Canada introduces bill to protect transgender people.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canada-introduces-bill-protect-transgender-canadians-39170097

 

I would say that the U.S. could learn from this, but considering what North Carolina and Mississippi have done, even if Congress passed something like this, we will have states trying to bypass it with "religious freedom" bills or bathroom bills.

 

 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Is it as inclusive as other anti discrimination laws for gender or for race?

 

If yes, good.

 

If less so, that's bad and should be changed so it as inclusive.

 

If more so, that's either bad or good. Depending on whether its' being socially progressive or regressive. If it's the former, again that's great.

 

If it's the latter, then change it further so it is socially progressive or simply as inclusive as previous anti-discrimination laws. 

 

That's the long and the short of it to me. Either it is on par with everything else or aiming to improve everything else, or it should be changed to suit those two aims. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canada-introduces-bill-protect-transgender-canadians-39170097

 

I would say that the U.S. could learn from this, but considering what North Carolina and Mississippi have done, even if Congress passed something like this, we will have states trying to bypass it with "religious freedom" bills or bathroom bills.

Congress can't pass sheet, our best hope is for Obama to do something, but after the backlash from the School Bill, I doubt he'll meddle

[Snatch Steal]

even if Congress passed something like this, we will have states trying to bypass it with "religious freedom" bills or bathroom bills.

 

"Excuse me, but as an American, I have the freedom to let other peoples' personal lives affect me, and the freedom to take away their freedom, because I am not only more normal, but more American than them."

 

 

Is it as inclusive as other anti discrimination laws for gender or for race?

 

If yes, good.

 

If less so, that's bad and should be changed so it as inclusive.

 

If more so, that's either bad or good. Depending on whether its' being socially progressive or regressive. If it's the former, again that's great.

 

If it's the latter, then change it further so it is socially progressive or simply as inclusive as previous anti-discrimination laws. 

 

That's the long and the short of it to me. Either it is on par with everything else or aiming to improve everything else, or it should be changed to suit those two aims. 

 

 

That's just about how it reads. The workplace is a lot of places; in fact, I'd argue that "the workplace" is any public building, whether one works there or not.

 

Hopefully, though, no one gets arrested this time for "hate crimes" that are obviously jokes.

[vla1ne]

"The Canadian legislation would, if passed, make it illegal to prevent someone from getting a job or to discriminate in the workplace on the basis of gender identity or gender expression. It also expands hate speech laws to include gender identity and gender expression."

 

the first section i'm perfectly fine with, it balances out the opportunities for trans people, i don't think they need it since i was under the assumption that discrimination based on gender was illegal, and the case could be made that trans people could count under said protection if they had tried to set a precedent in court, and would be more inclusive than making them an entirely different category. but that's for canada to figure out, not me.

 

the underlined part though, that is where the worry comes in, depending on how they define hate speech, this will either be an incredibly weak law, or an overly sensitive law. it might be in the middle, but that is rarely ever the case nowadays, and i have little doubt that it will lean to the more sensitive side considering what i know of the canadian government. hate speech against trans possibly could have had a precedent set in court to cover it under current laws, but instead they made a new law. I honestly don't know whether it'll be good or bad, but i am not holding out hope for a positive outcome. I'm hoping for the best, but i will be expecting the worst.

 

this is essentially the slippery slope incarnate. 

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

"The Canadian legislation would, if passed, make it illegal to prevent someone from getting a job or to discriminate in the workplace on the basis of gender identity or gender expression. It also expands hate speech laws to include gender identity and gender expression."

 

the first section i'm perfectly fine with, it balances out the opportunities for trans people, i don't think they need it since i was under the assumption that discrimination based on gender was illegal, and the case could be made that trans people could count under said protection if they had tried to set a precedent in court, and would be more inclusive than making them an entirely different category. but that's for canada to figure out, not me.

 

the underlined part though, that is where the worry comes in, depending on how they define hate speech, this will either be an incredibly weak law, or an overly sensitive law. it might be in the middle, but that is rarely ever the case nowadays, and i have little doubt that it will lean to the more sensitive side considering what i know of the canadian government. hate speech against trans possibly could have had a precedent set in court to cover it under current laws, but instead they made a new law. I honestly don't know whether it'll be good or bad, but i am not holding out hope for a positive outcome. I'm hoping for the best, but i will be expecting the worst.

 

this is essentially the slippery slope incarnate. 

 

Oh please, just because a goverment isnt ok with letting you spew hatred against another human just for being who they are, it isnt some kind of "slippery slope"

 

I mean ffs, sweden has a blanket ban on hate speech, and while it's incredibly rare to have it policed, it's doing wonders to curb the crazies from whipping up a following

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

"Hate Speech" has been shown to be a relative and fluid term. The first part is great, the second is an attempt to censor people to the ever changing standards of the regressive Left

[vla1ne]

Oh please, just because a goverment isnt ok with letting you spew hatred against another human just for being who they are, it isnt some kind of "slippery slope"

 

I mean ffs, sweden has a blanket ban on hate speech, and while it's incredibly rare to have it policed, it's doing wonders to curb the crazies from whipping up a following

see, there's a problem with your statement, what counts as hate speech? and why is it that the government has any sway over the words i'm allowed to speak? my actions might harm others, but my words are my thoughts, no government in the world deserves to hold the thoughts of its' people as crimes. the actions maybe, but never the ideas. to what degree is his slope enforced so that it is not slippery? and how exactly is it measured in severity of punishment? it's hard to enforce thought crime, and overall it's even more pointless than the war america has on drugs. it's essentially a national swear jar, and it's equally petty.

 

 

sweden is somewhere i could never live, not because of the speech ban, but because of how pointlessly sensitive every subject is becoming. it's the exact opposite issue of china, one is complete bollocks in one direction, while the other is slowly headed in the direct opposite crazy train, but speaking of crazy,  crazies is an incredibly relative term. are they crazy because they hold opposite opinions? are they crazy because they don't accept a certain view? are they crazy because they incite violence? or are they crazy because they suffer an actual lack of working mental faculties? there's a ton of degrees of nuance that a blanket law, especially on speech, can easily overlook, and that harms open expression as a whole. how far is too far, and what are thoughts are you giving up to support the laws? 

[Snatch Steal]

what counts as hate speech?

 

"In the law of some countries, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

 

Violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group.

If you say "I want to burn the trannies," that's free speech. You're expressing your opinion.

If you say "Everyone burn the trannies," that's hate speech. You're hoping to be violent or prejudicial.

 

This is just one country, one that is well known for being extremely open to people of LGBT(F) alignment. Call it a sanctuary.

If you hate trannies and you're living in Canada, my question is, why?

Different countries can and should have different policies, so that they can accommodate all different kinds of people. If you can't hang, there's the door.

 

Do we even need to have this conversation?

[vla1ne]

"In the law of some countries, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

 

Violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group.

If you say "I want to burn the trannies," that's free speech. You're expressing your opinion.

If you say "Everyone burn the trannies," that's hate speech. You're hoping to be violent or prejudicial.

 

This is just one country, one that is well known for being extremely open to people of LGBT(F) alignment. Call it a sanctuary.

If you hate trannies and you're living in Canada, my question is, why?

Different countries can and should have different policies, so that they can accommodate all different kinds of people. If you can't hang, there's the door.

 

Do we even need to have this conversation?

yes, we do, because there have been multiple cases in recent history where freedom of speech has been classified as hate speech or harrasment because some sensitive bastards got offended from it. and those cases harm lives that have done nothing wrong. so yeah, the conversation is incredibly relevant. when you don't ask the questions, s*** gets past the fence, and if you aren't complaining now, you had best not complain later on, when it's far to late to ask, to any effect. 

 

"f*** that tranny" is rude AF, but it is legal, and it is perfectly fine. many times, things are classified as hate speech when it's only some guy being rude. offended and marginalized are two different things, and in both cases, how exactly do you prove marginalization? these kinds of laws are easily abused because they rely on words. in addition, it's a trivial law that divides the attention of police from areas that they are actually needed. if you were a cop, or a lawyer, your effort would be wasted on people feeling "marginalized" instead of those actually harmed. the law is not to protect feelings, and unless there is an actual law or company policy doing the oppressing, there is no damn reason for people to be arrested for this kind of crap. protected individuals do not exist, you are all on the exact same playing field, if sheet doesn't fly one way, then why should i let it fly the other? 

 

so the question is: do you want this conversation now? so that you understand the dangers that come along with these kinds of laws? or do you want it later, when the law is being used to silence dissent under the guise of "hate speech?"

[Snatch Steal]

yes, we do, because there have been multiple cases in recent history where freedom of speech has been classified as hate speech or harrasment because some sensitive bastards got offended from it. and those cases harm lives that have done nothing wrong. so yeah, the conversation is incredibly relevant. when you don't ask the questions, s*** gets past the fence, and if you aren't complaining now, you had best not complain later on, when it's far to late to ask, to any effect. 

 

"f*** that tranny" is rude AF, but it is legal, and it is perfectly fine. many times, things are classified as hate speech when it's only some guy being rude. offended and marginalized are two different things, and in both cases, how exactly do you prove marginalization? these kinds of laws are easily abused because they rely on words. in addition, it's a trivial law that divides the attention of police from areas that they are actually needed. if you were a cop, or a lawyer, your effort would be wasted on people feeling "marginalized" instead of those actually harmed. the law is not to protect feelings, and unless there is an actual law or company policy doing the oppressing, there is no damn reason for people to be arrested for this kind of crap. protected individuals do not exist, you are all on the exact same playing field, if sheet doesn't fly one way, then why should i let it fly the other? 

 

so the question is: do you want this conversation now? so that you understand the dangers that come along with these kinds of laws? or do you want it later, when the law is being used to silence dissent under the guise of "hate speech?"

 

Did you know your argument is much more solid when you're not in a flaming rage and don't fling fucks and shits around?

 

You use my own argument in yours. "'f*** that tranny' is rude AF, but it is legal, and it is perfectly fine" is pretty much about what I said; hate speech is when you speak with the intent of doing harm. You seem to compare marginalization to hurt feelings while explicitly stating you don't know what marginalization is.

 

 

 

The process of according less importance to something or someone moved away from the inner workings of the group. A social phenomenon of excluding a minority, subgroup, or undesirables by ignoring their needs, desires, and expectations.

 

Riddle me this; if free speech is real, why does the censor pop up so frequently in your shpeal?

 

I think this topic has been brought up too many times and is really becoming old news, not to mention eliciting quite a tantrum from you.

[vla1ne]

Did you know your argument is much more solid when you're not in a flaming rage and don't fling f***s and shits around?

 

You use my own argument in yours. "'f*** that tranny' is rude AF, but it is legal, and it is perfectly fine" is pretty much about what I said; hate speech is when you speak with the intent of doing harm. You seem to compare marginalization to hurt feelings while explicitly stating you don't know what marginalization is.

 

Riddle me this; if free speech is real, why does the censor pop up so frequently in your shpeal?

 

I think this topic has been brought up too many times and is really becoming old news, not to mention eliciting quite a tantrum from you.

i gave one f***, and i gave two shits, and in both cases, they were not targeted at anybody, they were merely used as descriptive terms, so in terms of how solid my statement was, they hold no bearing because they were perfectly acceptable in their given sentences. if swear words trigger you, then that is your problem. i get that tone doesn't come across on the internet, but i would think that you could at least read context. that is all i will say on that matter though.

 

marginalization cannot occur without the consent of the majority of society, now can you tell me of any modern country that does that to trans people? in fact, nobody actually cares. in the eyes of most people, trans people on the street are nothing more special than any other person. trans people don't need special laws because the laws that exist already cover everything this law does, and far better than this law can. any problem relating to hate speech against trans was already covered in the law as it is (under the respective sections of harassment and inciting violence), there was no need for this law because trans people are human beings, and discrimination against human beings inb4 aliens based upon factors not directly related to the job or work at hand  is already illegal. this bill is basically stating that trans are their own species, and were not protected under the laws as they already are. that (at least in america, i'll admit i don't know if they are in other countries) is false. trans people (at least in america) are protected under the exact same laws as everybody else, and a law that bans speech or not taking job positions relating only to them is something that is not only unneeded, but could be easily abused to grant trans jobs that they either are not qualified for, or that they are less qualified for. trans people can already get jobs on their own merit, just like everybody else, laws like these are unneeded assistance that can potentially lower the bar for trans people at the expense of other people having the bar unnaturally heightened. it has happened with many bills like this, if the discrimination is truly based upon them being trans, the law as it is can already cover that, but this law makes the slope lean ever so slightly to the left, giving trans a specific law, just for them to point to that they can potentially hide under in order to get jobs that they lack qualifications for.

 

according to the law above? no free speech is not real. because the right to be biased, offensive, racist, and even use ad homonyms, is all a part of it just as much as gentle uplifting speech is. banning speech, gestures, and other manner of thought expression goes directly against the right to free expression. inciting violence is it's own thing under the law already, there was no need to add a special law for one type of people. there is no such thing as a protected class. The first part of the above law already exists for trans people under the discrimination laws as they exist, the current laws could have worked perfectly fine under the exact same conditions that the first half mentions for reasons i stated above, but the second part is taking an already existing law, and not only narrowing it down, but framing it in such a way that you could feasibly be accused of said hate speech under many circumstances that do not count as hate speech.

 

so yeah, this discussion is rather needed no?

[VCR_CAT]

If anything, I would say it's a slippery slope by saying that laws going against verbal harassment will lead to dire consequences on freedom of speech. So far as I can tell, Vla1ne, you've read one sentence, but let's take a look at it again:

 

It also expands hate speech laws to include gender identity and gender expression.

 

Now, there's some key words in here. Primarily "It also expands hate speech laws". So here's what it tells us first and foremost:

- Hate speech laws already exist in Canada, and are being expanded to include gender identity/expression

 

Canada isn't introducing hate speech laws, they're being modified to include facets that weren't already considered. I see that you understand this already, but this key in that said laws have already existed, and if they were a problem regarding free speech and expression, don't you think that would have happened by now?

 

Right now, you're making a highly emotional response regarding a law you haven't explicitly researched for country you may not live in at all. You've read one sentence and jumped to a conclusion that, in and of itself, is based on a slippery slope premise.

 

Beyond this, your overall interpretation of the law acts as though a person could get a pronoun wrong and be arrested for it. No, even with existing laws, I highly doubt such a thing would happen.

 

 

Vla1ne, your arguments regarding this situation are highly emotional, incredibly fallacious filled with points standing on an apparent lack of research, massive conclusions being jumped, with points standing on poor premises and an argument that overall is a baseless slippery slope.

 

For instance:

"marginalization cannot occur without the consent of the majority of society, now can you tell me of any modern country that does that to trans people? in fact, nobody actually cares. in the eyes of most people, trans people on the street are nothing more special than any other person."

 

So, can you tell me this: Who's "nobody"? How do you know they don't actually care? Is there a study that trans people are never marginalized? Is there empirical evidence or a citation to this argument that shows real research has been done and that such laws are being made over nothing?

 

Vla1ne, you're jumping to conclusions regarding something you clearly have not taken the time to put any real research into and are making an emotional argument based on poor and fallacious premises. If you'd like to have a serious discussion about this topic, please take the time educate yourself on the existing Canadian laws on hate speech and what these changes will be, as well as other examples of countries that may or may not have taken similar measures and how it's worked out for them, as well as any relevant studies or research.

 

If not, please sit your ass down before you make a bigger ass out of yourself. Thanks.

[vla1ne]

If anything, I would say it's a slippery slope by saying that laws going against verbal harassment will lead to dire consequences on freedom of speech. So far as I can tell, Vla1ne, you've read one sentence, but let's take a look at it again:

 

It also expands hate speech laws to include gender identity and gender expression.

 

Now, there's some key words in here. Primarily "It also expands hate speech laws". So here's what it tells us first and foremost:

- Hate speech laws already exist in Canada, and are being expanded to include gender identity/expression

 

Canada isn't introducing hate speech laws, they're being modified to include facets that weren't already considered. I see that you understand this already, but this key in that said laws have already existed, and if they were a problem regarding free speech and expression, don't you think that would have happened by now?

 

Right now, you're making a highly emotional response regarding a law you haven't explicitly researched for country you may not live in at all. You've read one sentence and jumped to a conclusion that, in and of itself, is based on a slippery slope premise.

 

Beyond this, your overall interpretation of the law acts as though a person could get a pronoun wrong and be arrested for it. No, even with existing laws, I highly doubt such a thing would happen.

 

 

Vla1ne, your arguments regarding this situation are highly emotional, incredibly fallacious filled with points standing on an apparent lack of research, massive conclusions being jumped, with points standing on poor premises and an argument that overall is a baseless slippery slope.

 

For instance:

"marginalization cannot occur without the consent of the majority of society, now can you tell me of any modern country that does that to trans people? in fact, nobody actually cares. in the eyes of most people, trans people on the street are nothing more special than any other person."

 

So, can you tell me this: Who's "nobody"? How do you know they don't actually care? Is there a study that trans people are never marginalized? Is there empirical evidence or a citation to this argument that shows real research has been done and that such laws are being made over nothing?

 

Vla1ne, you're jumping to conclusions regarding something you clearly have not taken the time to put any real research into and are making an emotional argument based on poor and fallacious premises. If you'd like to have a serious discussion about this topic, please take the time educate yourself on the existing Canadian laws on hate speech and what these changes will be, as well as other examples of countries that may or may not have taken similar measures and how it's worked out for them, as well as any relevant studies or research.

 

If not, please sit your ass down before you make a bigger ass out of yourself. Thanks.

 

So it expands the laws that already exist to include identity and gender expression? so essentially my comment of "the right to be biased, offensive, racist, and even use ad homonyms, is all a part of it (free speech)just as much as gentle uplifting speech is. banning speech, gestures, and other manner of thought expression goes directly against the right to free expression." just went right over your head? your gender identity is not free from speech, you put it out there and people will shoot it down. same as every other identity. in other words, gender identity is no more special than any other identity that exists. laws expanding over it are literally what my statements of "protected individuals do not exist, you are all on the exact same playing field" were meant for. identity means jack all to the world at large, laws sheltering it from harsh words boil down to the government taking the role of doting nanny. and anything that is not just harsh words (including harassment and inciting violence among other things) are already covered by existing laws. so again, this law is unneeded and intrusive upon free speech.

 

"Now, there's some key words in here. Primarily "It also expands hate speech laws". So here's what it tells us first and foremost:

- Hate speech laws already exist in Canada, and are being expanded to include gender identity/expression

Canada isn't introducing hate speech laws, they're being modified to include facets that weren't already considered."

from where i stand, gender identity is not an important concept. to me it's arbitrary as hell and i could care less about it, but even then, any harmful actions directed towards people due to gender identity would still fall under the general categories of hate speech, and would also fall under harassment laws as they currently exist. same goes for inciting violence. so again, the law, even as an addition, falls flat. it's essentially still doing the exact same thing as the laws before it would have, but worse. and in doing so, it further restricts the right to speech, and drags the law ever so much further down the slope. you don't see the slope because you're blinded by your progressive lenses, i'm trying to point it out to you.

 

there was nothing emotional, it was all facts and actual scenarios that i presented, so that point falls flat as well. the law, as explained, even with your explanation does exactly nothing positive that the laws of canada (as i know of them) couldn't already do. if they do, i'd enjoy it very much if you pointed them out to me. and the existence of these laws makes it appear as if hate speech towards one type of person is any worse than the same directed at another type. they are all the same, hate speech is hate speech, and all the potential negatives are already covered under current laws (from what i know of canada's laws). these new laws merely make one class special above the rest, even though the prior laws were already capable of handling the issues properly.

 

so they are huh? name one point in which i used this over the-top emotion you speak of? the person using the most emotional text atm is you, not me. every single conclusion i pointed to has a basis, and not one thing i said, be it about this law or the laws prior, can be said to not be possible. unless you actually plan to start pointing out more direct portions, instead of making sweeping generalizations of the same brand that you accuse me of?

 

"nobody" means the population at large. it's a generalization based upon the overall amount of violence and negativity reported towards trans people. in the entire world, there is a rather large number of people who don't like one group or another, but those numbers, in every single case, are completely dwarfed, by the amount of people who either view said groups positively, or just don't give two shits one way or another so long as it isn't shoved into their faces (presented kindly is one thing, but a specific law, is not gentle, and it's about as subtle as a broom to the face). for example, if i said "nobody is out to get you" to a person panicking about a job interview, it wold be similar to the context in which i used "nobody" in the sentence above. it is not literal, it is general. somebody might not like trans, or really be out to get the person going in for the interview, but overall, the amount of people like that is incredibly small. so small as to be insignificant in the grander scale of things. in comparison to the amount of people who view trans people in a negative light, the overal number of people who either see them positively, or just don't care is the vast majority, meaning that "nobody" as a general term, is applicable. as evidenced by the fact that laws and expansions such as the one above can be proposed with minimal backlash from the public. people for the most part, don't care either way, so laws like this end up being overlooked until the negatives (as i have listed) come to light down the line when two or more sides of the fence decide to get deadlocked, and one side uses laws like this to beat the other over the head. the fact that you would attempt to take my sentence out of context, is rather telling though. then again, you did the same in one of the other discussions, so i really shouldn't be that surprised. was this an attempt to actually succeed at that for once?

 

i did not jump to conclusions, i listed potential negatives, that according to everything i do know about laws like this, are liable to happen. in fact, i even granted that it may have potential positives, even though i believe that those positives were already possible, and are outweighed by the negatives and virtue signaling. it is not paranoia or bias, but healthy criticism. and then you come along as if criticism were lucifer  Hi Winter! himself coming after the rights of your favored people. i am as educated as i need to be to remark upon the potential negatives of any given law, and you would do well to remember who it is you're speaking to. if you want to discuss anything with me, then you had best actually reply to my posts instead of the pile of hay that you seem to have mistaken for me.

[Snatch Steal]

i gave one f***, and i gave two shits, and in both cases, they were not targeted at anybody, they were merely used as descriptive terms, so in terms of how solid my statement was, they hold no bearing because they were perfectly acceptable in their given sentences. if swear words trigger you, then that is your problem. i get that tone doesn't come across on the internet, but i would think that you could at least read context. that is all i will say on that matter though.

 

There was no sign of triggering in my statement. Using swears implies that you are passionate about something, and you speak against the second part of this law, so you gave a facade of rage.

 

 

marginalization cannot occur without the consent of the majority of society, now can you tell me of any modern country that does that to trans people? in fact, nobody actually cares. in the eyes of most people, trans people on the street are nothing more special than any other person. trans people don't need special laws because the laws that exist already cover everything this law does, and far better than this law can. any problem relating to hate speech against trans was already covered in the law as it is (under the respective sections of harassment and inciting violence), there was no need for this law because trans people are human beings, and discrimination against human beings inb4 aliens based upon factors not directly related to the job or work at hand  is already illegal. this bill is basically stating that trans are their own species, and were not protected under the laws as they already are. that (at least in america, i'll admit i don't know if they are in other countries) is false. trans people (at least in america) are protected under the exact same laws as everybody else, and a law that bans speech or not taking job positions relating only to them is something that is not only unneeded, but could be easily abused to grant trans jobs that they either are not qualified for, or that they are less qualified for. trans people can already get jobs on their own merit, just like everybody else, laws like these are unneeded assistance that can potentially lower the bar for trans people at the expense of other people having the bar unnaturally heightened. it has happened with many bills like this, if the discrimination is truly based upon them being trans, the law as it is can already cover that, but this law makes the slope lean ever so slightly to the left, giving trans a specific law, just for them to point to that they can potentially hide under in order to get jobs that they lack qualifications for.

 

 

For starters, way to TL;DR your audience.

You see, laws are not the same everywhere. Saying that discrimination against human beings based upon factors not directly related to the job or work at hand is already illegal implies that such occurs everywhere, which it certainly does not, or, at least, not to a particular degree. 

Perhaps trans people are looked upon by society as a different species. Obviously, people on the streets won't be able to spot out every transgender person; there are some people who look more like their birth gender than others. 

Wait, so not saying things to incite rage = being forced to give people jobs? This law says nothing about "If you turn down a trans person from a job for any reason, then you're bad." 

I'm wondering if this is all just being contrarian for my past General experiences.

 

according to the law above? no free speech is not real. because the right to be biased, offensive, racist, and even use ad homonyms, is all a part of it just as much as gentle uplifting speech is. banning speech, gestures, and other manner of thought expression goes directly against the right to free expression. inciting violence is it's own thing under the law already, there was no need to add a special law for one type of people. there is no such thing as a protected class. The first part of the above law already exists for trans people under the discrimination laws as they exist, the current laws could have worked perfectly fine under the exact same conditions that the first half mentions for reasons i stated above, but the second part is taking an already existing law, and not only narrowing it down, but framing it in such a way that you could feasibly be accused of said hate speech under many circumstances that do not count as hate speech.

 

so yeah, this discussion is rather needed no?

 

 

Okay but free speech and hate speech really are different. I see your concern in being too harsh on people, but that hasn't happened yet with this law in this country. One theory could be that police weren't enforcing it enough.

This is a bawdy example, but just because you don't need a condom doesn't mean you shouldn't use one.

Besides, this is Canada we're talking about, world renowned for niceness. This doesn't affect anyone, so long as you don't live there, and if you are living there, then there's a potential you're in the wrong place.

In Russia, talking about homosexuality to children is illegal. That's the Russians' problem, not mine. 

How, exactly, could you be accused of hate speech where you wouldn't other than through a mistake? The article was very vague in what it called "hate speech laws" anyway, and if they're what I think they are, then they should indeed require a law for them.

 

I don't really have any more parting shots.

[VCR_CAT]

 

So it expands the laws that already exist to include identity and gender expression? so essentially my comment of "the right to be biased, offensive, racist, and even use ad homonyms, is all a part of it (free speech)just as much as gentle uplifting speech is. banning speech, gestures, and other manner of thought expression goes directly against the right to free expression." just went right over your head?

 

 

I more or less am not taking it serious in this context because it's clear that the extent of your knowledge towards their laws and the changes are limited to the article posted in this thread, which tells you almost nothing about what they are. The conclusion you're jumping to is that any law against hate-speech is automatically against freespeech because of any number of assumed premises. You've made no point to show that you know what the laws are, or how they are executed, and only show that you're jumping to a hasty conclusion because of your own bias and prejudice.

 

 

 

 

from where i stand, gender identity is not an important concept. to me it's arbitrary as hell and i could care less about it, but even then, any harmful actions directed towards people due to gender identity would still fall under the general categories of hate speech, and would also fall under harassment laws as they currently exist. same goes for inciting violence. so again, the law, even as an addition, falls flat. it's essentially still doing the exact same thing as the laws before it would have, but worse. and in doing so, it further restricts the right to speech, and drags the law ever so much further down the slope. you don't see the slope because you're blinded by your progressive lenses, i'm trying to point it out to you.

 

So what you're telling me is that beyond ignorance towards what the laws are and what the chances being made are, you have no understanding of what it means to be a transgendered person, what life is like for them, nor do you care to sympathize with them. None of what you say here is supporting any of your arguments because it only shows further ignorance and bias towards the topic at hand.

 

I don't see the slow because there is no slope. I'm not blinded by progressive lenses. If anything, I freely acknowledge that I myself don't have a complete understanding of the given laws, but will actually look into the matter to a decent degree (or any degree at all) before jumping to the massive conclusions that you have. What you clearly misinterpret is that you think that I'm aggressively advocating the bill and law in question. This isn't true, at least not totally true. The purpose of my first post, and of this post as well, is to show that you're jumping to a hasty conclusion based on minimal to no research but instead on your own bias and limited scope of reasoning. I've shown why your points are poorly presented and argued and how you could be wrong, but you essentially refuse to listen because of how you're clearly bent on painting anyone against you in a certain light.

 

 

 

 

there was nothing emotional, it was all facts and actual scenarios that i presented, so that point falls flat as well. the law, as explained, even with your explanation does exactly nothing positive that the laws of canada (as i know of them) couldn't already do. if they do, i'd enjoy it very much if you pointed them out to me. and the existence of these laws makes it appear as if hate speech towards one type of person is any worse than the same directed at another type. they are all the same, hate speech is hate speech, and all the potential negatives are already covered under current laws (from what i know of canada's laws). these new laws merely make one class special above the rest, even though the prior laws were already capable of handling the issues properly.

 

 

The entirety of your argument can be summed up with "[Citation Needed]". Your key words here, are "as I know of them". As you know of them comes across as this article alone; you've never shared what the laws are, or what they are, so I will say it again: Right now, you're making a highly emotional response regarding a law you haven't explicitly researched for country you may not live in at all. You've read one sentence and jumped to a conclusion that, in and of itself, is based on a slippery slope premise.

 

I say it's emotional because, as you've demonstrated and stated, you have a clear bias. You're against this law not because of any empirical evidence that it will or most likely will be bad for the nation, but because you don't feel it's right. You're building straw men of the people who don't agree with you as being "blinded by progressive lenses". You're neither here to make a educated discussion, or even make the effort to fully understand what it is you're talking about. Your posts are aggressively written and highly confrontational.

 

And to elaborate on "citation needed", I can't take this sentence seriously at all: "it was all facts and actual scenarios that i presented" No, you've made no point of showing where you research is based, where you're finding your facts out, what the laws are, etc. As far as I, or anyone else on this site is concerned, none of what you're saying is facts or actual scenarios because the only reason you've given any of us to believe such is "because you said so." Until you actually start showing that you put the time and effort into learning more about this topic, the different facets about, and even take the time to have an open mind about the other side; you're talking out of your ass and spewing fallacious bullshit purely because you don't agree with it.

 

 

 

 

every single conclusion i pointed to has a basis, and not one thing i said, be it about this law or the laws prior, can be said to not be possible.

 

 

Please say what I say about "citation needed" and how you've actually made no effort to show that you've made any effort at all to research the subject. Your argument has no basis beyond your own bias and prejudice, and you're making no positive contribution to the discussion. As for "a point where you use the over-top emotional language"; basically your posts as a whole. Everything you're typing and saying is coming across as highly confrontational and aggressive; if you're trying to come across as professional and respectful with tact, you're doing a piss-poor job doing it.

 

 

 

"nobody" means the population at large. it's a generalization based upon the overall amount of violence and negativity reported towards trans people. in the entire world, there is a rather large number of people who don't like one group or another, but those numbers, in every single case, are completely dwarfed, by the amount of people who either view said groups positively, or just don't give two shits one way or another so long as it isn't shoved into their faces (presented kindly is one thing, but a specific law, is not gentle, and it's about as subtle as a broom to the face). for example, if i said "nobody is out to get you" to a person panicking about a job interview, it wold be similar to the context in which i used "nobody" in the sentence above. it is not literal, it is general. somebody might not like trans, or really be out to get the person going in for the interview, but overall, the amount of people like that is incredibly small. so small as to be insignificant in the grander scale of things. in comparison to the amount of people who view trans people in a negative light, the overal number of people who either see them positively, or just don't care is the vast majority, meaning that "nobody" as a general term, is applicable. as evidenced by the fact that laws and expansions such as the one above can be proposed with minimal backlash from the public. people for the most part, don't care either way, so laws like this end up being overlooked until the negatives (as i have listed) come to light down the line when two or more sides of the fence decide to get deadlocked, and one side uses laws like this to beat the other over the head. the fact that you would attempt to take my sentence out of context, is rather telling though. then again, you did the same in one of the other discussions, so i really shouldn't be that surprised. was this an attempt to actually succeed at that for once?

 

 

*~*Citation Needed*~*

 

If you're going to seriously try and tell me that you know how the general population of the entire world reacts towards a minority population and that this is without a doubt a fact, you have another thing coming. The fact that you're trying to get this point across as a serious argument with no basis for authentic research is incredibly laughable and worth absolutely nobody's time.

 

 

 

 

i did not jump to conclusions, i listed potential negatives, that according to everything i do know about laws like this, are liable to happen. in fact, i even granted that it may have potential positives, even though i believe that those positives were already possible, and are outweighed by the negatives and virtue signaling. it is not paranoia or bias, but healthy criticism. and then you come along as if criticism were lucifer  Hi Winter! himself coming after the rights of your favored people. i am as educated as i need to be to remark upon the potential negatives of any given law, and you would do well to remember who it is you're speaking to. if you want to discuss anything with me, then you had best actually reply to my posts instead of the pile of hay that you seem to have mistaken for me.

 

 

The fact that you've posted no actual research and even admit that you're entire argument is based on any presuppositions you had coming to the table tells me you're jumping to a hasty conclusion. All you've told me here in this post is that this is a matter of ego; that you feel you know all it is you need to know to make a proper judgment and argument towards the subject at hand. Healthy criticism is criticism that's done its research, that knows what its talking about and is willing to admit that which it doesn't know properly and will take the time to educate themselves on matters they don't.

 

Your arguments are fallacious and based upon nothing but bias, presuppositions, and ego regarding what you feel you already know about. At this point these aren't even remote assumptions, you've already said it yourself:

- "according to everything I know/from what I know of Canada's laws" - You've done no research or even taken the time to consider the other side of the argument.

 

Your entire argument is based upon the premise "because I said so". If you're not actually going to take the time to put an effort towards a proper discussion, you're doing nothing but shitposting biased, under-educated opinions as a backlash towards something you don't agree upon, indirectly referencing one article that gives you an incredibly limited amount of information towards anything that needs to be known.

 

Unless you're willing to start presenting your points with proper basis rather than your own knowledge, you're wasting everyone's time and only going to cause problems, so please stop while you're ahead.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Your entire argument is based upon the premise "because I said so". If you're not actually going to take the time to put an effort towards a proper discussion, you're doing nothing but shitposting biased, under-educated opinions as a backlash towards something you don't agree upon, indirectly referencing one article that gives you an incredibly limited amount of information towards anything that needs to be known.

 

Unless you're willing to start presenting your points with proper basis rather than your own knowledge, you're wasting everyone's time and only going to cause problems, so please stop while you're ahead.

 

And aren't you just posting what you see as flaws in the underlying structure of his argument rather than actually addressing the points he's making? 

 

Seriously, stop with the 'Stop while you are ahead so you don't cause problems' attitude. All you achieve by it is derailing what could otherwise be constructive discussion for no reason that what seems to be personal distaste for the points being raised. You have done this on two threads now within as many days, despite the discussions being civil and focused on the topic before your attempt to 'difuse' the situation.

 

If you have counter arguments to V1alne's points raise them. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time and are only going to cause problems, so please stop whilst you are ahead. 

 

And yes, I posted that because it's a f***ing ludicrous statement to base a counter argument upon that highlights how you don't see to actually be debating. Just dismissing points because you dislike them or the presentation. Seriously, you ended your first post in this thread with 'f not, please sit your ass down before you make a bigger ass out of yourself. Thanks.' 

 

That is not constructive of a constructive debate. 

EDIT; Sorry for the off topic point, but this irritated me given there is no f***ing reason for you to consistently jump in on V1ane's arguments going ad hominem. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Right now, you're making a highly emotional response regarding a law you haven't explicitly researched for country you may not live in at all. You've read one sentence and jumped to a conclusion that, in and of itself, is based on a slippery slope premise.

 

Vla1ne, your arguments regarding this situation are highly emotional, incredibly fallacious filled with points standing on an apparent lack of research, massive conclusions being jumped, with points standing on poor premises and an argument that overall is a baseless slippery slope.

 

Vla1ne, you're jumping to conclusions regarding something you clearly have not taken the time to put any real research into and are making an emotional argument based on poor and fallacious premises.

 

If you'd like to have a serious discussion about this topic, please take the time educate yourself on the existing Canadian laws on hate speech and what these changes will be, as well as other examples of countries that may or may not have taken similar measures and how it's worked out for them, as well as any relevant studies or research.

 

If not, please sit your ass down before you make a bigger ass out of yourself. Thanks.

 

 

I more or less am not taking it serious in this context because it's clear that the extent of your knowledge towards their laws and the changes are limited to the article posted in this thread,

which tells you almost nothing about what they are.

 

The conclusion you're jumping to is that any law against hate-speech is automatically against freespeech because of any number of assumed premises.

 

You've made no point to show that you know what the laws are, or how they are executed, and only show that you're jumping to a hasty conclusion because of your own bias and prejudice.

 

 

So what you're telling me is that beyond ignorance towards what the laws are and what the chances being made are,

 

you have no understanding of what it means to be a transgendered person, what life is like for them, nor do you care to sympathize with them.

 

None of what you say here is supporting any of your arguments because it only shows further ignorance and bias towards the topic at hand.

 

but will actually look into the matter to a decent degree (or any degree at all) before jumping to the massive conclusions that you have. W

 

hat you clearly misinterpret is that you think that I'm aggressively advocating the bill and law in question. This isn't true, at least not totally true. The purpose of my first post, and of this post as well, is to show that you're jumping to a hasty conclusion based on minimal to no research but instead on your own bias and limited scope of reasoning.

 

I've shown why your points are poorly presented and argued and how you could be wrong, but you essentially refuse to listen because of how you're clearly bent on painting anyone against you in a certain light.

 

Right now, you're making a highly emotional response regarding a law you haven't explicitly researched for country you may not live in at all. You've read one sentence and jumped to a conclusion that, in and of itself, is based on a slippery slope premise.

 

I say it's emotional because, as you've demonstrated and stated, you have a clear bias.

 

You're against this law not because of any empirical evidence that it will or most likely will be bad for the nation, but because you don't feel it's right. You're building straw men of the people who don't agree with you as being "blinded by progressive lenses".

 

You're neither here to make a educated discussion, or even make the effort to fully understand what it is you're talking about. Your posts are aggressively written and highly confrontational.

 

And to elaborate on "citation needed", I can't take this sentence seriously at all: "it was all facts and actual scenarios that i presented" No, you've made no point of showing where you research is based, where you're finding your facts out, what the laws are, etc. As far as I, or anyone else on this site is concerned, none of what you're saying is facts or actual scenarios because the only reason you've given any of us to believe such is "because you said so."

 

Until you actually start showing that you put the time and effort into learning more about this topic, the different facets about, and even take the time to have an open mind about the other side; you're talking out of your ass and spewing fallacious bullshit purely because you don't agree with it.

 

 

how you've actually made no effort to show that you've made any effort at all to research the subject. Your argument has no basis beyond your own bias and prejudice, and you're making no positive contribution to the discussion.

 

As for "a point where you use the over-top emotional language"; basically your posts as a whole. Everything you're typing and saying is coming across as highly confrontational and aggressive; if you're trying to come across as professional and respectful with tact, you're doing a piss-poor job doing it.

 

 

The fact that you're trying to get this point across as a serious argument with no basis for authentic research is incredibly laughable and worth absolutely nobody's time.

 

The fact that you've posted no actual research and even admit that you're entire argument is based on any presuppositions you had coming to the table tells me you're jumping to a hasty conclusion.

 

All you've told me here in this post is that this is a matter of ego; that you feel you know all it is you need to know to make a proper judgment and argument towards the subject at hand. Healthy criticism is criticism that's done its research, that knows what its talking about and is willing to admit that which it doesn't know properly and will take the time to educate themselves on matters they don't.

 

Your arguments are fallacious and based upon nothing but bias, presuppositions, and ego regarding what you feel you already know about. At this point these aren't even remote assumptions, you've already said it yourself:

- "according to everything I know/from what I know of Canada's laws" - You've done no research or even taken the time to consider the other side of the argument.

 

Your entire argument is based upon the premise "because I said so". If you're not actually going to take the time to put an effort towards a proper discussion, you're doing nothing but shitposting biased, under-educated opinions as a backlash towards something you don't agree upon, indirectly referencing one article that gives you an incredibly limited amount of information towards anything that needs to be known.

 

Unless you're willing to start presenting your points with proper basis rather than your own knowledge, you're wasting everyone's time and only going to cause problems, so please stop while you're ahead.

 

Because I had the time on my hands - That is every instance of what I would class as Ad Hominen in both your posts. Curiously the almost entirity of the second post was along these lines. And despite consitently talking about 'How you've shown no facts/research to back up your points' at no point in debating his argument have you actually provided such either. 

 

So you know... I'd look to address that before you call someone out argument quality again 

 

And sorry for the Double Post, but it felt deserved. 

[VCR_CAT]

And aren't you just posting what you see as flaws in the underlying structure of his argument rather than actually addressing the points he's making? 

 

Seriously, stop with the 'Stop while you are ahead so you don't cause problems' attitude. All you achieve by it is derailing what could otherwise be constructive discussion for no reason that what seems to be personal distaste for the points being raised. You have done this on two threads now within as many days, despite the discussions being civil and focused on the topic before your attempt to 'difuse' the situation.

 

If you have counter arguments to V1alne's points raise them. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time and are only going to cause problems, so please stop whilst you are ahead. 

 

And yes, I posted that because it's a f***ing ludicrous statement to base a counter argument upon that highlights how you don't see to actually be debating. Just dismissing points because you dislike them or the presentation. Seriously, you ended your first post in this thread with 'f not, please sit your ass down before you make a bigger ass out of yourself. Thanks.' 

 

That is not constructive of a constructive debate. 

EDIT; Sorry for the off topic point, but this irritated me given there is no f***ing reason for you to consistently jump in on V1ane's arguments going ad hominem. 

 

Don't apologize; you're fair to call me out on that.

 

So that it's clearly established, this is what the Canadian Criminal Code currently says on hate speech:

 

[spoiler=Who calls it hate propaganda?]

• 318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

• (2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

  • (a) killing members of the group; or

  • (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

• Marginal note:Consent

  (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

• (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318;
•  2004, c. 14, s. 1;
•  2014, c. 31, s. 12.

Previous Version

Marginal note:Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

  (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• Marginal note:Defences

  (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

  • (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

  • © if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

  • (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

• Marginal note:Forfeiture

  (4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

• Marginal note:Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

  (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

• Marginal note:Consent

  (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

• Marginal note:Definitions

  (7) In this section,

   

  communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)

   

  identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)

   

  public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)

   

  statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)

   

   

For reference, these are sections 318 and 319 in the criminal code found here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-71.html#h-92withthe rest of the criminal code that can be found here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

The Globe and Mail doesn't make note of what bill exactly the liberal government is looking to pass, so I don't have an exact interpretation of what the full extent of the changes being made are.

So far as I can tell, the current bill does not include gender or transgender individuals as part of their recognized identifiable groups included under the existing hatespeech laws; currently it seems that all the bill seeks to do is amend that and include them.

 

For information on our constitution regarding fundamental freedoms (religion, press, speech, etc.) you can find those here: http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1355931062024/1355931133880

It's worth noting that section 1 says: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Currently, the set bill (as assumed; if anyone knows what bill it is please let me know and I can edit accordingly) updates the law in who is included in its identified groups. This is important, I feel, because it will better include minorities in the justice system and avoid poor loopholes. Currently the laws are completely constitutional, do not affect private speech or conversation (you can say whatever you want in those) and is fairly well safeguarded against improper arrests with decent avenues for defense.

Also, before people jump to some conclusion like I'm some tumblr-level scum; I do believe "cis gendered scum" used authentically as hate speech will count as hate speech.

 

 

Whether the general population cares for these people is ultimately irrelevant, as this sort of referrendum isn't in any way "special treatment"; it's actually giving them the same treatment as everyone else, treatment that they actually do not have unless this bill is passed. Please explain to me why this is a bad thing.

 

For note, Section 320 is also relevant: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#docCont

[Dad]

If it incites violence, it's hate speech.  If not, it's bueno.  Is that accurate?

 

TBH I don't give a funk what you think.  Hope you got them hands tho.  Freedom of consequence isn't a thing.

[Snatch Steal]

If it incites violence, it's hate speech.  If not, it's bueno.  Is that accurate?

 

TBH I don't give a funk what you think.  Hope you got them hands tho.  Freedom of consequence isn't a thing.

 

isn't this just about what i said but longer

[vla1ne]

EDIT, yeah, there's spelling errors abound in this, but i'm leaving them for now. i don't care enough to fix it thoroughly. and the point comes across as well as i think i could get it to. 

 

 

I'll be posting the replies in bold within the quotes below. saves time and will hopefully leave no mistake as to what it is i'm talking against.
 
also, dad summed up my general feelings on hate speech perfectly. if it incites violence, it's hate speech, it really does not need to be more complex than that.  freedom of speech is freedom of legal punishment, not social. 



 

 

There was no sign of triggering in my statement. Using swears implies that you are passionate about something, and you speak against the second part of this law, so you gave a facade of rage.
 
 
alright, that's fair, you may not have been. so i'll leave that at that, on the other hand, swearing, while a sign of passion, does not always imply rage. while yes, i did have a bit of passion within that statement, i was in no way angry.
 
 
For starters, way to TL;DR your audience. I don't shorten my statements, i type them as fully as necessary to get my point across. if people are not willing to read it then that is not really my concern. i'm interested in discussion, and if it requires a page of two of words to make sure i'm not misinterpreted, then i am fine with that.
You see, laws are not the same everywhere. I agree Saying that discrimination against human beings based upon factors not directly related to the job or work at hand is already illegal implies that such occurs everywhere what i am saying is that it is already illegal to discriminate based upon grounds such as race, gender and other things that are unnecessary whatever the job at hand may be. if this is not true in canada, then making the law specifically target trans people is leaving yourself wide open in every other area, as for gender identity, i do not think it is important at all, but if you are discriminated upon based on that factor, then that counts as discrimination based upon factors not neccecary to the job (in most cases), and as such, it would be possible to prosecute based upon already existing laws.
 
, which it certainly does not, or, at least, not to a particular degree then there would be no need for this as a law would there?. 
Perhaps trans people are looked upon by society as a different species. Obviously, people on the streets won't be able to spot out every transgender person; there are some people who look more like their birth gender than others. 
Wait, so not saying things to incite rage = being forced to give people jobs? This law says nothing about "If you turn down a trans person from a job for any reason, then you're bad." but it can be interpreted as such, this is where the slope comes in, the law itself is categorizing them now as a protected class, that may not be the intent, but filling out trans on a sheet of paper will then give you an advantage by means of the employer, if unable to prove that you were not rejected based upon your trans identity being more likely to hire you. i will grant that it may not be the case in many situations, but it is something that then becomes possible, and considering how sensitive people are becoming, it is not unthinkable that somebody feeling miffed about not getting the job may attempt to file a lawsuit about it under the grounds of the new law. it would not be the first time something like it has happened, but it would potentially open the door for it to happen more often.
I'm wondering if this is all just being contrarian for my past General experiences.
 
 
 
Okay but free speech and hate speech really are different. I see your concern in being too harsh on people, but that hasn't happened yet with this law in this country. One theory could be that police weren't enforcing it enough. no, free speech encompasses all nonviolent speech. as dad has said, inciting violence falls under illegal actions under the law, while (continued) insults and demeaning language fall under harassment. both are prosecutable offenses in canada to the best of my knowledge, and any other form of speech is not free from social consequence. that is what i'm trying to get at, thel aw already does what this new edit is claiming to do, the edit itself is not needed, and comes with no more benefits than it does consequences (if that many).
 

This is a bawdy example, but just because you don't need a condom doesn't mean you shouldn't use one.
Besides, this is Canada we're talking about, world renowned for niceness. This doesn't affect anyone, so long as you don't live there, and if you are living there, then there's a potential you're in the wrong place. while you are correct that i do not live there, pointing out the issue is well within my abilities, and so i do it. i'm not quite saying "change it or i'll hate your country forever" i am merely pointing out that this law is something that is not a good thing in the long run, it promotes further censorship, and allows the government to step in far more than is neccecary. it is not my problem, but i am highlighting it because it is something that many people will overlook, this is the start of the slope, and while i am not sure whether it has become slippery just yet, it has extremely high potential to. it truly is not my problem, but that should not stop me from bringing it up so that other people learn to notice such things.
In Russia, talking about homosexuality to children is illegal. That's the Russians' problem, not mine. true again, and that is an issue all its' own once more. but i mentioning the flaws in said law is something that can still be done, whether you live there or not. 
How, exactly, could you be accused of hate speech where you wouldn't other than through a mistake? i know it's hard to believe at times, but people do make false claims on things like this, merely because they have either the more popular, or less opposed side. The article was very vague in what it called "hate speech laws" anyway, THAT! THAT RIGHT THERE! not angry or anything, but that is exactly where the slope lies. you are looking dead at it, and have yet to realize why people may oppose it. ambiguity, this law is the moderation of an ambiguous subject using ambiguous wording for an as of yet unspecified punishment. that is the slope's beginning, and while it may result in nothing to worry about, it is also the point that is the most worrying. if you read back to my very first point, i was rather ok with the first portion of the law, i honestly doubt any first world country needs such a thing seeing as discrimination based upon reasons like gender, sex, ect, are already prosecutable under the law, and the best person for the jobs deserve to get said jobs, but it was a solid law based upon a solid foundation(s). the second half though is based upon what will be a subjective definition created by a cabinet of (for lack of better fitting words) white knights and SJW's the law will not be based upon something objective, and it will be doing what laws we already have can do, and that, is why i called it a slippery slope.    and if they're what I think they are, then they should indeed require a law for them.
 
I don't really have any more parting shots. no problem. it has been a pleasure discussing this with you. for the most part i think we may be in somewhat agreement, but simply framing a few things differently

 

 

 

 

as a preface, brightflame has already said just about all that needs to be said of your personal attacks, so i'm leaving those alone. the rest of this will be dedicated to getting the point across, once more, from the structure of your replies, you appear to be incapable of understanding what i mean when i say the things i do, by your actual words, you appear to not actually look at it from any point other than your own. most of what you have attempted was to claim my argument itself was ludicrous without actually demonstrating a single thing to disprove it.

 

I more or less am not taking it serious in this context because it's clear that the extent of your knowledge towards their laws and the changes are limited to the article posted in this thread, which tells you almost nothing about what they are. The conclusion you're jumping to is that any law against hate-speech is automatically against freespeech because of any number of assumed premises. You've made no point to show that you know what the laws are, or how they are executed, and only show that you're jumping to a hasty conclusion because of your own bias and prejudice.

 

No.

not only did i not say that, that is nowhere near what i meant. in case you missed again, i already mentioned that hate speech, as in, inciting violence and the like, was already banned in canada (unless of course it is not?) if there already exists a law against it, then this new addition is rather unneeded. if it is merely an edit to an existing law, then including gender identity and such is the same as adding people who think they're dwarfkin into the mix. it serves little purpose other than to tangle the threads. your gender identity, unless you're planning to be a model or something similar should hold absolutely no bearing os what job you have, and if people are inciting violence, or harrasing you based upon it, it would be enough ground to claim harassment on your gender (be it male, female or whatever inbetween). laws against hate speech exist already, and they cover everything, including gender identity quite nicely, unless you can point out a loophole of sorts that i might not know of?
 
 
 
So what you're telling me is that beyond ignorance towards what the laws are and what the chances being made are, you have no understanding of what it means to be a transgendered person, what life is like for them, nor do you care to sympathize with them. None of what you say here is supporting any of your arguments because it only shows further ignorance and bias towards the topic at hand. not an argument.
 
I don't see the slow because there is no slope. I'm not blinded by progressive lenses. If anything, I freely acknowledge that I myself don't have a complete understanding of the given laws, but will actually look into the matter to a decent degree (or any degree at all) before jumping to the massive conclusions that you have. and again i have been strawmanned, unless you have something to present that proves my above statement wrong? What you clearly misinterpret is that you think that I'm aggressively advocating the bill and law in question. This isn't true, at least not totally true. and yet you accuse my criticisms of being conclusion jumping, even though i have already granted more ground to the law than anybody jumping to conclusions ever would have before you ever intervened. again, i'm not at any conclusion, i'm pointing out potential flaws and that if canada has any laws against harassment or inciting violence, for any reason related to sex or gender, then they already have enough laws to do what this supposed law would be aiming to do. so in summary, there are laws that cover this subject already, and if i am wrong, i would enjoy it very much if you could point why any laws against harassment or violence inciting wouldn't work under the grounds i have already stated. The purpose of my first post, and of this post as well, is to show that you're jumping to a hasty conclusion not a conclusion, a criticism of potential outcome, i do not claim this is the absolute, i merely claim that this kind of addition is not only unnecessary, but presents a hazardous way of thinking about problems, the government should not be acting in this manner, because it already covers issues that would arise in this manner. creating redundant laws and edits in not a good idea because it makes the law more specific and less flexible. it could level out in months, or it could be the start of the slide, all i am doing is pointing out the potential  based on minimal to no research but instead on your own bias and limited scope of reasoning. I've shown why your points are poorly presented and argued and how you could be wrong, no you haven't, you have attacked my character and placed words in my mouth. notice how i rarely claim that you said something that you did not say, i adress your exact words and grant them not only context, but the benefit of the doubt, you have granted neither, by this point in time, you have merely shut your ears and slung insults, confident that you are not only correct, but that all who oppose you are bumbling idiots incapable of having more than one dimension to their points.  but you essentially refuse to listen because of how you're clearly bent on painting anyone against you in a certain light. Hey that's what i just said! i s*** you not, i typed that before i even read this sentence, we are more alike that either of us would like to admit eh?
 
 
 
 
The entirety of your argument can be summed up with "[Citation Needed]". Your key words here, are "as I know of them" and you have yet to remember the sentence known as people do not care in general. do you honestly believe people go home at nights and have long deep discussions about trans people with the rest of their family? i don't. a a general assumption, many people not caring about one topic or another is the rule. they might have opinions on said topic, but that is not the same as caring. i have opinions about north korea, but I don't actually care about them, and i wouldn't start a tirade on about said opinions unless the topic was brought up by an outside party. that is the same context that i speak of when i say nobody cares about trans. they may have opinions, but they do not actually care enough to go on about it with any form of passion. even in this instance, i'm in the discussion because it's something to discuss, and i was responded to, i honestly couldn't care less about whether or not somebody was trans, content of their character and all that.. As you know of them comes across as this article alone; you've never shared what the laws are, or what they are, so I will say it again: Right now, you're making a highly emotional response emotion=/=criticism regarding a law you haven't explicitly researched I know enough about canada and law in general, that I can claim this law/legal addition is unnecessary, unless canada is actually lacking harassment laws and violence incitement laws, my points all stand. for country you may not live in at all. read my post to toad if you want my opinion on that You've read one sentence pointed out one sentence and jumped to a conclusion that, in and of itself, is  listed off possible consequences  based on a slippery slope premise FTFY.
 
I say it's emotional because, as you've demonstrated and stated, you have a clear bias.towards freedom of speech and government not becoming overley involved in the matters of the people. You're against this law even though i've granted actual portions of it that were based upon solid foundations not because of any empirical evidence that it will or most likely will be bad for the nation, but because you don't feel it's right considering that there already exist laws that can do exactly what the parts i was against can do in a more fair manner. You're VCR_CAT is building straw men of the people who don't agree with you as being "blinded by progressive lenses legal ignorance". You're neither here to make a educated discussion, or even make the effort to fully understand what it is you're talking about. Your posts are aggressively written and highly confrontational. OK, gotta ay that was more fun than i've had in a while. i am literally responding as i read, and it all fell together so perfectly that i had to do it. listen, i have been minimally confrontational in comparison to your style of writing, in fact, as stated at the start, bright has pointed out every single ad homenim, and it was a post large enough to constitue its' own argument. i am being incredibly polite in comparison. my jabs are light teasing at worst, and actually valid points at best. not once have i been dishonest enough to misinterpret your points, i have responded exactly as i see them, and have not written in negative connotations to the best of my ability. can you say you have done the same? even if you do, there are multiple posts to prove that you have not, including the one that i actually read ahead of time, and i'll point that out when i get to it.
 
And to elaborate on "citation needed", I can't take this sentence seriously at all: "it was all facts and actual scenarios that i presented" No, you've made no point of showing where you research is based, and you have yet to disprove them, i know, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but not one thing i said has been completely outlandish, it's called logic. thinking about the situation and the possible downsides, i pointed out that the law could be abused in the future, it's not a perfect method, but as stated in another thread, i'm lazy at times. I have been rather reasonable in my posts and kept things down to earth. not one thing i said is impossible, and many things i said were prefaced with "potentially" in other words, i already granted that the things i have said might not occur, but i have presented them to highlight the potential issues with said law. where you're finding your facts out, what the laws are, etc. As far as I, or anyone else on this site is concerned, none of what you're saying is facts or actual scenarios the exact same could be said about you. because the only reason you've given any of us to believe such is "because you said so." Until you actually start showing that you put the time and effort into learning more about this topic, the different facets about, and even take the time to have an open mind about the other side because granting one half of the statement while pointing out potential flaws in the other half doesn't count as reasonable right?; you're talking out of your ass and spewing fallacious bullshit purely because you don't agree with it. that counts as an ad homonem right?
 
 
 
 
Please say what I say about "citation needed" and how you've actually made no effort to show that you've made any effort at all to research the subject. again, the law is not some secret subject of research, it' based upon common sense and human decency, you have yet to tell me that canada does not already have a law against harassment and inciting violence based upon sex, and if it does have said laws, then literally everything i've said still stands considering transsexual is still one sex or the other (or somewhere in between, still protected by any laws that include sex/gender). you could easily tell me it doesn't, and i'd then see the point of creating new laws for harassment Your argument has no basis beyond your own bias and prejudice please read the prior sentence , and you're making no positive contribution to the discussion i assume you've read brightflame's post already. As for "a point where you use the over-top emotional language"; basically your posts as a whole this is the exact same generalization you jus accused me of. and it's extremely easy to disprove by simply reading my posts. Everything you're typing and saying is coming across as highly confrontational and aggressive or you might be overly sensitive, and lashing out in response to words you don't like ; if you're trying to come across as professional and respectful with tact, you're doing a piss-poor job doing it said the pot to the kettle.
 
 
 
 

*~*Citation Needed*~*

 

If you're going to seriously try and tell me that you know how the general population of the entire world reacts towards a minority population and that this is without a doubt a fact, you have another thing coming. The fact that you're trying to get this point across as a serious argument with no basis for authentic research is incredibly laughable and worth absolutely nobody's time. and here's the part i was talking about earlier. you have attempted to take the generalization, and throw the concept out of the window, in doing so, you have shown that you either do not understand figures of speech. ever heard the sentence "nobody cares?" that's the exact same thing as what i just did, but you, instead of leaving the figure intact, you tried to break it apart as if it were a vital portion of my statement. I'm laughing right now, but honestly, that just tells me that you don't quite understand what parts of my statement are actually the argument. you have taken the most harmless, and nonessential portion of my statement, and saw fit to act as if any portion of the discussion depended upon it. i broke it down for you because i thought you'd realize that it was merely a throwaway sentence, but again you have picked it up and shaken it, placing the boldest of fonts below it as if it were the crown piece of my comment. leaving the actual statement that requires refuting (does canada already have laws involving inciting violence and harassment on the books? and if so, do they already include sex or gender? if the answer is yes, then my point stands and all that you have done has been for nothing, and if the answer is no, then you could have saved us some time and simply said so) on the wayside. 
 
 
 
The fact that you've posted no actual research and even admit that you're entire argument is based on any presuppositions you had coming to the table tells me you're jumping to a hasty conclusion. All you've told me here in this post is that this is a matter of ego; that you feel you know all it is you need to know to make a proper judgment and argument towards the subject at hand. Healthy criticism is criticism that's done its research, that knows what its talking about and is willing to admit that which it doesn't know properly and will take the time to educate themselves on matters they don't. and once more: does canada already have laws involving inciting violence and harassment on the books? and if so, do they already include sex or gender? if the answer is yes, then my point stands and all that you have done has been for nothing, and if the answer is no, then you could have saved us some time and simply said so
 
Your arguments are fallacious and based upon nothing but bias, presuppositions, and ego regarding what you feel you already know about. At this point these aren't even remote assumptions, you've already said it yourself:
- "according to everything I know/from what I know of Canada's laws" - You've done no research or even taken the time to consider the other side of the argument. read the above statement
 
Your entire argument is based upon the premise "because I said so". If you're not actually going to take the time to put an effort towards a proper discussion, you're doing nothing but shitposting biased, under-educated opinions as a backlash towards something you don't agree upon, indirectly referencing one article that gives you an incredibly limited amount of information towards anything that needs to be known. This is getting repetitive, read two paragraphs above.
 
Unless you're willing to start presenting your points with proper basis rather than your own knowledge which as of yet has not been actually refuted properly. if you have the laws already, then the new part is not required and only serves to open new potential for cans of worms, you're wasting everyone's time and only going to cause problems, so please stop while you're ahead. you know, even if i took out all the personal attacks, your argument would continue falling on its' face. the only answer that is needed is "does canada already have a law against harassment and violence inciting that includes sex or gender" if the answer is yes, then we all go about our merry way, and if the answer is no, then we all go about our merry way. yes?

 

in fact, thanks to you adding your response to bright, you have proven my case very clearly: In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

 

there we go. transgender is still one of the two sexes, they merely transitioned from one to the other via surgery, harassment or inciting of violence against them can then be classified as either sexism or hate speech, and the current law can then proceed as normal. and you now have everything i was saying, backed by your posting of the identifiable group. and literally everything i have stated remains standing.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If it incites violence, it's hate speech.  If not, it's bueno.  Is that accurate?

 

TBH I don't give a funk what you think.  Hope you got them hands tho.  Freedom of consequence isn't a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

 

Hate speech might be a shitty thing to do, but it should be protected all the same, unless a clear an present danger is imminent

 

If A says B, and C does D, A and B are not necessarily at fault for D

[vla1ne]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

 

Hate speech might be a shitty thing to do, but it should be protected all the same, unless a clear an present danger is imminent

 

If A says B, and C does D, A and B are not necessarily at fault for D

well, inflammatory speech in america is how we say good morning. there's something refreshing about knowing you're hated up front. it removes the need to be delicate around certain topics. to be fair though, that's america's law, in this case, it is canada. if canada happens to have a law of similar caliber to americas' freedom of speech, which i believe it does, then the argument can be made, but if not, canada might not see things that way.

[VCR_CAT]

Okay, I finally found the bill (because neither the article nor anyone here actually had posted it). It's Bill C-16, currently in its second reading of parliament. The extent of the modifications towards the bill are as follows:

 

"In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability."

 

What I was incorrect on was saying that it had to do with transgender. What it has to do with is gender identity; which is basically to say that, hate-speech towards people the merely identified as a given gender were not necessarily covered by hate-speech laws due to not actually being an identified group. In other words, people who would otherwise be breaking the law are getting away with it fine.

 

Our existing hate-speech laws are going unchanged beyond this change in definition. If you would like to see the bill for yourself, you can find it here: https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/and I recommend you read the bill in full as I have before making any claims. If you're curious as to what our hate-speech laws are currently, you can go to the previous page where I have it cited.

 

 

As for you, Vla1ne, I have no reason nor obligation to "prove your claims wrong". Regardless of whether you "feel you know enough" or not, it's important to learn up on what you're talking about; what the extent of the bill is, and how it's going to change matters as I just did. The existing laws are fine and don't infringe on any rights, the bill is not unconstitutional and will, if anything, improve the existing laws to better include individuals who were previously not covered by them, whether you feel they deserve it or not. Nobody's receiving any special treatment, and any actions that a person is committing, whether it's against those individuals or another identified group would be illegal anyways.

 

I have no obligation to prove any of your points wrong, besides clarifying the bill and existing laws, because of something called "the burden of proof". a lot of your arguments, especially that appallingly bad claim regarding what people do or do not care about, are based upon assumptions and not hard evidence or facts. Beyond this, upon pointing you out on this and calling you out, your reaction is more or less "But you haven't proven me wrong". I don't need to; if you aren't properly backing your claims, I have no obligation to do your research for you. If you brought the attitude of being able to use sweeping, generalizing claims in a formal setting, nobody would take you seriously. Your bases are entirely on speculation and assumptions; what could happen, but not necessarily what is most likely to happen.

 

The laws are remaining unchanged, but the groups included are being brought up-to-date with the changing cultural climate of western first-world nations. This is not a bad thing, and no rights are being violated.

 

If you're still going to insist on standing by claims based upon assumptions and pure speculation, then you're simply wasting your own time by putting the effort into posts that big at this point.

 

 

EDIT:

Legitimately forgot to add this in. I will openly admit that I had used too much ad-hominem in my posts, and that I should have been more respectful. I do apologize for this. In my defense, it does frustrate me to see someone make claims come across as aggressively as your's (they really do, and this is a consequence that tone is not a part of text) with as little (recent) research to back them up. It's one thing to play devil's advocate, but please take the time to look stuff up, whether you feel you know or actually do know a fair amount about them or not.