Canada government issues permanent postal ban on hate speech publication. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14964655
Not really. Being able to send bulk unaddressed mail is not a right.

And CP has a right to refuse service.

So this is another they are a business not the government even though they are the government argument? Lol
Have they refused it to any other group? Have they refused it to those distributing anti Nazi propaganda?

Neo-Nazis are not a minority.

Please provide evidence they are in the majority in Canada.


So, in your head, neo-Nazis have had to deal with the same discrimination and bigotry as people of colour, indigenous people, LGBT folks, and other oppressed people?

They have in reality. They are probably the most discriminated group in the world. Many countries have laws targeting them including this one.

Please provide evidence their distributing this literature does more harm than any other ideological literature?
Please provide evidence allowing them to do so denies anyone else of their rights?

———————————
#14964671
One Degree wrote:So this is another they are a business not the government even though they are the government argument? Lol


Are you arguing that the government has an obligation to provide a platform for hate speech?

Or are you arguing that a business has such as obligation?

I am arguing that neither business nor government has such an obligation.

Have they refused it to any other group? Have they refused it to those distributing anti Nazi propaganda?


So we agree that this is not a right, and that CP has a right to refuse service.

I have no idea if they refused it to any other groups. I highly doubt that CP would have refused to distribute anti-Nazi literature since neo-Nazism is not “consistent with the applicable legislation and the government's values and stance on inclusiveness and diversity," while opposing Nazism is consistent with such.

Please provide evidence they are in the majority in Canada.


No. Instead I will point out that your defintion of minority ignores historical and contemporary realites of marginalisation, oppression, discrimination, and bigotry.

They have in reality. They are probably the most discriminated group in the world. Many countries have laws targeting them including this one.


Okay. Just so we are perfectly clear here:

You are arguing that Nazis and their supporters suffer more discrimination than any other group worldwide.

Is this correct?

Please provide evidence their distributing this literature does more harm than any other ideological literature?
Please provide evidence allowing them to do so denies anyone else of their rights?


Why are you ending these sentences with question marks?

For the first demand, please see World War II and the Holocaust, plus the KKK.

For the second, I did not say it deprived anyone of their rights. I claimed that Sears and his racist buddies want to deprive others of their rights. Evidence for this claim can be found in thier own literature.
#14964675
@Pants-of-dog

If we are going to be consistent shouldn't marxists be banned from using the postal service too then?

Canada is supposed to be a liberal country which has enough confidence in the attractiveness of liberalism to tolerate the existence of weirdos like fascists and communists peddling their trash ideologies unless they start doing something actually violent. So far Sears is just a purveyor of trash ideology (assuming he isn't just a massive troll courting controversy for the free publicity) and no worse than you for that.
Last edited by SolarCross on 19 Nov 2018 00:40, edited 1 time in total.
#14964676
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you arguing that the government has an obligation to provide a platform for hate speech?

Or are you arguing that a business has such as obligation?

I am arguing that neither business nor government has such an obligation.



So we agree that this is not a right, and that CP has a right to refuse service.

I have no idea if they refused it to any other groups. I highly doubt that CP would have refused to distribute anti-Nazi literature since neo-Nazism is not “consistent with the applicable legislation and the government's values and stance on inclusiveness and diversity," while opposing Nazism is consistent with such.



No. Instead I will point out that your defintion of minority ignores historical and contemporary realites of marginalisation, oppression, discrimination, and bigotry.



Okay. Just so we are perfectly clear here:

You are arguing that Nazis and their supporters suffer more discrimination than any other group worldwide.

Is this correct?



Why are you ending these sentences with question marks?

For the first demand, please see World War II and the Holocaust, plus the KKK.

For the second, I did not say it deprived anyone of their rights. I claimed that Sears and his racist buddies want to deprive others of their rights. Evidence for this claim can be found in thier own literature.


I see you did not supply any evidence. You never accept the ‘irrelevant opinions’ you offered or your ‘irrational fears’ of random white people.
#14964685
Sivad wrote:So that makes it government censorship.
Canada has laws regarding hate speech, and as such that means that it will not break those laws to make some assholes happy. Private distribution of their hate speech is available, so there is no censorship. @Pants-of-dog covers things quite nicely.

Hate groups are not considered "minorities", @One Degree for purposes of this argument.
#14964686
Godstud wrote:Canada has laws regarding hate speech, and as such that means that it will not break those laws to make some assholes happy. Private distribution of their hate speech is available, so there is no censorship. @Pants-of-dog covers things quite nicely.

Hate groups are not considered "minorities", @One Degree for purposes of this argument.


Yes I know. They are discriminated against in direct contradiction to liberal arguments. Why? You guys keep thinking all day and you still can’t make obvious hypocrisy go away. If you can label neo Nazis as not deserving the same rights as others then why can’t we do the same with transgenders. The argument is the same. You don’t like them so you discriminate against them. :)
#14964687
SolarCross wrote:@Pants-of-dog

If we are going to be consistent shouldn't marxists be banned from using the postal service too then?


You could make that argument if you want.

However, I predict you will instead indulge in your usual moral hypocrisy concerning Marxists.

Canada is supposed to be a liberal country which has enough confidence in the attractiveness of liberalism to tolerate the existence of weirdos like fascists and communists peddling their trash ideologies unless they start doing something actually violent. So far Sears is just a purveyor of trash ideology (assuming he isn't just a massive troll courting controversy for the free publicity) and no worse than you for that.


Is there an argument here?

————————————

@One Degree

Okay. Just so we are perfectly clear here:

You are arguing that Nazis and their supporters suffer more discrimination than any other group worldwide.

Is this correct?

Also, are you arguing that neo-Nazis have suffered the same discrimination as Jews, blaxks, trans people, and other historically oppressed minorities?
#14964690
@Pants-of-dog repeating questions I have already answered won’t get you out of this either. I have had enough fun with this and you will never admit the obvious hypocrisy riddling liberal arguments. Just another self righteous group that wants to destroy those who they don’t like.
#14964695
Godstud wrote:Canada has laws regarding hate speech


It's still censorship. Do you even know what the term means? It doesn't mean unlawful suppression, censorship is any suppression of speech, public communication, or other information by any entity or individual for any reason.

Private distribution of their hate speech is available, so there is no censorship.


:knife:

@Pants-of-dog covers things quite nicely.


PoD's usual obtuse denial and incompetence have never covered anything quite nicely.
#14964699
@One Degree

No, you did not answer the questions.

The only way you can argue that neo-Nazis are a minority just like, for example, trans people is if you ignore history.

——————————

@Sivad

If my obtuseness and incompetence are such a big deal, then you should easily show how my argument is wrong.

It is not as if this publication has any value or as if we have not already witnessed the culmination of these very ideas in our society. Why do we need to keep having neo-Nazis peddling their inanities?
#14964717
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Sivad

If my obtuseness and incompetence are such a big deal, then you should easily show how my argument is wrong.


Obtuse denial and incompetence is your argument. :lol:

It is not as if this publication has any value or as if we have not already witnessed the culmination of these very ideas in our society.


We've also seen what happens when your kind gets the power to censor and compel, you're just as dangerous as those idiots.

Why do we need to keep having neo-Nazis peddling their inanities?


For the same reasons we have to keep tolerating yours. The main reason is that nobody can be trusted with that kind of power, it always leads to the gulag.
#14964719
Mark this day with a stone. I am nominally on OneDegree's side on this.

I am not a fan of the concept "hate speech". It is far to broad. In the US we have the right to free speech. As one person said, "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I will not defend a word these pieces of shit said. Since all I know of their message is what I have read in this thread, based only on that, I would not piss on them if they were on fire.

I find that the argument that the Canada Post and USPS can exercise censorship on behalf of the government because they are paid by the taxpayers fails. There is no difference in my mind, between these guys mailing their filth and spouting it in a park. I do not buy the argument that a person has free speech when they are not allowed the freedoms others have to express it. If my free speech costs more than yours then we do not have the same freedom. I do not believe that the freedom to shout in my front yard is the same as the freedom to speak in a public place.

Canada post is essentially a public place.

That said. I believe POD said something like these are bulk unaddressed mailings. I don't think this is true. If it is please tell us because this is key. If they are indeed blind mailing this stuff to random households then that is something else entirely. Why? Because it might fall into the hands of children or others who could be harmed by it. That is a different thing. For example. I would support requiring Canada post to deliver adult magazines. I would not allow the same material to be mailed to random households.

But if this psychopath and his idiot followers want to read this drivel then they should have the right to it.

If they cross the line into advocating that others should be harmed then that is another thing altogether. The remedy for that is to charge them with a crime. Obviously soliciting people to harm others would be banned period. Not only would Canada post refuse to carry it, all carriers would be prohibited from carrying it.

So the post office should be required to respect the free speech rights of these vermin until they cross the line into speech that is clearly illegal rather than just disturbing.

By the way, I understand that Canada may have laws prohibiting "hate speech". They shouldn't. I intensely dislike slippery-slope arguments but sometimes they are valid. OneDegree's assertion that this kind of censorship is a slippery-slope is correct. It is.

I oppose hate speech and hate crime legislation in the US. So does the SCOTUS. They say it better than I:

Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”


Justice Anthony Kennedy:

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


The only exception is this: ... except where such speech is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
#14964745
@Drlee Canada has different freedom of speech laws than USA. You don't have the right to spread hate and other things in the public medium, least of all thru a publicly funded Crown corporation. It's not absolute, like in the USA, and Canadians are fine with that.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. Section 2 of the Charter protects freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, and also freedom of religion. Section 1 of the Charter guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter, but also recognizes that the rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits, provided the limits are prescribed by law and "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
#14964756
As @Drlee points out, laws against harming others that apply to everyone are sufficient to deal with any threat. Hate speech specifies an enemy and this is the same as the laws against Jews. Theses laws are ‘hateful’ themselves because there is no need for them except discrimination.
The fact other countries do not value free speech simply shows their liberalism is a disguise for authoritarianism.
#14964759
One Degree wrote:The fact other countries do not value free speech simply shows their liberalism is a disguise for authoritarianism.
:lol: No. It's because everyone in these countries agree that some speech is harmful.

Please, make an actual argument, and not just spout moronic rhetoric about authoritarianism and liberalism being the same. It's juvenile.
#14964761
Godstud wrote::lol: No. It's because everyone in these countries agree that some speech is harmful.

Please, make an actual argument, and not just spout moronic rhetoric about authoritarianism and liberalism being the same. It's juvenile.


Fine. Please provide evidence of the actual harm done by these mailings?
#14964763
:roll: Do you mean the damage to society and the results of hate speech?

Hate Crime in Canada
Hate Crime remains a persistent problem in Canada. Statistics gathered by the Government of Canada over the last 10 years record an average of 1,213 incidents per year, ranging from a low of 765 (2007) to a high of 1,473 (2009). While this number represents only a small portion of the total number of crimes reported to police, the impact of hate crimes exceeds the mere number of recorded incidents.

Because of the broad reverberation of hatred, hate crimes result in a disproportionate level of harm, which affects not only the individual, but also the victim’s community. Attacks, whether directed against individuals or communal institutions, may have the effect of leaving entire communities feeling vulnerable and isolated. Individual reactions can mirror post-traumatic stress disorder.

Hate crimes contribute to disunity in society, compromise democratic values, and maintain inequality.They send an explicit message that entire groups of citizens are unworthy of respect, lack redeeming characteristics and are worthy of contempt. In extreme cases they promote the corrosive concept that “to be different is to be dangerous”.

Arguments over the appropriate means of maintaining a balance among what some say are competing rights, have risen to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada. In a number of important cases, the Court has found the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code to be constitutionally valid. In Keegstra (1990), Chief Justice Brian Dickson noted that:

Nonetheless, expression can work to undermine our commitment to democracy where employed to propagate ideas anathemic to democratic values. Hate propaganda works in just such a way, arguing as it does for a society in which the democratic process is subverted and individuals are denied respect and dignity simply because of racial or religious characteristics. This brand of expressive activity is thus wholly inimical to the democratic aspirations of the free expression guarantee.

He went on to state that “given the unparalleled vigour with which hate propaganda repudiates and undermines democratic values, and in particular its condemnation of the view that all citizens need be treated with equal respect and dignity so as to make participation in the political process meaningful, I am unable to see the protection of such expression as integral to the democratic ideal so central to the [s2(b)] rationale.

In so saying, Dickson CJ was in accord with a ruling made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Taylor (1990), where, regarding the use of s13 to combat the spread of hatred, the Court noted that:

Hate propaganda presents a serious threat to society. It undermines the dignity and self‑worth of target group members and, more generally, contributes to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open‑mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality. Hate propaganda contributes little to the aspirations of Canadians or Canada in the quest for truth, the promotion of individual self‑development or the protection and fostering of a vibrant democracy where the participation of all individuals is accepted and encouraged.

https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/en/news-a-even ... -in-canada
#14964766
Godstud wrote::roll: Do you mean the damage to society and the results of hate speech?

Hate Crime in Canada
Hate Crime remains a persistent problem in Canada. Statistics gathered by the Government of Canada over the last 10 years record an average of 1,213 incidents per year, ranging from a low of 765 (2007) to a high of 1,473 (2009). While this number represents only a small portion of the total number of crimes reported to police, the impact of hate crimes exceeds the mere number of recorded incidents.

Because of the broad reverberation of hatred, hate crimes result in a disproportionate level of harm, which affects not only the individual, but also the victim’s community. Attacks, whether directed against individuals or communal institutions, may have the effect of leaving entire communities feeling vulnerable and isolated. Individual reactions can mirror post-traumatic stress disorder.

Hate crimes contribute to disunity in society, compromise democratic values, and maintain inequality.They send an explicit message that entire groups of citizens are unworthy of respect, lack redeeming characteristics and are worthy of contempt. In extreme cases they promote the corrosive concept that “to be different is to be dangerous”.

https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/en/news-a-even ... -in-canada


Meaningless verbiage but let’s pursue it. Does this apply to everyone who espouses ‘hate’?
What about ‘whites are evil’, ‘non believers must be converted or destroyed’, ‘Russian tweets about elections must be banned, ‘Nazis must be silenced’, ‘Saudi Arabia must be punished’, etc.?
Everyone’s speech hurts someone’s feelings.
Are not ‘hate laws’ actually ‘hate speech’?
#14964767
Facts are meaningless to you? :eh: I think we can stop this conversation right now, as you are clearly unable to form a coherent argument. Your argument seems to be some delusion about hate speech, that often leads to violence, being all about "hurt feelings". There are actual facts that support that this happens, which I presented to you.

Go to bed. You're drunk.
#14964768
Godstud wrote:Canada has different freedom of speech laws than USA. You don't have the right to spread hate and other things in the public medium, least of all thru a publicly funded Crown corporation. It's not absolute, like in the USA, and Canadians are fine with that.


Of course, being subject tyranny is par-for-the-course in canuckistan.

It easy to oppose hate-speech when its not your speech being deemed as hateful or harmful.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10

This is a lie. You're not that stupid or ignorant[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]