Sign in to follow this  
Sunday21

Canadian election

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

Thanks for the explanation, but you really didn't address my questions. Let me ask them this way:

  • How can someone create an "okay" anti-immigration ad? Or is an anti-immigration attitude considered racist prima facie?
  • If the latter, how does Canada have anything like "freedom of speech"?

Everyone has "freedom of speech up to certain limits." No one is allowed to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government, for example. But immigration? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a Canadian must not ever express the opinion that immigration might be bad. A Canadian must not hold "racist" views, which would include saying or even thinking negative things about e.g. black people or homosexuals (though thinking and even speaking badly about white people or heterosexuals is presumably okay). Is this a fair assessment of your understanding of Canadian law and mores?

Do you approve of such a system? Do you have any concept of rights as God-given, or are all rights (in your view) just assigned by government?

  • Your point: How can someone create an "okay" anti-immigration ad? Or is an anti-immigration attitude considered racist prima facie?
  • My answer. I do not know because I live in a big country with very few people. Global Warming is good to us. The country is opening up and land formerly worth very little is now very valuable. I have lived in provinces where we are desperate for more people. The history of my country is ‘please move here. We are nice people. We will make it easy.’ I cannot create such an ad because I spend a fair amount of my life trying to persuade peole to come here and being nice to the recently arrived. I have tried hard to persuade people to move to my country, my province, my city, and my university. I am regularly recruited for this purpose. 
  • And if you think my country is desperate for more people you should see my ward! My ward, and most wards that I have visited as part of Stake callings, would do almost anything for new members.  
  • Your point: If the latter, how does Canada have anything like "freedom of speech"?
  • My answer: Freedom of expression not free speech. This is like living in a community in which you agree to abide by certain rules.
  • However if I were to create my own society, I would come up with the same set of rules because I like these rules.
Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sunday21 you and the others are talking past each other because both sides have presumptions that I do not think the other side is really considering.

You talk about needing people both as a country and as your local ward.  However your presumption seems to be that anyone that you get is going to roll up their sleeves and get to work bearing their fair share of the burden and by so doing make every thing a bit easier.   And you are so right, in that case what is not to like?  I fully support those kind of immigrants here in the USA too.

However my experience is that there is a subset of immigrants that are not going to do that. They are takers.  Possibility criminal, possibly lazy maybe even both (which has nothing to do with skin color).  I am reasonably sure you do not want these types.  No one in the right mind really does.  This is the assumption that many others in this thread have.  If you have immigration you have to have immigration filters (you called it points) to weed out the undesirables.  If you have filters as a matter of law then you need to have the freedom to discuss, to debate, to criticize.. because that is how you keep the filters healthy and responsive.  You can't do that if people have to fear being called racist for even trying to have a healthy discussion about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

@Sunday21 you and the others are talking past each other because both sides have presumptions that I do not think the other side is really considering.

You talk about needing people both as a country and as your local ward.  However your presumption seems to be that anyone that you get is going to roll up their sleeves and get to work bearing their fair share of the burden and by so doing make every thing a bit easier.   And you are so right, in that case what is not to like?  I fully support those kind of immigrants here in the USA too.

However my experience is that there is a subset of immigrants that are not going to do that. They are takers.  Possibility criminal, possibly lazy maybe even both (which has nothing to do with skin color).  I am reasonably sure you do not want these types.  No one in the right mind really does.  This is the assumption that many others in this thread have.  If you have immigration you have to have immigration filters (you called it points) to weed out the undesirables.  If you have filters as a matter of law then you need to have the freedom to discuss, to debate, to criticize.. because that is how you keep the filters healthy and responsive.  You can't do that if people have to fear being called racist for even trying to have a healthy discussion about it.

 

But we do have the freedom to discuss. However, you cannot over a very long period of time say nasty things about a particular group.

If you feel that immigration is wrong or dangerous, you are welcome to say so.

If you feel that a subset will be lazy, you are welcome to say so. You can’t denigrate a particular group eg Jamaicans. But you are welcome to explain that you feel chefs are not in demand so no allowing more chefs into the country please. You are free to critique fat people or ugly people or mouth breathers or nose pickers or those with tattoos.

So you feel that some immigrants will be on welfare, right? So why not have a point system that selects for age and education. Are you suggesting that educated and young immigrants with relatives in the country who speak either French or English will be lazy?

Education either selects for or cultivates different behaviors. Those with a university education are: less likely to divorce, more likely to follow doctor’s orders, have fewer children, save for retirement, less likely to smoke, more likely to go to the dentist and spend more time with their children and have fewer children. 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vort @Just_A_Guy 

Why do I object to the ad which depicts a black man with a suitcase entering Canada? The Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds, referred to as ‘prohibited grounds’. These grounds include: sex, race, country of origin, disability, sexual orientation, etc. This list is interpreted as including recent immigrants. So it is illegal to ignore non-Canadian  work experience although to do so is common.

The ad appears to be seeking those who wish to discriminate based on race or recent immigration status. Thus to me this ad is very offensive. My dean who is American previously discriminated based on gender. I very firmly told him that this was unacceptable in terms of the Human Rights Act. He was shocked at my vehemence although he has taught the Human Rights Act. I guess those from other cultures do not get the extent to which these values are internalized. California has similar laws by the way. 

So if you wish to discuss immigration here, you would need to explain why immigration is bad. There are a percentage who will be lazy. Well, what might identify these people? If you could hazard a guess: those with liberal arts degrees? Okay exclude those. Avid gamers? Okay exclude those. Urban dwellers? Those with relatives in Canada? Those who left home and travelled through Italy? Tatooes? Piercings? Dirty fingernails? If you can identify a category that is not a pronibited ground, then fine you can discriminate. 

You could not legally say that black people are bad, if you did so repeatedly, publicly , and after having several firm talking-to’s, then we would fine you. If you serve customers in the government, you would be reassigned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

You could not legally say that black people are bad, if you did so repeatedly, publicly , and after having several firm talking-to’s, then we would fine you.

So, no freedom of speech in Canada, period. Government-mandated thought control. Only Goodthink allowed. Holding offensive views is illegal and will be punished.

And you're okay with this.

Okay. Whatever. If that is true, then may God save the United States from ever, ever, ever, ever, ever in all eternity being like Canada. Better to be in a country with racists who think and say bad things that I don't like than to be in Canada, where the government instructs you on what you may think and say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vort said:

So, no freedom of speech in Canada, period. Government-mandated thought control. Only Goodthink allowed. Holding offensive views is illegal and will be punished.

And you're okay with this.

Okay. Whatever. If that is true, then may God save the United States from ever, ever, ever, ever, ever in all eternity being like Canada. Better to be in a country with racists who think and say bad things that I don't like than to be in Canada, where the government instructs you on what you may think and say.

Dear @Vort Seriously dude? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Dear @Vort Seriously dude? 

It actually scares me to a live in a place where your speech is polices like that. I just got butterflies reading your previous post.

Im fact in the democratic primary the question was asked “how do you plan on dealing with white supremacy in the US?”. I got almost sick to my stomach over the fact that they were so comfortable talking about that. Freedom of speech and freedom to think is SOO important.

Why do we want or even need to control each other’s thoughts, preferences, and hates!?!?

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fether said:

It actually scares me to a live in a place where your speech is polices like that. I just got butterflies reading your previous post.

Im fact in the democratic primary the question was asked “how do you plan on dealing with white supremacy in the US?”. I got almost sick to my stomach over the fact that they were so comfortable talking about that. Freedom of speech and freedom to think is SOO important.

Why do we want or even need to control each other’s thoughts, preferences, and hates!?!?

I agree with you 100% @Fether. The thought scares me too. 

But we need to remember that our freedoms in America our distinctly....American. It's hard for anyone else to understand them, even countries that have a lot in common with us. 

To repeat myself, I agree with you. I'm a free speech absolutist. In fact, I'm quite radical about it. So I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying that it's extremely difficult for someone who isn't American to understand our freedoms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Dear @Vort Seriously dude? 

About as seriously as a Canadian that is afraid to visit is America because of its "Guns"

It is about being afraid of bad actors.  Canadian are afriad bad individuals exercising unrighteous dominion.  Americans are afraid of bad government exercising unrighteous dominion.  Both groups have solid reasons for their concern.

However history generally records bad individuals behaving badly as foot notes if it notices them at all... Whereas it writes whole chapters and books about bad government,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I will tackle this point by point:

3) Canada needs more people. The country is mainly empty. Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland are pretty desperate for people. It is difficult to integrate many refugees quickly but are we just going to leave people to starve and die in Syria? Surely not. In my province, community groups adopt refugees. Awkward but so far seems to working out ok.

Canada doesn't need more people.  It needs more labor to support their massive social programs.  Refugee and other non-merit-based immigration cannot solve this problem - it exacerbates it.

And a rich country thinking that the solution to a problem like Syria is to deprive them of their labor force and their good people that is the primary resource they need to retake and rebuild their country is really... very elitist and ignorant.  You want to help Syria?  Help the peaceful people IN SYRIA.

 

17 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

2) The Jordan Peterson situation is hard to follow because there is so much written. As far as I understand, he objected to an addition to the Human Rights Code that added gender identity to the code. I think that the university either asked or contemplating asking professors to use the preferred pronoun requested by students eg zhee or something similar. Peterson objected in a series of videos. The university hummed and hawed but sent Peterson a letter letting him know that he was in no danger of being fired. Such fusses are not unusual for university professors. We normally have a couple of drama queens in every department. Famous employes like to throw their weight around. Right now in my department, we have professor who walks into class, asks if there are questions and leaves shortly after. Annoying but such a method is one method of teaching. Threats to throw Peterson in jail? This is a joke, right?

The JBP issue is very straight forward.  Canada passed a law that makes it hate speech to address a person using an undesired pronoun.  JBP's objection is the unprecedented infringement of free speech that goes beyond censorship into forced speech - that is, the law doesn't tell you what you can't say but what you have to say.  JBP stated that this is the first time that Canada makes people use certain words otherwise you go to jail.  Lawmakers and political commentators made JBP into a drama queen stating that since the law has been passed nobody has gone to jail for using the wrong pronouns.  They are, of course, missing the entire point.  The law is made - you have to call somebody by their preferred pronoun.  You don't say it, you broke the law and you could face fines, censure, or whatever the judge decides.  You don't pay the fine... now what?  Nothing happens?  No jail time?  Well then... WHY MAKE A LAW IF YOU DON'T INTEND TO ENFORCE IT?

So, there's this PREDATOR Jessica Yaniv who has abused this law and has gone business after business after business getting them closed down for refusing to give him services specific to females - like genital waxing.  This is Canada today and it is not a joke.

 

17 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

1) Racial make up of current immigrants: 60% Asian, roughly 5%: Caribbean, Africa, Europe

https://www.google.ca/search?q=where+do+most+immigrants+come+from+to+canada&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ca&client=safari#imgrc=9McdkbLRbdU3UM:

Irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Sunday, @Vort is absolutely right. Freedom of speech means all speech, including repulsive speech that you personally find abhorrent. 

I find this attitude odd. To me allowing public derision or belittling of a specific demographic group is abhorrent. I actually find this attitude to be just amazing like the time an lds American sent me a picture of what appeared to be a machine gun. He was very happy about his new purchase. Other than wanting to own a machine gun he was a pretty lovely fellow. Loved his wife and family. 

I guess this is why one belongs to message boards like this one. One learns such interesting things!

But there we have it. I suspect this is a cultural difference. I suppose that it is not unusual to find the behaviors and attitudes of others to be puzzling. I wonder how Australians feel about this. I have occasionally been shocked in watching UK tv when they make fun of the welsh or the scots. I was also watching an Australian show where they used a nickname to refer to Lebanonise people to describe takeout   food. I found this offensive. 

@askandanswer is it okay socially or legally to denigrate specific groups in Oz? Do you have prohibited grounds?

Well muchos interesting! Normally here educated people have a rule of not criticizing those in prohibited grounds situations. I think though that my attitude is not unknown in the US. I had an absolutely hysterical conversation with a English woman in her late 60s-70s. This English lady was spitting blood. As part of a charity organization’s work, she flew to Boston. The American administrator gave her information over the phone because the older English lady was not comfortable with email. The American administrator described the greeter who would meet the English lady at the airport to drive the English lady downtown. The greeter was also a volunteer. The English lady had difficulty finding the greeter and thus things did not go smoothly. Later the English lady discovered that the greeter was black. This information she had not been told. The English woman rounded on me in fury when she reached the Canadian leg of her journey and demanded to know why she had been told the greeters approximate age, profession, gender but not her race which in the English woman’s opinion, this information would have been the most useful. I tried to explain the difficult situation that the American administrator may have been in. The organization was run by retired experts from various fields. I have to deal with retired experts in my job and they can be a real pain and seriously touchy. So I can see why the administrator behaved as she did. I can also completely understand the point of view of the tired elderly English woman worn out by travel and dying for a cup of tea. In fact to me this story, the rage of the irate English woman and the conscientious American woman are so funny that I can barely type.

Of course, you may also be pulling my leg in a major way! Where is my foil hat? Its’s a conspiracy. I will ask prison Chaplin as soon as I can think of a tactful way to ask the question. 

After all I don’t want to offend anyone! 😂  

 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fether said:

It actually scares me to a live in a place where your speech is polices like that. I just got butterflies reading your previous post.

Im fact in the democratic primary the question was asked “how do you plan on dealing with white supremacy in the US?”. I got almost sick to my stomach over the fact that they were so comfortable talking about that. Freedom of speech and freedom to think is SOO important.

Why do we want or even need to control each other’s thoughts, preferences, and hates!?!?

Are you really not just pulling my leg? You really feel this way? Seriously. Is this a windup? 

@prisonchaplain All kidding aside. Serious question. Do these people really feel this way? Is this common? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I find this attitude odd. To me allowing public derision or belittling of a specific demographic group is abhorrent.

Just because you find it abhorrent doesn't mean you should run to your government to put people you abhor in jail.  Because, you know what?  There are a lot of people who think differently and find YOU abhorrent who can also then go to the government to put you in jail.

And that is why - you should not go to your government who has the guns to solve all your problems because when you give government power, they can use it against you.  Hitler did not come to power because he grabbed power out of good people.  He came into power because good people trusted their government.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Are you really not just pulling my leg? You really feel this way? Seriously. Is this a windup? 

@prisonchaplain All kidding aside. Serious question. Do these people really feel this way? Is this common? 

THIS IS WHAT LIBERTY LOOKS LIKE.

You don't seem to understand that there are people who think differently than you and you may be on the wrong side.  Thinking you're always right is, of course, silly.  Therefore, making government protect you and not others who think differently than you means... you will never find out who is right.  For example, you just called the Tories racists.

thumb_are-we-the-baddies-u-s-border-patr

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

I find this attitude odd. To me allowing public derision or belittling of a specific demographic group is abhorrent.

Really...  let see what you have said earlier

 

11 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

If you feel that a subset will be lazy, you are welcome to say so. You can’t denigrate a particular group eg Jamaicans. But you are welcome to explain that you feel chefs are not in demand so no allowing more chefs into the country please. You are free to critique fat people or ugly people or mouth breathers or nose pickers or those with tattoos.

So its ok to publicly deride or belittle the fat or the ugly or the mouth breathers or the nose pickers or the tattooed... Are they not human too?  Are the not entitled to equal protection under the law? Are they not also a demographic?  What makes them less human then some one of African descent?  What makes them less human then someone of a different sexual orientation?

Once you start playing "protected class" game a case can be made for everyone to be protected.. and the only reason not to is because it makes the protected status worthless.  Thus it is clearly not about "protecting people" but rather a power grab to enforce your morality on someone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Once you start playing "protected class" game a case can be made for everyone to be protected.. and the only reason not to is because it makes the protected status worthless.  Thus it is clearly not about "protecting people" but rather a power grab to enforce your morality on someone else. 

@Sunday21, "protected class" based on race is inherently racist.  "Protected class" based on gender is inherently sexist.  And so on and so forth.  It elevates specific races or genders over another such that the "protected class" cannot be censured for THEIR wrongdoing.  The result is that "protected classes" become even more victimized when the inevitable cultural mindset develops that those who are a specific race or a specific gender are weaker than everybody else and are not capable of their own protection and that any wrongdoing that they do is not their fault but the fault of everybody else. 

Equality means - nobody should make laws based on race or gender or... etc.  So, equality means - if you are free to criticize fat and ugly people, you should be free to criticize black or transgender people.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fether said:

We call them liberals here 

Please, no.  They're called neo-liberals or regressives.  The line has moved so far left that there are tons of liberals now on the right.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I agree with you 100% @Fether. The thought scares me too. 

But we need to remember that our freedoms in America our distinctly....American. It's hard for anyone else to understand them, even countries that have a lot in common with us. 

To repeat myself, I agree with you. I'm a free speech absolutist. In fact, I'm quite radical about it. So I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying that it's extremely difficult for someone who isn't American to understand our freedoms.  

I am still thinking that you are joking. Hmm. Next time I attend a conference I will have to lure a young American into a back corner and ask. Maybe I live in a bubble: my occupational group, socioeconomic group, age range is influencing either my perceptions. Or maybe your bubble is affecting your perceptions. Further study required! Anyway, if this is a windup, good for you! 

It is really funny: social attitudes. An American professor and I were discussing some boring detail of employment law that affected absenteeism. She and I were internet friends and have worked remotely for about five years. I know that she is a democrat. The discussion lead to entitlements at work including leaves that employees could take. We were eating in a plush restaurant with many other similarly boring people also discussing really boring stuff.

i mentioned that in Canada full time employees are entitled to leave after the birth of a child. I went through benefits for women, 35 weeks longer in some instances...i drone on.

Suddenly American friend  began to change colour. She made a choking sound and using only her legs began to rise from her chair. She blurted out ‘35 weeks!’. She was so loud that our part of the restaurant fell silent. It only lasted a minute but I was frightened. An American woman sitting next to her, gave me reassuring glance and changed the subject. I am so glad that I did not mention 35 weeks paternity leave. I might have killed her! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Just because you find it abhorrent doesn't mean you should run to your government to put people you abhor in jail.  Because, you know what?  There are a lot of people who think differently and find YOU abhorrent who can also then go to the government to put you in jail.

And that is why - you should not go to your government who has the guns to solve all your problems because when you give government power, they can use it against you.  Hitler did not come to power because he grabbed power out of good people.  He came into power because good people trusted their government.

No one went to jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:
10 hours ago, Vort said:

Better to be in a country with racists who think and say bad things that I don't like than to be in Canada, where the government instructs you on what you may think and say.

Dear @Vort Seriously dude? 

Yes indeed.  Vort is absolutely serious, and Sunday21 is absolutely surprised at the seriousness.

I've witnessed this several times before.  The US zeal surrounding freedom of speech, is by no means shared by everyone else in the world.  What folks in the US consider "Basic human rights" aren't universally valued, much less recognized.  

 

Here's a comment from a guy my buddy used to work with.  A reasonable, well educated Muslim:

Quote

Subject: Re: Question...
Hey there bud,

Sorry didn't get around to respond to your previous email.

I read the article and honestly I think they did it (far more so) because he insulted the dictatorial Prez than the religion. I don't how much this Prez Mubarak cares about the religion of Islam...

Moving on to the topic of speech in Islam. In Islam, it's not a matter of freedom, rather respect. You can't just go about blabbing things at will. Allah has set ground rules for us in this World that we are follow. When you submit yourself, you submit yourself entirely, i.e., you follow what is prescribed and you are to gain knowledge of what, how, when and why so your understanding is thorough - something that separates us from animals.

Whether we follow these rules or not, is our choice - a choice we must answer for in the Hereafter. However in this world, one may not go around slandering the religion publicly, it's rules and regulations, and all the Prophets & Messengers etc, just because one 'believes' in his myopic, perhaps delusion and pride stricken mind to be right, worse yet of superior views. Living under the Islamic government and calling yourself a Musalmaan (muslim), you are held liable for what you do publicly. Why? Because your behavior may plague others minds and before long it might be considered a norm thus triggering the entire society into a downward spiral. 

Simple example - as a good parent, if your child goes about calling you with bad names in your house because he/she thinks that right, what would you do? Reprimand him right? Hardly will the thought cross your mind that he has the right to freedom of speech, because you know he's lost it. And if you don't take action, others kids may join in. A double wrong.

These bloggers don't care to study the religion and understand the how's and why's. They read something here and there and don't care to understand the wisdom behind it. Instead, they use their own 'wisdom' off of the two liner to draw conclusions which invariably results in more gross misconception, misassumption and eventual rebellion. Before long, they read everything with the mindset of somehow debunking the divine message. Nothing new nowadays irrespective of the religion.

So yes, you live by the divine rules and not by the humanly created idea of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a western concept brought about due to circumstances people faced here, not in Islamic countries.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've witnessed this several times before.  The US zeal surrounding freedom of speech, is by no means shared by everyone else in the world.  What folks in the US consider "Basic human rights" aren't universally valued, much less recognized.  

Which is so strange because from what I understand, other countries see health care as a basic human right... which seems so strange 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

No one went to jail.

You must have not read my entire response.  The issue is not that nobody went to jail.  The issue is there is a law.  If there is no punishment for breaking the law, then the law does not need to be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this