You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UK PC Gestapo: 'Rule Britania' song latest victim
- Thread starter estrader
- Start date
Quote from estrader:
There are hardly any people in Yukon,
I recon.
But you are welcome to come to a large multicultural city,
to get exposed to diversity.
Then very quickly and out of nowhere,
You will become racially aware.
I'm no longer in Yukon, so don't let that fool ya, I'll visit my account settings and change it. I've actually lived all over the world, in cities small and large. I happen to be in Calgary at the moment.
At any rate, I AM racially aware, I agree with ya 100%! I just want to know how dark of skin a white person can have before they start acting all ignorant. How dark?
i didn't say life was or wasn';t better in canada.
that is totally tangential
i said that canada does not have as much freedom of speech as us. we have more freedom in regards to speech. canada has more freedom in regards to smoking marijuana. we have more freedom in regards to carrying of guns. canada has more freedom in regards to sex toys (some jurisdictions still criminalize some sex toys, in the USA. i think it's absurd, but i'm not going to deny it is a fact). we can do a comparative list, but you can't argue canada does not have LESS free speech. their INTENT was to have less free speech. that's why they passed their speech code laws, which our congress has never passed, and never will as long as we have a scotus that (at least somewhat) will respect the 1st amendment
that is inarguable, even among PROPONENTS of canada's censorious speech codes. they say hell yeah, we got less free speech in regards to making racist, sexist comments. we WANT it that way.
canada chose, and accepted a tradeoff - less freedom, for more civility. that is in THEIR parliamentary record. it was a conscious choice . i do not respect that choice. i think it is orwellian, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom, but it is theirs to make.
so, again. defend it if you like. i don't care. but even advocates of these speech restrictions are not as obtuse as to claim that they are NOT greater restrictions. that much is elemental and conceded in parliamentary debate, and in case law.
if it's necessary, i can probably drum up the parliamentary stuff. but it's so swimmingly obvious
you accept that tradeoff. less freedom vis a vis speech, with the ostensible goal of more civility. canadians gave up the right to express some (controversial) opinion, in order for the perceived gains of more civility, and less racial/gender/religious strife. that is a faustian bargain, imo, but you can't deny they did that.
if you do, let me know, and i'll post the relevant parliamentary debate and commentary i can find.
also, the CCLA has some great stuff on this
that is totally tangential
i said that canada does not have as much freedom of speech as us. we have more freedom in regards to speech. canada has more freedom in regards to smoking marijuana. we have more freedom in regards to carrying of guns. canada has more freedom in regards to sex toys (some jurisdictions still criminalize some sex toys, in the USA. i think it's absurd, but i'm not going to deny it is a fact). we can do a comparative list, but you can't argue canada does not have LESS free speech. their INTENT was to have less free speech. that's why they passed their speech code laws, which our congress has never passed, and never will as long as we have a scotus that (at least somewhat) will respect the 1st amendment
that is inarguable, even among PROPONENTS of canada's censorious speech codes. they say hell yeah, we got less free speech in regards to making racist, sexist comments. we WANT it that way.
canada chose, and accepted a tradeoff - less freedom, for more civility. that is in THEIR parliamentary record. it was a conscious choice . i do not respect that choice. i think it is orwellian, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom, but it is theirs to make.
so, again. defend it if you like. i don't care. but even advocates of these speech restrictions are not as obtuse as to claim that they are NOT greater restrictions. that much is elemental and conceded in parliamentary debate, and in case law.
if it's necessary, i can probably drum up the parliamentary stuff. but it's so swimmingly obvious
you accept that tradeoff. less freedom vis a vis speech, with the ostensible goal of more civility. canadians gave up the right to express some (controversial) opinion, in order for the perceived gains of more civility, and less racial/gender/religious strife. that is a faustian bargain, imo, but you can't deny they did that.
if you do, let me know, and i'll post the relevant parliamentary debate and commentary i can find.
also, the CCLA has some great stuff on this