? If I wanted to see a chimp trying to seduce a lawnmower I could probably find it on youtube. Why don't you give this topic away and admit you have no meaningful contribution to make regarding Canadian Law. This is a topic on which many people much smarter than you have pondered, and tested, for more than a couple of centuries. It's like you wandered into Lockheed and said "you know you should really make that stealth plane faster and more maneuverable and capable of dropping a heavier payload from a greater range. The fact that it doesn't means your design is inherently flawed."
...But 'Murica, Fuck Yeah!
-
Okay, then. One grievance I have is that Canadian hate speech laws are too strict. Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to "willfully [promote] hatred against any identifiable group." This law is, in my opinion, overly broad. To fix it, I'd make it so that the law doesn't impact purely expressive speech. There should be a distinction between ordering your dog to attack somebody, and saying that somebody deserves to be attacked by a dog.
But there is a distinction. I am certain that even in Canada, if I sic my dog on someone I will be tried with different criminal charges than I would be if I said that someone deserves to be attacked by a dog.
Likewise if some Canadian kills a person because he didn't like the victim's ethnicity they will be tried for murder and hate crime while if they had merely said that the person deserves to be killed because they are of ethnic group X they will be charged with hate speech only.
And I will say it again but the US way of thinking that only the Government can infringe on "Freedom of speech" and that is the only thing that a person should be protected from is a rare way of thinking. In most countries it is understood that even the freedom of speech should have limits. There are laws to make sure that the governments don't silence people on a whim (at least there are in countries that aren't North Korea or such) but there are also restrictions to protect other people from people hurting them under the guise of freedom of speech.
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
You know what? If I wanted to see a chimp trying to seduce a lawnmower I could probably find it on youtube. Why don't you give this topic away and admit you have no meaningful contribution to make regarding Canadian Law. This is a topic on which many people much smarter than you have pondered, and tested, for more than a couple of centuries. It's like you wandered into Lockheed and said "you know you should really make that stealth plane faster and more maneuverable and capable of dropping a heavier payload from a greater range. The fact that it doesn't means your design is inherently flawed."
You pretty much nailed it on the head. The Canadian Government is full of competent and intelligent people who are paid to make and interpret laws. They've been doing this for a couple hundred years, almost a thousand once you stop and think that they can trace their form of governance to Britain, which descended from the Magna Carta. Sure, people aren't perfect, and every government has its flaws, but I would think that the most glaring flaws* would've been weeded out by now.**
*actual flaws, not subjective crap like hate speech laws shouldn't exist.
**Of course this isn't accounting for corrupt politicians that introduce flaws into the system for personal gain. While this is a valid point, my main point with the two week thing was that if an actual flaw existed, then Paragon could write a solid report on it for us to review. Instead, we're provided sources in piecemeal form, one after the other is refuted.
-
Yes! I finally got these links to work!
According to Global Integrity (https://www.globalintegrity.org/research/reports/global-integrity-report/global-integrity-report-2010/gir-scorecard-2010-canada/), Canada has some of the most corrupt judicial appointments in the world. The overall integrity of judicial appointments received a 32/100. For a first-world country, that is simply appalling. There's no transparency, and the Prime Minister is the sole authority over who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.
You were saying?
-
Yes! I finally got these links to work!
According to Global Integrity (https://www.globalintegrity.org/research/reports/global-integrity-report/global-integrity-report-2010/gir-scorecard-2010-canada/), Canada has some of the most corrupt judicial appointments in the world. The overall integrity of judicial appointments received a 32/100. For a first-world country, that is simply appalling. There's no transparency, and the Prime Minister is the sole authority over who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.
You were saying?
More piecemeal links that will never end, going down whichever tangential rabbit hole tickles your fancy, instead of an actual report containing the noticeable flaws that we can look over and dispute.
This thread is done, you lost, go home, take shower, and wash off your shame.
ETA: And now I'm pissed off because you didn't even bother to read your links again. The score you cite is for transparency over appointment of judges and the process (or lack thereof). If you scroll a bit lower, then you'll see another category: 6.3 Judicial Independence, Fairness, and Citizen access to Justice. This one actually deals with the ins and outs of the Canadian Legal system. On this scale, Canada got an 82.
So, start reading your links, and please stop wasting our time. This is really annoying.
-
Yes! I finally got these links to work!
According to Global Integrity (https://www.globalintegrity.org/research/reports/global-integrity-report/global-integrity-report-2010/gir-scorecard-2010-canada/), Canada has some of the most corrupt judicial appointments in the world. The overall integrity of judicial appointments received a 32/100. For a first-world country, that is simply appalling. There's no transparency, and the Prime Minister is the sole authority over who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.
You were saying?
That is not a scorecard of corrupt judicial appointments and it is dishonest of you to say it is. It was a scorecard of conflicts of interests, safeguards and balances. Because Canada relies on appointment by the executive of judicial appointments. The criticism seems to really be of the westminster system of judicial appointments which does not provide for review, in part to avoid popularity contests.
Were you to look at other categories, perhaps more important such as - Judicial Independence, Fairness, and Citizen Access to Justice - Canada does rather well at 82/100.
Look you've just opened the fuel cap, please don't put that in there.
-
Yes! I finally got these links to work!
According to Global Integrity (https://www.globalintegrity.org/research/reports/global-integrity-report/global-integrity-report-2010/gir-scorecard-2010-canada/), Canada has some of the most corrupt judicial appointments in the world. The overall integrity of judicial appointments received a 32/100. For a first-world country, that is simply appalling. There's no transparency, and the Prime Minister is the sole authority over who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.
You were saying?
More piecemeal links that will never end, going down whichever tangential rabbit hole tickles your fancy, instead of an actual report containing the noticeable flaws that we can look over and dispute.
This thread is done, you lost, go home, take shower, and wash off your shame.
ETA: And now I'm pissed off because you didn't even bother to read your links again. The score you cite is for transparency over appointment of judges and the process (or lack thereof). If you scroll a bit lower, then you'll see another category: 6.3 Judicial Independence, Fairness, and Citizen access to Justice. This one actually deals with the ins and outs of the Canadian Legal system. On this scale, Canada got an 82.
So, start reading your links, and please stop wasting our time. This is really annoying.
You'll have your report once my computer starts working right again.
As for the other score, that's admirable, but it shouldn't be used to absolve the system of its flaws. We're not here to talk about what Canada does well, but what it does poorly.
-
Yes! I finally got these links to work!
According to Global Integrity (https://www.globalintegrity.org/research/reports/global-integrity-report/global-integrity-report-2010/gir-scorecard-2010-canada/), Canada has some of the most corrupt judicial appointments in the world. The overall integrity of judicial appointments received a 32/100. For a first-world country, that is simply appalling. There's no transparency, and the Prime Minister is the sole authority over who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.
You were saying?
More piecemeal links that will never end, going down whichever tangential rabbit hole tickles your fancy, instead of an actual report containing the noticeable flaws that we can look over and dispute.
This thread is done, you lost, go home, take shower, and wash off your shame.
ETA: And now I'm pissed off because you didn't even bother to read your links again. The score you cite is for transparency over appointment of judges and the process (or lack thereof). If you scroll a bit lower, then you'll see another category: 6.3 Judicial Independence, Fairness, and Citizen access to Justice. This one actually deals with the ins and outs of the Canadian Legal system. On this scale, Canada got an 82.
So, start reading your links, and please stop wasting our time. This is really annoying.
You'll have your report once my computer starts working right again.
As for the other score, that's admirable, but it shouldn't be used to absolve the system of its flaws. We're not here to talk about what Canada does well, but what it does poorly.
THIS IS THE VERY TANGENTIAL RABBIT-HOLE I AM TALKING ABOUT.
We start off by talking about the Canadian legal system and how it is supposedly corrupt for having hate speech laws. After having it pointed out the the Canadian legal system works, he goes off about the corruption of how judges are appointed.
ETA: At this point, fuck it. He knows what he's doing. Nobody can be that dense. This is intentional, and part of his concern trolling that he's been doing from day one. I'm done with this thread. I'm gonna make better use of my mental capacity and simply huff glue.
-
Oh come on, Queen, you're classier than that. You could at least huff paint thinner.
-
Oh come on, Queen, you're classier than that. You could at least huff paint thinner.
While true that paint thinner is a healthier alternative to paint, paint thinner does have less calories and flavor. Though, I do value my girlish figure.
-
So in the question (36) Are judges appointed fairly? Canada scores an impressively dismal 17. In stark contrast the US scores a perfect 100.
Obviously America knows how to do this sort of thing properly and could teach us hosers a thing or two.
Speaking of judicial appointments, have you guys find a replacement for Scalia yet?
-
Oh come on, Queen, you're classier than that. You could at least huff paint thinner.
While true that paint thinner is a healthier alternative to paint, paint thinner does have less calories and flavor. Though, I do value my girlish figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY7jSesdxl0
-
Oh come on, Queen, you're classier than that. You could at least huff paint thinner.
While true that paint thinner is a healthier alternative to paint, paint thinner does have less calories and flavor. Though, I do value my girlish figure.
I heard paint thinner is better if you add just a touch of methanol. Really makes the flavour pop.
Surgeon General's Warning: Methanol breaks down into formaldehyde in your body and will kill you if you drink it. DO NOT DRINK METHANOL.
-
So in the question (36) Are judges appointed fairly? Canada scores an impressively dismal 17. In stark contrast the US scores a perfect 100.
Obviously America knows how to do this sort of thing properly and could teach us hosers a thing or two.
Speaking of judicial appointments, have you guys find a replacement for Scalia yet?
Also rather quaintly ignoring that the US Supreme Court has got to be the one of the most actively political of any in the Common Law world. You really shouldnt be able to predict judicial decisions by reference to the number of conservative vs liberal justices, but you can in the US. Judicial decisions, particularly of the most superior court should relate to an analysis of the law rather than the political leanings of the members of the Court.
Edit: UP take the pants off your head and step away from the lawnmower before you hurt yourself.
-
Okay.
The judicial appointments process in Canada keeps the system fairer and more unbiased.
Yes.
I have never heard of a Canadian judge being considered a traitor the way David Souter was. Why? Because there are no bitter partisan fights over appointments. In fact, the Supreme Court was regularly striking down the Conservatives' legislation even after Harper had appointed more than half its membership.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-supreme-court-neil-macdonald-1.3447962
Frank Iacobucci, a former member of the Canadian Supremes, once told me that during his 13 years on the bench, "I had no idea what any of my colleagues' political background and preferences were.
"Their politics and political views," he said, "were not evident in their work. If they were there, they were so subtle that I missed them."
There's no expectation that judicial appointees will rule the way the Prime Minister who selected them would prefer. For that matter, the Prime Minister, while he is allowed to make any nomination he wants (within the requirements of the Supreme Court Act), by strong convention never acts except on the advice of respected legal scholars, and chooses only from a list they prepare.
Another objection they bring up is complete bullshit that betrays a lack of understanding of Canadian federalism: that the provincial governments only appoint trial court judges. The point of having the federal government appoint superior court justices is so that there is nation-wide consistency in the law. This is especially relevant since criminal law is exclusively a federal matter.
The thing is, the Canadian system is patterned very strongly after the British system, which includes a ton of almost-ironclad conventions. There may be few requirements regarding conflict of interest, but judges will recuse themselves over even the perception of such. (Go look at the Marc Nadon Reference and why Marshall Rothstein recused himself--there was no conflict of interest, but he knew some people might have thought there was one. Also, it meant that only seven judges and not eight heard the Reference so that there couldn't be a hung court.)
For that matter, the whole notion of "checks and balances" and "separation of powers" in the Westminster context is horseshit. The system isn't built that way.
And you know what? I'd take it over the Preisdential-Congressional clusterfuck of a system the US has any day. It hasn't worked for any serious length of time anywhere else, except in Chile:
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed
When the Americans went about setting up new governments in West Germany and Japan, did they implement their system? No, because they knew their system was shit. They set up Westminster-style systems (with different conventions, perhaps, but still with a Parliament to which Cabinet is responsible and which can vote no confidence in the government, triggering either a realignment in the government or an election, so that there's never gridlock for any real length of time).
So you can go on and on all you want about how shitty the Canadian legal system is, but I'll take it any day over the nightmare the US has.
-
Well, it seems we're at an impasse, then.
-
Well, it seems we're at an impasse, then.
No, this isn't an impasse, this is us mocking you for losing the debate in a manner that only you could do. In fact, Dpareja's post is more akin to what I was expecting from you. Nothing long, but something meaningful.
-
Well, it seems we're at an impasse, then.
No, this isn't an impasse, this is us mocking you for losing the debate in a manner that only you could do. In fact, Dpareja's post is more akin to what I was expecting from you. Nothing long, but something meaningful.
Blame my computer.
-
Well, it seems we're at an impasse, then.
No, this isn't an impasse, this is us mocking you for losing the debate in a manner that only you could do. In fact, Dpareja's post is more akin to what I was expecting from you. Nothing long, but something meaningful.
Blame my computer.
It's your computer's fault that you're a fuckwit who can't see past his belt buckle and doesn't know what an impasse is?
-
Well, it seems we're at an impasse, then.
No, this isn't an impasse, this is us mocking you for losing the debate in a manner that only you could do. In fact, Dpareja's post is more akin to what I was expecting from you. Nothing long, but something meaningful.
Blame my computer.
I suppose the dog ate your report as well, eh?
-
UP's definitions of debating:
Impasse: I am being thrashed like a pinata at Mark McGwire's birthday
Truce: Even though my position is incapable of any rational support if you let me walk away from this fucking I will wait a week before raising the matter again and be able to pretend I haven't lost, or at least quite so hard.
-
Oh, sounds fun. Let me try.
Proof: A link with a vaguely promising title that I found in less than ten seconds on Google and didn't even read.
Coherent and relevant argument: A nigh-unrelated tangent that can be used to distract everyone after my last point was torn to shreds (though in fairness, this one actually works quite often).
Heh, that was kind of fun.
-
Queen, I have to wonder (since it is sort of relevant to discussions of political and legal systems):
1. In what area of law do you practice?
2. To the extent that that area overlaps with constitutional law (if at all) do you subscribe more to a living-tree philosophy or a textualist philosophy?
This is just for my own curiosity; I won't take it amiss if you'd rather not say.
-
Queen, I have to wonder (since it is sort of relevant to discussions of political and legal systems):
1. In what area of law do you practice?
2. To the extent that that area overlaps with constitutional law (if at all) do you subscribe more to a living-tree philosophy or a textualist philosophy?
This is just for my own curiosity; I won't take it amiss if you'd rather not say.
I work in plaintiff's litigation at the moment. They do a lot of personal injury, wrongful death, class actions against giant corporations you've probably heard of, police brutality, excessive force, and products liability. I like it, it allows me to feel as though I'm keeping my soul, while helping people who need it.
Though, constitutional law as an academic area, is probably my specialty. Studied it in highschool for debate, had a conlaw class in undergrad (got an A-, though the poli sci department at my university had a policy of giving VERY few A's), Aced ConLaw in law school, and wrote my note on constitutional levels of scrutiny under the 14th Amendment (which not only got an A, but won a national competition).
As far as views of the constitution goes, it is most certainly a living document.
ETA: and on the subject of plaintiff's litigation, I actually took less money to work there. I was offered a gig last year by a larger, more prestigious defense firm that specialized in the opposite of what I do right now. The gig I have now pays about half of what the defense firm would've paid, but I accepted it out of some silly notion of virtue.
-
I AM NOW GETTING BOOZE. Y'all have driven me to drink.
...
Just kidding, I was gonna do it, anyway.
-
Queen, I have to wonder (since it is sort of relevant to discussions of political and legal systems):
1. In what area of law do you practice?
2. To the extent that that area overlaps with constitutional law (if at all) do you subscribe more to a living-tree philosophy or a textualist philosophy?
This is just for my own curiosity; I won't take it amiss if you'd rather not say.
I work in plaintiff's litigation at the moment. They do a lot of personal injury, wrongful death, class actions against giant corporations you've probably heard of, police brutality, excessive force, and products liability. I like it, it allows me to feel as though I'm keeping my soul, while helping people who need it.
Though, constitutional law as an academic area, is probably my specialty. Studied it in highschool for debate, had a conlaw class in undergrad (got an A-, though the poli sci department at my university had a policy of giving VERY few A's), Aced ConLaw in law school, and wrote my note on constitutional levels of scrutiny under the 14th Amendment (which not only got an A, but won a national competition).
As far as views of the constitution goes, it is most certainly a living document.
I'd love to see you debate this guy:
http://www.jamesjheaney.com/
Ardent textualist and ardent conservative. That said, I think I convinced him that the living-tree doctrine has some merit insofar as it is applied to vague areas of the Constitution, and not to statutory law.
I also wonder what the US courts would make of the Oakes test (which, as he pointed out to me when I pointed him to it, is roughly equivalent to strict scrutiny) applied to everything in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (And, also, how their interpretation of the phrase "principles of fundamental justice"* would differ from the Canadian courts' interpretation.)
*This phrase has a funny history: Pierre Trudeau put it in there because he didn't want "due process" in the Charter, since he knew what the US courts had done with that clause. Cue the courts promptly ruling that due process is a principle of fundamental justice, along with any number of other things.
-
You know, I really wonder if Paragon posts his links from his own research. I've wondered this for a while, in particular with his whole gamergate bullshit, but earlier today, at various times I saw as many as 5, 6, and even 8 "guests" viewing this thread. Now, guests don't normally catch my attention, but when there are that many, at various points in the day (yes "day" as this all happened on the 21st), it makes me wonder if someone linked them to this thread. Further, it would explain why paragon doesn't even read his own links, if he trusts others to do so.
This is not a call to the mods, and truth be told I have no evidence other than my personal observations and skepticisms. But something about this whole thread isn't quite adding up to me, and the missing part of the equation is that Paragon is either (1) in cahoots with outsiders, (2) trolling us epically, or (3) a fucking idiot.
-
You know, I really wonder if Paragon posts his links from his own research. I've wondered this for a while, in particular with his whole gamergate bullshit, but earlier today, at various times I saw as many as 5, 6, and even 8 "guests" viewing this thread. Now, guests don't normally catch my attention, but when there are that many, at various points in the day (yes "day" as this all happened on the 21st), it makes me wonder if someone linked them to this thread. Further, it would explain why paragon doesn't even read his own links, if he trusts others to do so.
This is not a call to the mods, and truth be told I have no evidence other than my personal observations and skepticisms. But something about this whole thread isn't quite adding up to me, and the missing part of the equation is that Paragon is either (1) in cahoots with outsiders, (2) trolling us epically, or (3) a fucking idiot.
Without detailed information on what guests usually do around here I'd assume they were just looking at the most recently updated thread.
UP obviously is in cahoots with outsiders, but I'd assume it's not against this board specifically. FQA is likely just one of several sites he reposts approved conservative manufactroversies in.
-
I thought it was basically established that UP got talking points from other places. He more or less admitted it in Flame and Burn. It was his excuse for misrepresenting what one of his links said, that he hadn't read the link and someone had misinformed him of its contents.
I don't know if people write stuff for him or if he just picks up talking points and dumps them here without reading them through.
I've got to say if UP is a gestalt entity he's a decidedly disappointing one.
Do you think his broken computer/ technological issue is that the smarter person who is part of the symbiotic organism that is UP is on holidays or at work or something?
-
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
Was the man in question tried under blasphemy laws? Is he in trouble because saying that some people should be killed is blasphemy? Do you think that a public figure who has a lot of fans and therefore can make his words heard by very many people has the right to tell that some random kid (who is not a public figure) deserves to die and do you think that opposing him saying these kinds of things is wrong because blasphemy laws are bullshit and anyone should have the right to hurt the feelings of religious people?
What the hell did that question have to do with the topic at hand?
But I am willing to admit that blasphemy laws are "probably" unnecessary. I say probably because there is a point where the things someone says about a religion is hate speech, which should be illegal, and there is a point where the actions that are done to blaspheme violate other laws so whether or not there should be a separate blasphemy law depends on how common those crimes are and whether or not it is useful to have a separate law for them.
-
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
Let me ask you something, are you implying that there's a slippery slope from less than absolute protection of free speech to blasphemy laws?
Because you may be asked to connect the dots here, with something more substantial than links to right wing blogs vaguely, tangentially related to free speech...possibly.
-
Honey, there's a difference between critiquing a faith system and publicly advocating for the death and mistreatment of black people because they're black. Fucking A.
-
Honey, there's a difference between critiquing a faith system and publicly advocating for the death and mistreatment of black people because they're black. Fucking A.
But curiously not white people. Because like "oh they were just being ironic" and stuff. XD
-
Contrarian, you're supposed to be fixing UP's computer. Get back to work.
-
No, I think Conty's the bulldog who ate UP's homework.
-
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
Let me ask you something, are you implying that there's a slippery slope from less than absolute protection of free speech to blasphemy laws?
Because you may be asked to connect the dots here, with something more substantial than links to right wing blogs vaguely, tangentially related to free speech...possibly.
I think the rather elliptical point that UP was going to make was that Canada actually has an anti-blasphemy law. But then again I'm pretty sure the communist party is still illegal in the USA.
-
Contrarian, you're supposed to be fixing UP's computer. Get back to work.
If you can't fix your own computer, you don't belong on the internet.
I mean, it's the current year...
-
Contrarian, you're supposed to be fixing UP's computer. Get back to work.
If you can't fix your own computer, you don't belong on the internet.
I mean, it's the current year...
That's it Paragon, tHEcONTRARIAN has spoken. Get out of the pool! No more internet for you!
-
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
Let me ask you something, are you implying that there's a slippery slope from less than absolute protection of free speech to blasphemy laws?
Because you may be asked to connect the dots here, with something more substantial than links to right wing blogs vaguely, tangentially related to free speech...possibly.
I think the rather elliptical point that UP was going to make was that Canada actually has an anti-blasphemy law. But then again I'm pretty sure the communist party is still illegal in the USA.
It's true, Section 296 of the Criminal Code is about "blasphemous libel". Probably wouldn't survive a Charter challenge, though, and no one's been tried under it for a long time.
-
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
Let me ask you something, are you implying that there's a slippery slope from less than absolute protection of free speech to blasphemy laws?
Because you may be asked to connect the dots here, with something more substantial than links to right wing blogs vaguely, tangentially related to free speech...possibly.
I think the rather elliptical point that UP was going to make was that Canada actually has an anti-blasphemy law. But then again I'm pretty sure the communist party is still illegal in the USA.
It's true, Section 296 of the Criminal Code is about "blasphemous libel". Probably wouldn't survive a Charter challenge, though, and no one's been tried under it for a long time.
I'm surprised you as a Canadian haven't started lobbying your government to Establish the Paragon Law Reform Committee where UP could be engaged to fix all the problems with Canadian law.
Shame it's all too late as the 'Definite Article in Disagreement' has ordered him off the internet.
-
Let me ask you something: do you believe blasphemy laws have any place in modern society?
Let me ask you something, are you implying that there's a slippery slope from less than absolute protection of free speech to blasphemy laws?
Because you may be asked to connect the dots here, with something more substantial than links to right wing blogs vaguely, tangentially related to free speech...possibly.
I think the rather elliptical point that UP was going to make was that Canada actually has an anti-blasphemy law. But then again I'm pretty sure the communist party is still illegal in the USA.
It's true, Section 296 of the Criminal Code is about "blasphemous libel". Probably wouldn't survive a Charter challenge, though, and no one's been tried under it for a long time.
I'm surprised you as a Canadian haven't started lobbying your government to Establish the Paragon Law Reform Committee where UP could be engaged to fix all the problems with Canadian law.
Shame it's all too late as the 'Definite Article in Disagreement' has ordered him off the internet.
Would that look like this.
Rule one, FREE SPEECH.
Rule two, no BULLYING cis, Christian white boys-or their stuff, OK? Ok!
Rule three, BULLYING and FREE SPEECH are defined by UP exclusively on any given day in the interests of stopping BULLIES and promoting FREE SPEECH. OK? Ok!
-
Well, since my computer's back from the shop, I can finally present a complete report.
Part 1: Hate speech. I hate bigoted speech. But I still think it should be protected, provided it doesn't cross certain lines such as incitement to violence. This is for two very practical reasons.
The first is that hate speech can very easily be used against anybody who challenges the status quo or authority figures. Here's (https://archive.is/N9hua) an article about Dutch citizens who were visited by police for tweets about asylum seekers. It's in Dutch, but I managed to find a translation. Here's an excerpt:
Monday afternoon Mark Jongeneel received a distressing phonecall. His mother. Two policemen had just visited and were looking for him, but they didn't explain why. Now they were going to Mark's office: he owns a debt-collection company. Wat could be going on? "I was drunk saturdaynight, I recalled". But he could remember everything of that night.
"You twitter a lot, don't you?" the police said, when they were sitting in his office. "We have received orders to ask you to watch your tone. Your tweets could be perceived as inciting.
Tuesdaynight in Sliedrecht there was a meeting about an asylumcenter in the region. In the days leading to this meeting, Mark Jongeneel placed a couple of tweets. Like: "The college of Sliedrecht has a proposal to receive 250 refugees in the coming 2 years. What a bad plan! #kominverzet" (#letusresist). Earlier he had also tweeted: "We won't let this happen, will we?
There you have it: criticize immigration policies, get a visit from the police. Note that the guy I quoted didn't say anything about the migrants, all he said that the immigration policy was a bad plan. Maybe it was based in bigotry, maybe it wasn't, I don't know. But the point is, hate speech laws were used as a convenient excuse to go after somebody for wrongthink.
Or how about this? You may call my comparisons of hate speech laws to blasphemy laws exaggerated. Well, the UN seems to think criticizing Sharia law constitutes "cyberviolence":
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/647604041854251008 (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/647604041854251008)
For the record, "cyberviolence" was also used to describe attacking (for a very broad definition of "attack") women online. And there seems to be a bizarre crusade among self-proclaimed "progressives" to shield Islam from criticism. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of criticisms of Islam are flawed at best, but that doesn't mean I want them banned.
(https://janaralyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/slman-rushdie-freedom-of-thought.jpg)
But fine, let's assume the laws will only be used as intended. Well, that brings me to my second issue. Suppressing hate speech doesn't make people less hateful. It's confronting hate speech that makes people less hateful. When hateful ideas are discussed freely and openly, they are also confronted freely and openly. But when an idea is presented in the dark corners of the Internet, there's rarely a counterpoint. When an idea is discussed in secret, you're almost always alone with the one discussing it.
And when an idea is hidden, it becomes more attractive. When people who hold an opinion aren't allowed to discuss it openly, it feeds into their persecution complex, convincing them that they've stumbled across some dark truth that the government is trying to suppress. It also makes them more attractive to the disaffected, making them more likely to be drawn to their message. Sometimes, it even makes martyrs of them. Look at what happened with Golden Dawn (http://mic.com/articles/81631/jail-time-is-only-making-greece-s-neo-nazi-politicians-martyrs).
Before I move on, I'd like to say one last thing: don't assume these laws won't be used against you. Fate is fickle, and if far-right parties come to power, they could very easily use these tools against their opponents or anybody who disagrees with them. Say whites are privileged? Criticize Christianity? Tweet about how 10% of M&Ms are poisoned? Do that when they're in power, and it could very easily be you who gets tried under hate speech laws.
Part 2 is coming soon.
-
might as well not form any laws ever then lmao
-
Well, since my computer's back from the shop, I can finally present a complete report.
Part 1: Hate speech. I hate bigoted speech. But I still think it should be protected, provided it doesn't cross certain lines such as incitement to violence. This is for two very practical reasons.
The first is that hate speech can very easily be used against anybody who challenges the status quo or authority figures. Here's (https://archive.is/N9hua) an article about Dutch citizens who were visited by police for tweets about asylum seekers. It's in Dutch, but I managed to find a translation. Here's an excerpt:
Monday afternoon Mark Jongeneel received a distressing phonecall. His mother. Two policemen had just visited and were looking for him, but they didn't explain why. Now they were going to Mark's office: he owns a debt-collection company. Wat could be going on? "I was drunk saturdaynight, I recalled". But he could remember everything of that night.
"You twitter a lot, don't you?" the police said, when they were sitting in his office. "We have received orders to ask you to watch your tone. Your tweets could be perceived as inciting.
Tuesdaynight in Sliedrecht there was a meeting about an asylumcenter in the region. In the days leading to this meeting, Mark Jongeneel placed a couple of tweets. Like: "The college of Sliedrecht has a proposal to receive 250 refugees in the coming 2 years. What a bad plan! #kominverzet" (#letusresist). Earlier he had also tweeted: "We won't let this happen, will we?
There you have it: criticize immigration policies, get a visit from the police. Note that the guy I quoted didn't say anything about the migrants, all he said that the immigration policy was a bad plan. Maybe it was based in bigotry, maybe it wasn't, I don't know. But the point is, hate speech laws were used as a convenient excuse to go after somebody for wrongthink.
Or how about this? You may call my comparisons of hate speech laws to blasphemy laws exaggerated. Well, the UN seems to think criticizing Sharia law constitutes "cyberviolence":
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/647604041854251008 (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/647604041854251008)
For the record, "cyberviolence" was also used to describe attacking (for a very broad definition of "attack") women online. And there seems to be a bizarre crusade among self-proclaimed "progressives" to shield Islam from criticism. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of criticisms of Islam are flawed at best, but that doesn't mean I want them banned.
(https://janaralyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/slman-rushdie-freedom-of-thought.jpg)
But fine, let's assume the laws will only be used as intended. Well, that brings me to my second issue. Suppressing hate speech doesn't make people less hateful. It's confronting hate speech that makes people less hateful. When hateful ideas are discussed freely and openly, they are also confronted freely and openly. But when an idea is presented in the dark corners of the Internet, there's rarely a counterpoint. When an idea is discussed in secret, you're almost always alone with the one discussing it.
And when an idea is hidden, it becomes more attractive. When people who hold an opinion aren't allowed to discuss it openly, it feeds into their persecution complex, convincing them that they've stumbled across some dark truth that the government is trying to suppress. It also makes them more attractive to the disaffected, making them more likely to be drawn to their message. Sometimes, it even makes martyrs of them. Look at what happened with Golden Dawn (http://mic.com/articles/81631/jail-time-is-only-making-greece-s-neo-nazi-politicians-martyrs).
Before I move on, I'd like to say one last thing: don't assume these laws won't be used against you. Fate is fickle, and if far-right parties come to power, they could very easily use these tools against their opponents or anybody who disagrees with them. Say whites are privileged? Criticize Christianity? Tweet about how 10% of M&Ms are poisoned? Do that when they're in power, and it could very easily be you who gets tried under hate speech laws.
Part 2 is coming soon.
So in your critique of the Canadian Justice system your first port of call is to criticise the dutch. That makes sense.
-
might as well not form any laws ever then lmao
What I'm saying is that you probably shouldn't create a political/governmental weapon unless you're okay with it being used against you. For example, if you advocate domestic warrantless espionage, you don't have a right to get angry when the government starts spying on you.
Well, since my computer's back from the shop, I can finally present a complete report.
Part 1: Hate speech. I hate bigoted speech. But I still think it should be protected, provided it doesn't cross certain lines such as incitement to violence. This is for two very practical reasons.
The first is that hate speech can very easily be used against anybody who challenges the status quo or authority figures. Here's (https://archive.is/N9hua) an article about Dutch citizens who were visited by police for tweets about asylum seekers. It's in Dutch, but I managed to find a translation. Here's an excerpt:
Monday afternoon Mark Jongeneel received a distressing phonecall. His mother. Two policemen had just visited and were looking for him, but they didn't explain why. Now they were going to Mark's office: he owns a debt-collection company. Wat could be going on? "I was drunk saturdaynight, I recalled". But he could remember everything of that night.
"You twitter a lot, don't you?" the police said, when they were sitting in his office. "We have received orders to ask you to watch your tone. Your tweets could be perceived as inciting.
Tuesdaynight in Sliedrecht there was a meeting about an asylumcenter in the region. In the days leading to this meeting, Mark Jongeneel placed a couple of tweets. Like: "The college of Sliedrecht has a proposal to receive 250 refugees in the coming 2 years. What a bad plan! #kominverzet" (#letusresist). Earlier he had also tweeted: "We won't let this happen, will we?
There you have it: criticize immigration policies, get a visit from the police. Note that the guy I quoted didn't say anything about the migrants, all he said that the immigration policy was a bad plan. Maybe it was based in bigotry, maybe it wasn't, I don't know. But the point is, hate speech laws were used as a convenient excuse to go after somebody for wrongthink.
Or how about this? You may call my comparisons of hate speech laws to blasphemy laws exaggerated. Well, the UN seems to think criticizing Sharia law constitutes "cyberviolence":
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/647604041854251008 (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/647604041854251008)
For the record, "cyberviolence" was also used to describe attacking (for a very broad definition of "attack") women online. And there seems to be a bizarre crusade among self-proclaimed "progressives" to shield Islam from criticism. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of criticisms of Islam are flawed at best, but that doesn't mean I want them banned.
(https://janaralyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/slman-rushdie-freedom-of-thought.jpg)
But fine, let's assume the laws will only be used as intended. Well, that brings me to my second issue. Suppressing hate speech doesn't make people less hateful. It's confronting hate speech that makes people less hateful. When hateful ideas are discussed freely and openly, they are also confronted freely and openly. But when an idea is presented in the dark corners of the Internet, there's rarely a counterpoint. When an idea is discussed in secret, you're almost always alone with the one discussing it.
And when an idea is hidden, it becomes more attractive. When people who hold an opinion aren't allowed to discuss it openly, it feeds into their persecution complex, convincing them that they've stumbled across some dark truth that the government is trying to suppress. It also makes them more attractive to the disaffected, making them more likely to be drawn to their message. Sometimes, it even makes martyrs of them. Look at what happened with Golden Dawn (http://mic.com/articles/81631/jail-time-is-only-making-greece-s-neo-nazi-politicians-martyrs).
Before I move on, I'd like to say one last thing: don't assume these laws won't be used against you. Fate is fickle, and if far-right parties come to power, they could very easily use these tools against their opponents or anybody who disagrees with them. Say whites are privileged? Criticize Christianity? Tweet about how 10% of M&Ms are poisoned? Do that when they're in power, and it could very easily be you who gets tried under hate speech laws.
Part 2 is coming soon.
So in your critique of the Canadian Justice system your first port of call is to criticise the dutch. That makes sense.
Here's a letter that was sent to Ann Coulter by the Vice Provost of the University of Ottowa:
Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. . . .
I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.
You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. . . .
Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa
As much as I dislike Ann Coulter, the idea of her (or anyone else) being arrested just for expressing a "hateful" viewpoint is repugnant.
-
Ann Coulter wasn't arrested in Canada though was she? And that's a letter from a university chancellor not the police or the Canadian Govt.
What was the point about all the dutch shit if your point was actually about the University of Ottawa?
You are really going to try and fuck the lawnmower again aren't you fucking chimp.
-
So, that's what was left of your homework after your dog barfed it back up. Right.
-
But fine, let's assume the laws will only be used as intended. Well, that brings me to my second issue. Suppressing hate speech doesn't make people less hateful. It's confronting hate speech that makes people less hateful. When hateful ideas are discussed freely and openly, they are also confronted freely and openly. But when an idea is presented in the dark corners of the Internet, there's rarely a counterpoint. When an idea is discussed in secret, you're almost always alone with the one discussing it.
Dr. King once said "Morality cannot be legislated but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless. The law may not be able to make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me." This is the view I take of the law.
Also, the whole post was a rambling about Sweden, the UN, and some argument about forbidden fruit. Very little of it has to do with Canada and this is, again, another tangential rabbit whole that you're trying to lead us down with no end in sight.
-
Actually I think I'm not being fair, I've often thought about what I dislike most about Canada and it's always been the fucking Dutch.
-
But fine, let's assume the laws will only be used as intended. Well, that brings me to my second issue. Suppressing hate speech doesn't make people less hateful. It's confronting hate speech that makes people less hateful. When hateful ideas are discussed freely and openly, they are also confronted freely and openly. But when an idea is presented in the dark corners of the Internet, there's rarely a counterpoint. When an idea is discussed in secret, you're almost always alone with the one discussing it.
Dr. King once said "Morality cannot be legislated but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless. The law may not be able to make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me." This is the view I take of the law.
Also, the whole post was a rambling about Sweden, the UN, and some argument about forbidden fruit. Very little of it has to do with Canada and this is, again, another tangential rabbit whole that you're trying to lead us down with no end in sight.
Where did I mention Sweden? And what I'm talking about is how laws against hate speech make people more hateful, which is counterproductive at best. When you get right down to it, hate speech laws are a sign of a government that doesn't trust its people to not be bigoted assholes.
But if you want a Canadian example, consider James Keegstra. He was fired from his job as a teacher for teaching anti-Semitic ideas and marking down his students if they disagreed with him. I don't have a problem with his firing. What I do have a problem with is him being prosecuted for "promoting hatred." And what really sticks in my craw is the Supreme Court admitting that hate crime laws infringed on the Charter... but this infringement was justified.
Speech should not be restricted based on politeness or popularity. If he was calling for Jews to be hanged from the streetlights, I wouldn't have a problem with his conviction. I don't have a problem with him being fired, either. Hell, if he was prosecuted on charges of abusing his position, I wouldn't mind that. But restricting speech simply because it's bigoted is undemocratic. Unpopular ideas must be allowed in the public sphere.
-
But if you want a Canadian example, consider James Keegstra. He was fired from his job as a teacher for teaching anti-Semitic ideas and marking down his students if they disagreed with him. I don't have a problem with his firing. What I do have a problem with is him being prosecuted for "promoting hatred." And what really sticks in my craw is the Supreme Court admitting that hate crime laws infringed on the Charter... but this infringement was justified.
It did not infringe on the Charter. It infringed on Section 2 of the Charter. But Section 2, like all other parts of the Charter, is subject to Section 1 (which, as I've noted, is roughly equivalent to strict scrutiny in the US). And the Supreme Court found that that law was justifiable under Section 1, even though it infringes a Section 2 right.
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/695/index.do
-
Just to clarify UP, are you suggesting that law is frivolous or the case is, or both?
Also do you have a problem with a tribunal hearing the case, would you prefer it be dealt with in another setting?
As of now none of these things are clear to me.
To answer your question, I think the case is frivolous, and I suspect that there might be some pretty serious flaws in the Canadian legal system.
Well, how about you do some research, and get back to us with specific faults in the Canadian legal system and how those faults may be addressed; does that sound fair?
I think two weeks is an appropriate amount of time to give you.
Paragon. You dishonest toe-rag. This was your brief. "Serious Flaws in the Canadian Legal System". You flatulent waffler. Now you want to shift the discussion to your general objection to hate speech laws and act like that's what was always being discussed.
I have a direct question: Are you stupid or dishonest?
-
As much as I dislike Ann Coulter, the idea of her (or anyone else) being arrested just for expressing a "hateful" viewpoint is repugnant.
Worth pointing out that "fighting words" aren't protected speech in the US either, as Drumpf nearly found out when the idea of charging him with inciting a riot was tossed around. Inciting hatred can.go over and abovr merely expressing yourself even in the US.
-
So you don't have an issue with anti-Semites preaching anti-Semitism and promoting an ideology that has gotten literally millions of people killed. And promoting it to gullible and manipulatable children. You don't think this is worthy of any legal repercussion.
Got it. And just when I thought you couldn't be more loathsome, you still manage to surprise me with a hitherto-untouched morass of awful.
-
So you don't have an issue with anti-Semites preaching anti-Semitism and promoting an ideology that has gotten literally millions of people killed. And promoting it to gullible and manipulatable children. You don't think this is worthy of any legal repercussion.
Got it. And just when I thought you couldn't be more loathsome, you still manage to surprise me with a hitherto-untouched morass of awful.
He was a high school teacher. But to answer your question: if prosecuting him was based on him abusing his powers as a teacher, I wouldn't have a problem.
And Dave, I was merely attempting to defend my stance on hate speech. You'll get more critiques of Canada specifically in good time.
-
Look far be it from me to tell you how to fuck the lawnmower but I would have thought a logical way to present your case against Canada would have been to start with the critique of Canada and then explain your problem with anti-hate speech laws.
For instance: "My problem with Canada is its overly restrictive hate speech laws. Hate speech laws tend to present the following problems as shown by other instances around the world and in Canada (continue defecating on yourself)"
Do you see how that might help your presentation? And make it less likely that people want to stab you in the face?
-
And Dave, I was merely attempting to defend my stance on hate speech. You'll get more critiques of Canada specifically in good time.
"In good time"? Apparently not, since we've already given you two weeks to put something of substance together. What we get from you is more spurious bullshit in soundbite format. When we find out you can't defend it, you switch to something else.
UP, your threads don't feel like we're having a discussion with a person. We're merely yelling into the wind of a right-wing-nutjob newsfeed.
-
So you don't have an issue with anti-Semites preaching anti-Semitism and promoting an ideology that has gotten literally millions of people killed. And promoting it to gullible and manipulatable children. You don't think this is worthy of any legal repercussion.
Got it. And just when I thought you couldn't be more loathsome, you still manage to surprise me with a hitherto-untouched morass of awful.
He was a high school teacher. But to answer your question: if prosecuting him was based on him abusing his powers as a teacher, I wouldn't have a problem.
And Dave, I was merely attempting to defend my stance on hate speech. You'll get more critiques of Canada specifically in good time.
You know what, fuck you. Quite simply, fuck you and your deluded sense of morality.
You're happy to see the man burned provided it is under some other pretense -- any other pretense -- that doesn't touch free speech. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Abusing his powers as a <fill in the blank here> can be written broadly enough that you might as well just say you can't say that, period. Being honest enough to actually do that rather than hide behind some bullshit wording to absolve yourself of wrongdoing is hardly a moral failing.
8-year olds, dude. Take your notions of morality and shove them up your ass.
-
So to date we have, several happenings in Europe and one thing in Canada that didn't happen but boy would it have made UP uncomfortable if it did...
Ok. That's sort of a start Coulter was given a heads up about Canadian hate speech laws.
So, permit me to make a suggestion UP. Use that as the starting point for discussing the areas of the Canadian legal system that you take issue with and how it pertains to Canada. With specific examples of the laws application and not potential or rumored application. Thanks a bunch.
-
But fine, let's assume the laws will only be used as intended. Well, that brings me to my second issue. Suppressing hate speech doesn't make people less hateful. It's confronting hate speech that makes people less hateful. When hateful ideas are discussed freely and openly, they are also confronted freely and openly. But when an idea is presented in the dark corners of the Internet, there's rarely a counterpoint. When an idea is discussed in secret, you're almost always alone with the one discussing it.
Dr. King once said "Morality cannot be legislated but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless. The law may not be able to make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me." This is the view I take of the law.
Also, the whole post was a rambling about Sweden, the UN, and some argument about forbidden fruit. Very little of it has to do with Canada and this is, again, another tangential rabbit whole that you're trying to lead us down with no end in sight.
Where did I mention Sweden?
Oh, you were talking about the dutch. It makes a great lot of fucking difference when the focus should be on CANADA
-
Congratulations, Ultimate Paragon. You are now on my ignore list. Have fun.
And if anybody's having trouble figuring out how to add someone, click Profile, then Buddies / Ignore List, then Edit Ignore List, then finally start typing Ultimate Paragon into the Member text field (it'll auto-complete).
Unfortunately, it still shows the fact that you're posting; it just puts the contents behind a link.
-
Speaking as a Canadian I have zero problems with our hate speech laws. Could they potentially be abused? Sure but so can any other law.
My experience with the internet has firmly deconverted me from any kind of Free Speech absolutism. When people can do or say whatever they want without any kind of punishment for being a bigot or asshole, the result is usually a shithole like Reddit or 4chan. I'd rather real life not be a giant youtube comment thread.
-
I'm just a lurker. I joined so I could ignore UP's posts. His actions up to and including this (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=7224.msg292882#msg292882) post convinced me he is not attempting to hold useful discourse:
For the record, "cyberviolence" was also used to describe attacking (for a very broad definition of "attack") women online. And there seems to be a bizarre crusade among self-proclaimed "progressives" to shield Islam from criticism. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of criticisms of Islam are flawed at best, but that doesn't mean I want them banned.
Progressives have been having to reign in several of their self-proclaimed leaders (especially the New Atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris) from being overly critical of Islamic culture, beliefs, and Muslims. Saying they shield "Islam" sounds to me like saying they shield Christianity. It is a simple nonsense. It makes me doubt your accuracy and honesty.
But fine, let's assume the laws will only be used as intended. Well, that brings me to my second issue. Suppressing hate speech doesn't make people less hateful. It's confronting hate speech that makes people less hateful. When hateful ideas are discussed freely and openly, they are also confronted freely and openly. But when an idea is presented in the dark corners of the Internet, there's rarely a counterpoint. When an idea is discussed in secret, you're almost always alone with the one discussing it.
The laws, to my understanding, are not suppressing hate speech. They are confronting it, with some degree of success (relative of course). You are trying to sound above either side of the debate by offering no position of substance. You said nothing here. "Suppressing speech is wrong. Saying bad things is wrong. End statement." This is nothing, certainly nothing about laws, Canadian or otherwise. Everyone already knows that saying bad things is bad, and everyone already knows that abusing laws is abuse. If you have nothing to say, why did you speak?
You strike me as believing that you strive for intellectual honesty and objectivity. Yet you continuously defend no position with any sense of honesty and acknowledge no rebuttal objectively. You offer nothing of substance. If these are indeed your ideals for yourself, then you can do better than this.
-
Thank you, and welcome, Chesterton. Very welcome.
-
Seconded. You've got a good head on your shoulders, kid.
inb4 I find out you're actually older than me
-
Damnit. I was supposed to make Raiders of the lost ark joke about Belloc but it is too late now.
...Anyway, welcome aboard the board Chesterton.
-
Seconded. You've got a good head on your shoulders, kid.
inb4 I find out you're actually older than me
Even Then, I remember when I first saw you. To me, you were Ghoti Lite. You had a good head on your shoulders, but you just needed a smug bitch like myself to call you kid and rib you a little. By the power vested in me by my own sense of grandeur, I hereby proclaim you a fully fledged member of this board. I am assigning Chesterton as your padawan. Just be warned, don't give into the dark side. It is easy to be tempted by not researching, by logical fallacies, and by personal investments into an opinion, but stay above that. Congrats dude.
And welcome Chesterton. Decent first post.
-
Speaking as a Canadian I have zero problems with our hate speech laws. Could they potentially be abused? Sure but so can any other law.
My experience with the internet has firmly deconverted me from any kind of Free Speech absolutism. When people can do or say whatever they want without any kind of punishment for being a bigot or asshole, the result is usually a shithole like Reddit or 4chan. I'd rather real life not be a giant youtube comment thread.
Difference is, 4chan and Reddit have anonymity, as does most of the Internet. Standards of politeness are higher in meatspace.
It's a simple formula:
(https://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/215499488_8pSZr/0/2100x20000/215499488_8pSZr-2100x20000.jpg)
-
You know what's incredibly endearing about you Paraclete? Its that you trot out relentlessly thrashed cliches like your dropping a form of profound and rare wisdom on the board without any hint of irony or self awareness.
-
Even Then, I remember when I first saw you. To me, you were Ghoti Lite. You had a good head on your shoulders, but you just needed a smug bitch like myself to call you kid and rib you a little. By the power vested in me by my own sense of grandeur, I hereby proclaim you a fully fledged member of this board. I am assigning Chesterton as your padawan. Just be warned, don't give into the dark side. It is easy to be tempted by not researching, by logical fallacies, and by personal investments into an opinion, but stay above that. Congrats dude.
I'll try my hardest to be worth this honour. I know that I'm fallible and weak, but maybe... with the support of you all... I'll catch them all rise to the task. Thank you.
*generic triumphant anime music in the distance*
-
But why does anonymity on the internet turn people into fuckwits? Why are standards higher in meatspace?
The reason I'm going to argue is because anonymity means a lack of consequences. If I screamed the N Word at work, I could lose my job, and even without that I might get shunned by friends and family. But online there are no punishments and that's why it lets a lot of people's inner asshole out.
Also I don't think it's just anonymity. We get our cues on how to behave from the people around us. If a certain behavior (ie screaming racial slurs) is something our society punishes, they won't do it. But when they see others doing so without punishment, even being rewarded for it, then their thinking shifts and they see it as normal and acceptable. And then they might start joining in. If you don't want people to be racist dicks, then the ones who do act like racist dicks need to be punished to show that society won't tolerate it.
-
But why does anonymity on the internet turn people into fuckwits? Why are standards higher in meatspace?
The reason I'm going to argue is because anonymity means a lack of consequences. If I screamed the N Word at work, I could lose my job, and even without that I might get shunned by friends and family. But online there are no punishments and that's why it lets a lot of people's inner asshole out.
Also I don't think it's just anonymity. We get our cues on how to behave from the people around us. If a certain behavior (ie screaming racial slurs) is something our society punishes, they won't do it. But when they see others doing so without punishment, even being rewarded for it, then their thinking shifts and they see it as normal and acceptable. And then they might start joining in. If you don't want people to be racist dicks, then the ones who do act like racist dicks need to be punished to show that society won't tolerate it.
Yeah, I really agree with this. For the most part, we're all anonymous on here, and we all have an audience in the other posters that come here. Yet, we have a much higher standard than many other boards like 4-chan, 8-chan, reddit, or tumblr. So, there has to be something more to the equation than audience & anonymity.
-
I think it all stems from how good looking I am.
-
Difference is, 4chan and Reddit have anonymity, as does most of the Internet. Standards of politeness are higher in meatspace.
It's almost as if the presence of enforceable laws creates accountability. How is this a bad thing?
-
Difference is, 4chan and Reddit have anonymity, as does most of the Internet. Standards of politeness are higher in meatspace.
It's almost as if the presence of enforceable laws creates accountability. How is this a bad thing?
Except even in the United States, where enforceable laws are far looser, things are fare more polite offline. It's not about laws, it's about standards of decency.
But why does anonymity on the internet turn people into fuckwits? Why are standards higher in meatspace?
The reason I'm going to argue is because anonymity means a lack of consequences. If I screamed the N Word at work, I could lose my job, and even without that I might get shunned by friends and family. But online there are no punishments and that's why it lets a lot of people's inner asshole out.
Also I don't think it's just anonymity. We get our cues on how to behave from the people around us. If a certain behavior (ie screaming racial slurs) is something our society punishes, they won't do it. But when they see others doing so without punishment, even being rewarded for it, then their thinking shifts and they see it as normal and acceptable. And then they might start joining in. If you don't want people to be racist dicks, then the ones who do act like racist dicks need to be punished to show that society won't tolerate it.
Yeah, I really agree with this. For the most part, we're all anonymous on here, and we all have an audience in the other posters that come here. Yet, we have a much higher standard than many other boards like 4-chan, 8-chan, reddit, or tumblr. So, there has to be something more to the equation than audience & anonymity.
The equation oversimplifies, true. There are some elements it misses, like the board's culture.
-
So does that mean you admit I'm right?
-
So does that mean you admit I'm right?
I'd say you're mostly right about consequences. There are a few things I could nitpick about, but they're not important.
-
Difference is, 4chan and Reddit have anonymity, as does most of the Internet. Standards of politeness are higher in meatspace.
It's almost as if the presence of enforceable laws creates accountability. How is this a bad thing?
Except even in the United States, where enforceable laws are far looser, things are fare more polite offline. It's not about laws, it's about standards of decency.
The notion of "an armed society is a polite society" might have something to do with it.
Canadians also have a reputation for being far more polite than Americans, so perhaps laws do have something to do with it since we have correspondingly stricter laws with regard to speech.
-
And in the USA, you get flagrant bigots like Trump running for office unimpeded precisely because you guys are so loose. You're not exactly selling us on the American model of speech here. Then again, you wouldn't necessarily see that as a flaw, would you?
-
Difference is, 4chan and Reddit have anonymity, as does most of the Internet. Standards of politeness are higher in meatspace.
It's almost as if the presence of enforceable laws creates accountability. How is this a bad thing?
Except even in the United States, where enforceable laws are far looser, things are fare more polite offline. It's not about laws, it's about standards of decency.
The notion of "an armed society is a polite society" might have something to do with it.
Canadians also have a reputation for being far more polite than Americans, so perhaps laws do have something to do with it since we have correspondingly stricter laws with regard to speech.
Except there are several countries with strict laws about speech and a reputation for rudeness.
And in the USA, you get flagrant racists like Trump running for office completely unimpeded. You're not exactly selling us on the American model of speech here, dunce.
And Greece has the Golden Dawn. France has the National Front. Sweden has the Sweden Democrats. Fact is, hate speech laws don't stop hateful people from getting political support.
-
Difference is, 4chan and Reddit have anonymity, as does most of the Internet. Standards of politeness are higher in meatspace.
It's almost as if the presence of enforceable laws creates accountability. How is this a bad thing?
Except even in the United States, where enforceable laws are far looser, things are fare more polite offline. It's not about laws, it's about standards of decency.
The notion of "an armed society is a polite society" might have something to do with it.
Canadians also have a reputation for being far more polite than Americans, so perhaps laws do have something to do with it since we have correspondingly stricter laws with regard to speech.
Except there are several countries with strict laws about speech and a reputation for rudeness.
Also many experts agree, or so it's rumored.
-
Do you even know what you are arguing about any more? Allow me to refresh your memory.
Canada has laws that restrict free speech. You know fuck-all about the Canadian legal system but are convinced that this is a BAD thing and we should be more like America because America is the best thing EVAR. After being slapped around for being an ignorant fool who was given two weeks yet failed to construct a reasonable argument defending your position you've been reduced to this pathetic drivel:
And Greece has the Golden Dawn. France has the National Front. Sweden has the Sweden Democrats. Fact is, hate speech laws don't stop hateful people from getting political support.
Bad people will do bad things, why make laws against it? When this is all you've got left it's long past time to quit the field.
-
Welded the thread shut, Mojo. XD
-
I've already shown that hate speech laws have actually helped the Golden Dawn.
-
I've already shown that hate speech laws have actually helped the Golden Dawn.
Which is tangential to the fucking discussion that you started and that we gave you two weeks to inform us about. We're not being vague or opaque: we've said what we wanted several times. You just choose not to listen because you have nothing to argue on that point. The thread is done.
Seriously, the only good thing to come from this thread since I gave you the two weeks was Chesterton joining and Even Then's promotion from kid to dude. Though, in a round about way, you did kind of cause those things with your constant red herrings and strawmen.
-
Welded the thread shut, Mojo. XD
Unfortunately, the only people who can actually do that are moderators.
-
I've already shown that hate speech laws have actually helped the Golden Dawn.
Or there's a perfectly reasonable alternative hypotheses that could be drawn which is that Greece's economic woes increased the appeal of both socialist and Fascist parties and banning either isn't going to make the ferociously angry people of Greece any happier or less likely to support them.
There was more going on in Greece than governments trying to ban naughty Fascists for being naughty. Also, Greece is a fair way away from Canada. Were we going to get to Canada eventually?
-
I've already shown that hate speech laws have actually helped the Golden Dawn.
Or there's a perfectly reasonable alternative hypotheses that could be drawn which is that Greece's economic woes increased the appeal of both socialist and Fascist parties and banning either isn't going to make the ferociously angry people of Greece any happier or less likely to support them.
There was more going on in Greece than governments trying to ban naughty Fascists for being naughty. Also, Greece is a fair way away from Canada. Were we going to get to Canada eventually?
My point is that if it's happened in Greece, it can happen in Canada.
-
Government-level confrontation of an issue is to blame for said issue flaring up now. Anti-murder laws are directly responsible for school shootings. Everything you know is wrong; black is white, up is down and short is long. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
-
I've already shown that hate speech laws have actually helped the Golden Dawn.
Or there's a perfectly reasonable alternative hypotheses that could be drawn which is that Greece's economic woes increased the appeal of both socialist and Fascist parties and banning either isn't going to make the ferociously angry people of Greece any happier or less likely to support them.
There was more going on in Greece than governments trying to ban naughty Fascists for being naughty. Also, Greece is a fair way away from Canada. Were we going to get to Canada eventually?
My point is that if it's happened in Greece, it can happen in Canada.
The emergence of a popular fascist movement following an economic collapse that then gets banned by the government of the day. It could, yeah.
Are we entering the realm of speculative fiction and alternative histories now? Because while that's a lot of fun it's still doesn't resemble the critique of the Canadian legal system that was promised.
-
Alright. Moving on, then.
Let's talk about Canada's judicial appointments. They're some of the least transparent, most corrupt in the world.
The fact that the Canadian Prime Minister has the sole say in determining who's on the Supreme Court would be laughable if it wasn't so scary. The fact that Canucks are expected to just blindly trust that their head of government chose qualified, honest justices seems very undemocratic to me. Imagine if the Canadian equivalent of some teahadi extremist becomes PM. I mean, the country's previous PM was a global warming denier, so it's not too much of a stretch. Do you really want somebody like that with complete control over who gets to sit on the country's highest bench?
It gets even scarier. Did you know that the Prime Minister sometimes outsources judicial appointments? Since your average Canadian PM has a lot on his or her plate, they sometimes give a committee of lawyers responsibility for them. The lawyers pick names, and the PM generally rubberstamps them. Now, delegating authority is hardly unusual, but when you consider what these committees are like, it becomes worrying. These committees are dominated by members of federal and provincial bar associations. Do you know what this is? This is special interest control over a crucial, vital government function. It's absolutely crazy.
-
I've already shown that hate speech laws have actually helped the Golden Dawn.
Where? A post I missed, once upon a time in some other thread or on some other board, or just in your head?
As far I can can see all you said about Golden Dawn is And Greece has the Golden Dawn. France has the National Front. Sweden has the Sweden Democrats. Fact is, hate speech laws don't stop hateful people from getting political support.
Failing to stop is a far cry from helping and I will credit you with enough intelligence to know the difference so don't go pretending you have proven anything when we all know you have done no such thing. If you would like to rectify that situation and actually prove your claim, be my guest, but it won't change the fact that it is at best tangentially related your central claim of their being a deficiency in the Canadian legal system. Given how we have had actual fucking separatists who wished to dissolve the Canadian union running a province as well as being the official opposition party at the federal level and they suffered absolutely no sanction for it, I would say any attempt at drawing between us and Greece is rather farcical.
-
I've already shown that hate speech laws have actually helped the Golden Dawn.
Where? A post I missed, once upon a time in some other thread or on some other board, or just in your head?
As far I can can see all you said about Golden Dawn is And Greece has the Golden Dawn. France has the National Front. Sweden has the Sweden Democrats. Fact is, hate speech laws don't stop hateful people from getting political support.
Failing to stop is a far cry from helping and I will credit you with enough intelligence to know the difference so don't go pretending you have proven anything when we all know you have done no such thing. If you would like to rectify that situation and actually prove your claim, be my guest, but it won't change the fact that it is at best tangentially related your central claim of their being a deficiency in the Canadian legal system. Given how we have had actual fucking separatists who wished to dissolve the Canadian union running a province as well as being the official opposition party at the federal level and they suffered absolutely no sanction for it, I would say any attempt at drawing between us and Greece is rather farcical.
Here you go:
http://mic.com/articles/81631/jail-time-is-only-making-greece-s-neo-nazi-politicians-martyrs (http://mic.com/articles/81631/jail-time-is-only-making-greece-s-neo-nazi-politicians-martyrs)
Did I mention it's happening in Hungary too?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/american-racist-richard-spencer-gets-to-play-the-martyr-in-hungary.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/american-racist-richard-spencer-gets-to-play-the-martyr-in-hungary.html)
-
Alright. Moving on, then.
Let's talk about Canada's judicial appointments. They're some of the least transparent, most corrupt in the world.
The fact that the Canadian Prime Minister has the sole say in determining who's on the Supreme Court would be laughable if it wasn't so scary. The fact that Canucks are expected to just blindly trust that their head of government chose qualified, honest justices seems very undemocratic to me. Imagine if the Canadian equivalent of some teahadi extremist becomes PM. I mean, the country's previous PM was a global warming denier, so it's not too much of a stretch. Do you really want somebody like that with complete control over who gets to sit on the country's highest bench?
It gets even scarier. Did you know that the Prime Minister sometimes outsources judicial appointments? Since your average Canadian PM has a lot on his or her plate, they sometimes give a committee of lawyers responsibility for them. The lawyers pick names, and the PM generally rubberstamps them. Now, delegating authority is hardly unusual, but when you consider what these committees are like, it becomes worrying. These committees are dominated by members of federal and provincial bar associations. Do you know what this is? This is special interest control over a crucial, vital government function. It's absolutely crazy.
1. We've already talked about this, I think it was Dpareja that made you look like a clown that time.
2. There is a difference between "these Canadian laws and their enforcement is completely stupid" and "judicial appointments" and "Sweden/Greece/France/Timbuktu HUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR." We want you to talk about the first one. You keep trying to bring up the latter two.
-
Alright. Moving on, then.
Let's talk about Canada's judicial appointments. They're some of the least transparent, most corrupt in the world.
The fact that the Canadian Prime Minister has the sole say in determining who's on the Supreme Court would be laughable if it wasn't so scary. The fact that Canucks are expected to just blindly trust that their head of government chose qualified, honest justices seems very undemocratic to me. Imagine if the Canadian equivalent of some teahadi extremist becomes PM. I mean, the country's previous PM was a global warming denier, so it's not too much of a stretch. Do you really want somebody like that with complete control over who gets to sit on the country's highest bench?
It gets even scarier. Did you know that the Prime Minister sometimes outsources judicial appointments? Since your average Canadian PM has a lot on his or her plate, they sometimes give a committee of lawyers responsibility for them. The lawyers pick names, and the PM generally rubberstamps them. Now, delegating authority is hardly unusual, but when you consider what these committees are like, it becomes worrying. These committees are dominated by members of federal and provincial bar associations. Do you know what this is? This is special interest control over a crucial, vital government function. It's absolutely crazy.
1. We've already talked about this, I think it was Dpareja that made you look like a clown that time.
2. There is a difference between "these Canadian laws and their enforcement is completely stupid" and "judicial appointments" and "Sweden/Greece/France/Timbuktu HUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR." We want you to talk about the first one. You keep trying to bring up the latter two.
If you were referring to this post:
http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=7224.msg292801#msg292801
then, yes, I've been over how the judicial appointments process in Canada--and the strong constitutional conventions that go with it--keeps the system fair and unbiased. I hope to hell that we never get the sort of partisan grilling and "litmus tests" Supreme Court nominees in the US go through, and I especially hope that we never get the horrifically undemocratic travesty of elected judges.
Oh, and that global warming denier? He appointed 8 judges to the Supreme Court during his tenure, seven of whom still sit (one of his appointments replaced his first), and there hasn't been any noticeable shift in the Court's jurisprudence.
We also don't have the bullshit of "Republican-/Democratic-appointed judges step down under Republican/Democratic presidents". One of Harper's appointees, Thomas Cromwell, is stepping down effective September 1:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/news/en/item/5189/index.do
Oh, wait, he can't do that, a Liberal's in office! Yeah, fuck that.
-
The worst thing about your post paragon is the seething dishonesty. Even your link had no basis for alleging corruption. You mucus covered maggot.
-
You know what else is crazy? Letting a political party turn a crucial judicial appointment into a pissy little bullshit game because they don't like the nigger in chief. The real kick in the balls is they are ignoring their constitutional obligations in order to do it and aren't suffering any consequences for it.
Think about that for a minute and then ask yourself how secure you really feel in your constitutional protections now.
It's also obvious that you just don't get how the system works up here. It's also obvious you don't read what people are telling you since dpareja already explained all of this right here in this thread. (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=7224.msg292801#msg292801)
edit:
Isn't that cute, "did I mention... ?" No you didn't, and even you know that, you delusional fuckwit. How about you put on your big boy pants, make your case clearly and in it's entirety, and stop prancing around the issue with the grace of a toddler in a tu-tu and a full diaper.
-
Hey, toddlers in tu-tus with full diapers are people too. They have feelings. Meanie.
-
You know what else is crazy? Letting a political party turn a crucial judicial appointment into a pissy little bullshit game because they don't like the nigger in chief. The real kick in the balls is they are ignoring their constitutional obligations in order to do it and aren't suffering any consequences for it.
Think about that for a minute and then ask yourself how secure you really feel in your constitutional protections now.
That's a red herring and I will ignore it like it deserves to be.
Alright. Moving on, then.
Let's talk about Canada's judicial appointments. They're some of the least transparent, most corrupt in the world.
The fact that the Canadian Prime Minister has the sole say in determining who's on the Supreme Court would be laughable if it wasn't so scary. The fact that Canucks are expected to just blindly trust that their head of government chose qualified, honest justices seems very undemocratic to me. Imagine if the Canadian equivalent of some teahadi extremist becomes PM. I mean, the country's previous PM was a global warming denier, so it's not too much of a stretch. Do you really want somebody like that with complete control over who gets to sit on the country's highest bench?
It gets even scarier. Did you know that the Prime Minister sometimes outsources judicial appointments? Since your average Canadian PM has a lot on his or her plate, they sometimes give a committee of lawyers responsibility for them. The lawyers pick names, and the PM generally rubberstamps them. Now, delegating authority is hardly unusual, but when you consider what these committees are like, it becomes worrying. These committees are dominated by members of federal and provincial bar associations. Do you know what this is? This is special interest control over a crucial, vital government function. It's absolutely crazy.
1. We've already talked about this, I think it was Dpareja that made you look like a clown that time.
2. There is a difference between "these Canadian laws and their enforcement is completely stupid" and "judicial appointments" and "Sweden/Greece/France/Timbuktu HUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR." We want you to talk about the first one. You keep trying to bring up the latter two.
If you were referring to this post:
http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=7224.msg292801#msg292801
then, yes, I've been over how the judicial appointments process in Canada--and the strong constitutional conventions that go with it--keeps the system fair and unbiased. I hope to hell that we never get the sort of partisan grilling and "litmus tests" Supreme Court nominees in the US go through, and I especially hope that we never get the horrifically undemocratic travesty of elected judges.
Oh, and that global warming denier? He appointed 8 judges to the Supreme Court during his tenure, seven of whom still sit (one of his appointments replaced his first), and there hasn't been any noticeable shift in the Court's jurisprudence.
We also don't have the bullshit of "Republican-/Democratic-appointed judges step down under Republican/Democratic presidents". One of Harper's appointees, Thomas Cromwell, is stepping down effective September 1:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/news/en/item/5189/index.do
Oh, wait, he can't do that, a Liberal's in office! Yeah, fuck that.
Doesn't the lack of transparency ever make you nervous? Or the lack of regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Seriously, Canadian judges are exempt from conflict of interest regulation, which means they don't have to file asset-disclosure forms.
By the way, did you seriously call elected judges "undemocratic?" You can call it partisan, yeah, but undemocratic?
And before you go knocking the American system, you should probably keep in mind that the current issues are the exception, not the rule. They're an anomaly caused by the GOP's current refusal to compromise at all.
-
Stephen Harper appointed eight Supreme Court justices during his tenure as Prime Minister. So they'll rule in accordance with his views, right?
Here's five of his justices ruling that the existing prostitution laws (which weren't passed by him, admittedly, but which he might well have wanted to strengthen) were unconstitutional: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do
Here's six of them ruling that assisted suicide has to be legal: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do
Here's two of them ruling that Vancouver's safe injection site must remain open: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7960/index.do
Here's three of them ruling that he can't have Marc Nadon on the Court* (sort of): https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13544/index.do
Here's five of them ruling that he can't change how the Senate works without consulting the provinces (mostly): http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13614/index.do
Here's two of them ruling that his plan for creating a national securities regulator is unconstitutional: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7984/index.do
*The lone dissenting justice was also a Harper appointee; Justice Rothstein, another Harper appointee, recused himself because he knew there could be a perception of a conflict of interest. (He and Justice Nadon had both sat on the Federal Court before they were named to the Supreme Court.) For the record, I a) think Nadon would have been a Harper toady, unlike his other appointees and b) think Justice Moldaver was correct and that Nadon should have been allowed to sit on the Court as a Quebec justice.
-
Is this going to be an ongoing thing now? We're going to be constantly hearing about Canadianlawgate for the next couple of years, aren't we?
-
Doesn't the lack of transparency ever make you nervous? Or the lack of regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Seriously, Canadian judges are exempt from conflict of interest regulation, which means they don't have to file asset-disclosure forms.
Canadian justices recuse themselves over perceived conflicts of interest.
By the way, did you seriously call elected judges "undemocratic?" You can call it partisan, yeah, but undemocratic?
Yes. I did. Electing judges is undemocratic in that it doesn't just undermine, but annihilates, judicial independence. I'll let John Oliver explain further:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8
And before you go knocking the American system, you should probably keep in mind that the current issues are the exception, not the rule. They're an anomaly caused by the GOP's current refusal to compromise at all.
Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and I urge the Senate to reject it.
In the Watergate scandal of 1973, two distinguished Republicans—Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus—put integrity and the Constitution ahead of loyalty to a corrupt President. They refused to do Richard Nixon's dirty work, and they refused to obey his order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The deed devolved on Solicitor General Robert Bork, who executed the unconscionable assignment that has become one of the darkest chapters for the rule of law in American history.
That act—later ruled illegal by a Federal court—is sufficient, by itself, to disqualify Mr. Bork from this new position to which he has been nominated. The man who fired Archibald Cox does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Bork should also be rejected by the Senate because he stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court that would have placed him outside the mainstream of American constitutional jurisprudence in the 1960s, let alone the 1980s. He opposed the Public Accommodations Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year. He has said that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not literature or works of art or scientific expression.
Under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prospect of Senate rejection, Mr. Bork subsequently retracted the most neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. But his mind-set is no less ominous today.
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.
America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.
The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.
And why did Sen. Kennedy go so far to kill Bork's nomination?
If this were carried out as an internal Senate debate, we would have deep and thoughtful discussions about the Constitution, and then we would lose.
That is when the mess began.
-
Stephen Harper appointed eight Supreme Court justices during his tenure as Prime Minister. So they'll rule in accordance with his views, right?
Here's five of his justices ruling that the existing prostitution laws (which weren't passed by him, admittedly, but which he might well have wanted to strengthen) were unconstitutional: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do
Here's six of them ruling that assisted suicide has to be legal: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do
Here's two of them ruling that Vancouver's safe injection site must remain open: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7960/index.do
Here's three of them ruling that he can't have Marc Nadon on the Court* (sort of): https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13544/index.do
Here's five of them ruling that he can't change how the Senate works without consulting the provinces (mostly): http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13614/index.do
Here's two of them ruling that his plan for creating a national securities regulator is unconstitutional: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7984/index.do
*The lone dissenting justice was also a Harper appointee; Justice Rothstein, another Harper appointee, recused himself because he knew there could be a perception of a conflict of interest. (He and Justice Nadon had both sat on the Federal Court before they were named to the Supreme Court.) For the record, I a) think Nadon would have been a Harper toady, unlike his other appointees and b) think Justice Moldaver was correct and that Nadon should have been allowed to sit on the Court as a Quebec justice.
And how often do they rule in favor of the bar associations?
-
I'm sorry. What? You have a problem with bar associations? The legal profession groups that are in charge of giving law school grads their law license qualifying exams, amongst many other useful things, including pro bono lawyer referrals for paupers and non-profit groups? You know, the professional organizations that can tell the state to revoke the licenses of bad attorneys? Or, did you think bar associations just like to meet and drink in bars? I mean, yeah, they do, but that's not official - that's just lawyers talking shop over drinks after work. Ever looked up the origin of the word Barrister? Maybe the Bar association refers to the Bar that solicitors (or attorneys, as we call them in Murrica) stand by when addressing the judge in a court of law. Maybe there are corrupt bar associations, I guess that can happen if they have a lot of politicians in them, but what would they be doing? Selling crib sheets to law grads trying to pass the bar exam?
-
I'm sorry. What? You have a problem with bar associations? The groups that are in charge of giving law school grads their law license qualifying exams, amongst many other useful things, including pro bono lawyer referrals for paupers and non-profit groups? You know, the professional organizations that can tell the state to revoke the licenses of bad attorneys? Or, did you think bar associations just like to meet and drink in bars? I mean, yeah, they do, but that's not official - that's just lawyers talking shop over drinks after work. Ever looked up the origin of the word Barrister? Maybe the Bar association refers to the Bar that solicitors (or attorneys, as we call them in Murrica) stand by when addressing the judge in a court of law. Maybe there are corrupt bar associations, I guess that can happen if they have a lot of politicians in them, but what would they be doing? Selling crib sheets to law grads trying to pass the bar exam?
That was a joke. I was admitting fault.
-
You made remarks about bar associations twice in the thread. And I still don't get the joke. Maybe if it was in blue type.
"These committees are dominated by members of federal and provincial bar associations. Do you know what this is? This is special interest control over a crucial, vital government function. It's absolutely crazy."
Uh, nope. Didn't do the trick. I'm humor-impaired.
-
You made remarks about bar associations twice in the thread. And I still don't get the joke. Maybe if it was in blue type.
"These committees are dominated by members of federal and provincial bar associations. Do you know what this is? This is special interest control over a crucial, vital government function. It's absolutely crazy."
Uh, nope. Didn't do the trick. I'm humor-impaired.
Yeah, it was a callback to that. Considering justices don't consistently rule in favor of the PM who appoints them, I don't see any way for them to operate for the bar's benefit.
-
Stephen Harper appointed eight Supreme Court justices during his tenure as Prime Minister. So they'll rule in accordance with his views, right?
Here's five of his justices ruling that the existing prostitution laws (which weren't passed by him, admittedly, but which he might well have wanted to strengthen) were unconstitutional: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do
Here's six of them ruling that assisted suicide has to be legal: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do
Here's two of them ruling that Vancouver's safe injection site must remain open: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7960/index.do
Here's three of them ruling that he can't have Marc Nadon on the Court* (sort of): https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13544/index.do
Here's five of them ruling that he can't change how the Senate works without consulting the provinces (mostly): http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13614/index.do
Here's two of them ruling that his plan for creating a national securities regulator is unconstitutional: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7984/index.do
*The lone dissenting justice was also a Harper appointee; Justice Rothstein, another Harper appointee, recused himself because he knew there could be a perception of a conflict of interest. (He and Justice Nadon had both sat on the Federal Court before they were named to the Supreme Court.) For the record, I a) think Nadon would have been a Harper toady, unlike his other appointees and b) think Justice Moldaver was correct and that Nadon should have been allowed to sit on the Court as a Quebec justice.
And how often do they rule in favor of the bar associations?
For specific cases, try:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14639/index.do
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14375/index.do
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13191/index.do
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7998/index.do
(Note: if your comment was intended as a joke, it went right over my head.)
-
[quote author=Ultimate Paragon link=topic=7224.msg293022#msg293022 date=1458788118
Doesn't the lack of transparency ever make you nervous? Or the lack of regulations governing conflicts of interest?
[/quote]
It's really about ethics in judicial activism.
-
So in two weeks you found that the most serious flaw in the Canadian free speech laws is no elected judges?
-
So in two weeks you found that the most serious flaw in the Canadian free speech laws is no elected judges?
...Which is a good thing.
Honestly, the way USA elects law enforcement officers and judges is scary and leads to horrible, HORRIBLE results.
-
I thought it was a good thing for other reasons. That's a very nit picky thing. Which I read as the big stuff is good.
-
So in two weeks you found that the most serious flaw in the Canadian free speech laws is no elected judges?
...Which is a good thing.
Honestly, the way USA elects law enforcement officers and judges is scary and leads to horrible, HORRIBLE results.
It made sense maybe way back when the country was all small settlements and "cities" were really just large towns, and people knew who the fuck they were voting to be a judge or a sheriff. Now, it's very often a case of: "Who? Okay, well he is a (Dem, or GOP), so I'll mark their box." And if the candidates are vying for a strictly non-partisan seat, it's still up to mostly clueless voters.
-
Also it has been proven that the elected officials prepare for election year by being extra rough on crime to gain some more votes and avoid doing anything that might risk those votes.
...In other words, if you commit a crime on a certain year you get a heavier punishment than normally and you are also more likely to be wrongly imprisoned.
-
District attorney's are by far the worst offenders in those scenarios. Just egregious miscarriages of justice during many election years.
-
DISTRIC ATTORNEYS! That's the thing I was trying to remember. Unless Hollywood and TV shows have lied to me (again) 23% of all murder cases where the charges are dropped in USA are because it is an election year and "the DA ain't gonna take the chance of losing a case."
...Luckily in most cases some loose cannon cop is going to leave his badge home and go shoot the murderer while saying some cheesy one-liner. (Just as the founding fathers of USA intended.)
-
District attorney's are by far the worst offenders in those scenarios. Just egregious miscarriages of justice during many election years.
I think sheriff Arpaio might be a challenger to the title of worst offender.
-
As a one man band, yep, he wins hands down.
-
Also it has been proven that the elected officials prepare for election year by being extra rough on crime to gain some more votes and avoid doing anything that might risk those votes.
...In other words, if you commit a crime on a certain year you get a heavier punishment than normally and you are also more likely to be wrongly imprisoned.
Sometimes being "extra tough on crime" means "convicting people whether they're guilty or not when you damn well know they aren't" (http://www.alternet.org/story/155437/how_corrupt_prosecutors_get_away_with_sending_innocent_people_to_jail).
To a non-American like me it looks like a glaring fault in your system when your prosecutors have an incentive to commit perjury to keep their jobs come election time.
-
Also it has been proven that the elected officials prepare for election year by being extra rough on crime to gain some more votes and avoid doing anything that might risk those votes.
...In other words, if you commit a crime on a certain year you get a heavier punishment than normally and you are also more likely to be wrongly imprisoned.
Sometimes being "extra tough on crime" means "convicting people whether they're guilty or not when you damn well know they aren't" (http://www.alternet.org/story/155437/how_corrupt_prosecutors_get_away_with_sending_innocent_people_to_jail).
To a non-American like me it looks like a glaring fault in your system when your prosecutors have an incentive to commit perjury to keep their jobs come election time.
As a person with a bit more experience in American law than most, the American Criminal Justice system is about as amoral as it gets. IDK enough about other country's laws to say that theirs would be better (and I don't care to read law in my spare time from law), but take it for what it's worth.