Sign in to follow this  
Sunday21

Canadian election

Recommended Posts

So this is why I am wondering if this is a windup. 

From wiki us employment law

ince the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all employing entities and labor unions have a duty to treat employees equally, without discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."[9] There are separate rules for sex discrimination in pay under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Additional groups with "protected status" were added by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. There is no federal law banning all sexual orientation or identity discrimination, but 22 states had passed laws by 2016. These equality laws generally prevent discrimination in hiring, terms of employment, and make discharge because of a protected characteristic unlawful

See that protected status above? Also California appears to have protected status for roughly the same groups of people that we consider being affected by prohibited grounds. 

Share this post


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

So this is why I am wondering if this is a windup. 

From wiki us employment law

ince the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all employing entities and labor unions have a duty to treat employees equally, without discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."[9] There are separate rules for sex discrimination in pay under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Additional groups with "protected status" were added by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. There is no federal law banning all sexual orientation or identity discrimination, but 22 states had passed laws by 2016. These equality laws generally prevent discrimination in hiring, terms of employment, and make discharge because of a protected characteristic unlawful

See that protected status above? Also California appears to have protected status for roughly the same groups of people that we consider being affected by prohibited grounds. 

That's for employment.  VERY specific application.  And today, this law is getting challenged because it has lived out its usefulness especially when it comes to how Asians are treated under the law.  Even in 1964 - 2 black factions were in direct conflict on how Civil Rights are to be handled.  There's the MLK side and there's the Malcolm X side.  MLK's views ended up in the 1964 law.  Malcolm X thoroughly disagreed with this law.  He believed that if a white man does not want a negro in his establishment, it is more hurtful for a negro to force the white man to let him in.  Rather, the negro should strive to own his own establishment where he can invite the white man in.  I agree with Malcolm X on this issue.

Now, here's the JBP issue - the USA can NEVER force anyone to SAY something they don't want to say regardless of whatever protections you have.  They can only prevent somebody from saying something, not be forced to say something else.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours 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.

This is an attitude that I find curious.’ because when you give government power, they can use it against you’

It would never occur to me that my government would have a conspiracy against me. The thought would never even begin to cross my mind. Not that I think that my government is honest. HELL NO! I just can’t see them showing up at my front door and asking for something. I guess some Americans have a distrust and animosity towards their government that I do not. Not that that attitude is unknown in my country. I speculate that Quebecers probably distrust the federa government as well.

Is this a regional thing? Do you have resources that you feel that the government would want to take away? Alberta gas for me. Or do you feel that your ethnic group might be a target?  

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


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

This is an attitude that I find curious.’ because when you give government power, they can use it against you’

It would never occur to me that my government would have a conspiracy against me. The thought would never even begin to cross my mind. Not that I think that my government is honest. HELL NO! I just can’t see them showing up at my front door and asking for something. I guess some Americans have a distrust and animosity towards their government that I do not. Not that that attitude is unknown in my country. I unspectacular that Quebecers probably distrust the federa government as well.

Is this a regional thing? Do you have resources that you feel that the government would want to take away? Alberta gas for me. Or do you feel that your ethnic group might be a target?  

This is not a Regional Thing.  This is the natural attitude of Free people.  Canadians (Quebecans are a different breed) have a history of Anti-Americanism (I have a video outlining this history if you are interested) such that it has become a cultural norm in Canada to decry Freedom because it's too "American".

Okay, let me just outline why we cringe at what you say (I'm not American - I'm Filipino.  I still cringe at this.)... You just called Tories racists.  Now, racism in Canada, is hate speech.  You basically just called for all Tories to be criminals.  And it won't take but one charismatic person to decide to put all Tories to the gallows and you wouldn't complain because... they're racists!

The media and many other personalities have repeatedly called Trump supporters, not only Hitler, but WORSE than Hitler.  World War II happened to KILL Hitler.  Imagine if all these people were in charge of a big government structured like Canada's.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


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

This is an attitude that I find curious.’ because when you give government power, they can use it against you’

It would never occur to me that my government would have a conspiracy against me. The thought would never even begin to cross my mind. Not that I think that my government is honest. HELL NO! I just can’t see them showing up at my front door and asking for something. I guess some Americans have a distrust and animosity towards their government that I do not. Not that that attitude is unknown in my country. I unspectacular that Quebecers probably distrust the federa government as well.

Is this a regional thing? Do you have resources that you feel that the government would want to take away? Alberta gas for me. Or do you feel that your ethnic group might be a target?  

It an understanding of History thing...  You were taught about Hitler Right?  He did not cause all the evil and pain and sorrow he did because of the power he had as an individual... He caused it because he got the power of the government.   And as he was coming to power I am sure many of the people he later hurt didn't think the government would be coming after them either.... until it did. Thus the American Freedom view is about curbing government power as much as possible. That way if and when the next Hitler tries to come to power... there is no real power for him to have. His power is limited, his power is checked.

Now you might just say... well don't elect the next Hitler...  How is that working for you?  You are asking which one you should vote for... figure out which one is most likely to abuse governmental power yet? 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


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

This is not a Regional Thing.  This is the natural attitude of Free people.  Canadians (Quebecans are a different breed) have a history of Anti-Americanism (I have a video outlining this history if you are interested) such that it has become a cultural norm in Canada to decry Freedom because it's too "American".

Okay, let me just outline why we cringe at what you say (I'm not American - I'm Filipino.  I still cringe at this.)... You just called Tories racists.  Now, racism in Canada, is hate speech.  You basically just called for all Tories to be criminals.  And it won't take but one charismatic person to decide to put all Tories to the gallows and you wouldn't complain because... they're racists!

The media and many other personalities have repeatedly called Trump supporters, not only Hitler, but WORSE than Hitler.  World War II happened to KILL Hitler.  Imagine if all these people were in charge of government.

Racism is not hate speech. To be hate speech needs to be extreme prolonged and public and continue past the point of many warnings. If you want to be nonpublic in your racism, fine. 

Share this post


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

It an understanding of History thing...  You were taught about Hitler Right?  He did not cause all the evil and pain and sorrow he did because of the power he had as an individual... He caused it because he got the power of the government.   And as he was coming to power I am sure many of the people he later hurt didn't think the government would be coming after them either.... until it did. Thus the American Freedom view is about curbing government power as much as possible. That way if and when the next Hitler tries to come to power... there is no real power for him to have. His power is limited, his power is checked.

We don't have to look too far back into History to see this happening.  It is happening in the UK right now.  The people mandated the UK Parliament to remove the UK out of the EU.  Parliament is still trying to ignore their mandate.

Share this post


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

Racism is not hate speech. To be hate speech needs to be extreme prolonged and public and continue past the point of many warnings. If you want to be nonpublic in your racism, fine. 

YOU CALLED TORIES RACISTS!  Tories are nothing but PUBLIC.  You won't call the entire lot of them racists if you didn't think they have done and said a lot of racist things for a long time in public!

But you're continually missing the point.  You believe Tories are racists.  If the government would send Tories to the gallows you'll be fine with it because... according to you, They're Racists.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


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

It an understanding of History thing...  You were taught about Hitler Right?  He did not cause all the evil and pain and sorrow he did because of the power he had as an individual... He caused it because he got the power of the government.   And as he was coming to power I am sure many of the people he later hurt didn't think the government would be coming after them either.... until it did. Thus the American Freedom view is about curbing government power as much as possible. That way if and when the next Hitler tries to come to power... there is no real power for him to have. His power is limited, his power is checked.

Now you might just say... well don't elect the next Hitler...  How is that working for you?  You are asking which one you should vote for... figure out which one is most likely to abuse governmental power yet? 

Confess cannot follow this.  But the rule is that once we use the H word, things have fallen into such a shambles, that one should withdraw. Right? 

Share this post


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

This is an attitude that I find curious.’ because when you give government power, they can use it against you’

It would never occur to me that my government would have a conspiracy against me. The thought would never even begin to cross my mind. Not that I think that my government is honest. HELL NO! I just can’t see them showing up at my front door and asking for something. I guess some Americans have a distrust and animosity towards their government that I do not. Not that that attitude is unknown in my country. I unspectacular that Quebecers probably distrust the federa government as well.

Is this a regional thing? Do you have resources that you feel that the government would want to take away? Alberta gas for me. Or do you feel that your ethnic group might be a target?  

I don’t speak for everyone, but I’m not scared of the government. I’m scared of the mob. You allow mob mentality to rule anywhere and then the minority has no hope at all. This is prevented by things like freedom of speech and the electoral college. The people run the government, the government makes the laws, the police enforce the law. The moment the government can start policing certain language is the moment the mob decides what is ok to say which only leads to more mob strength.

So no, I’m not scared of the government. I’m scared of any mob voice.

Share this post


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

Confess cannot follow this.  But the rule is that once we use the H word, things have fallen into such a shambles, that one should withdraw. Right? 

Incorrect.  Things have fallen into shambles when somebody calls somebody else Hitler.  If you can't talk about Hitler in a historical perspective, you've sunk your head into the sand.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


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

I don’t speak for everyone, but I’m not scared of the government. I’m scared of the mob. You allow mob mentality to rule anywhere and then the minority has no hope at all. This is prevented by things like freedom of speech and the electoral college. The people run the government, the government makes the laws, the police enforce the law. The moment the government can start policing certain language is the moment the mob decides what is ok to say which only leads to more mob strength.

So no, I’m not scared of the government. I’m scared of any mob voice.

I teach prohibited grounds every term and most of the time, students just nod and say ‘Of course’. Sometimes I explain that this is an attempt to change society. I do not know this is the reason it is just a guess.

American employment law as per the Wikipedia info pasted above does have ‘protected status’. I don’t know about other states but california’s list of prohibited grounds, or whatever term is used there, is pretty close to ours. 

Okay certain persons in this thread may disagree but sure looks to me like the concept of protected demographic groups exists in your country. 

Would it really be legal in the US to have, for example, a radio show that regularly denigrated black people? I do not mean something indirect like a show that denigrates rappers most of whom are black.

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


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

Would it really be legal in the US to have, for example, a radio show that regularly denigrated black people? 

Yes, it is legal.  No, they won't last too long on the air because... nobody would listen to them and no advertisers will put an ad on a program with no listeners.  Yeay, Capitalism.

 

1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

 I do not mean something indirect like a show that denigrates rappers most of whom are black.

Why don't you include black rappers in this?  See... this is THE PROBLEM.  Black people can be as racist and offensive as they can be because they're given a pass.  This is not Equality.

Anyway, rappers can regularly make songs denigrating everybody because people buy their offensive albums.

Share this post


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

Confess cannot follow this.  But the rule is that once we use the H word, things have fallen into such a shambles, that one should withdraw. Right? 

What is hard to follow?  You do not like guns right?  You think the world would be better if guns were more restricted.  A gun is powerful tool no doubt.   And in the wrong hand it can be deadly this is also true.  The government is also powerful tool, much more powerful and deadly then any individual gun.  In the wrong hands it can be deadly to large groups of people. Therefore should it not also be highly restricted? Should it also not be highly limited?  

Yet you call for reducing the threat of guns and increasing the threat of government how does that make any sense?  When you see and understand that your government is more dangerous to you then any gun will ever be.. then you will begin to understand.

Share this post


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

Here we go. If this is accurate many countries have hate speech laws but not US. Learn something new everyday! But...in us you cannot preach immediate violence against a particular group! It’s a start!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

 

A start to what???

See... you think your way is the best way.  You don't entertain at all the possibility that the USA (or any other way) is the better way.  Now imagine you being in charge of government.

Share this post


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

Here we go. If this is accurate many countries have hate speech laws but not US. Learn something new everyday! But...in us you cannot preach immediate violence against a particular group! It’s a start!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

 

Which is irrelevant and simply shows you are not listening... A pretty big failure for someone that started this thread looking for advice

 

Share this post


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

A start to what???

See... you think your way is the best way.  You don't entertain at all the possibility that the USA (or any other way) is the better way.  Now imagine you being in charge of government.

Be fair. You also feel that your way is the best way. 

There is sometimes but not always a tendency to give employees more rights in affluent countries. When it became common for European countries to have anti-bullying/anti harassment laws, Canada also began in enacting laws like this province by province. At conferences, international groups would discuss these laws and I attended these meetings. The Americans said that such laws would never have such laws. The Americans were not happy about this because they studied stress, absenteeism and turnover. The Americans would sadly read the comments and decisions of judges, important because these comments and judgements mold the law. The judges would be absolutely scathing. I remember one judge saying something like ‘ workplaces should not become a showplace for civility’ 

And ‘why ever not?’ I wanted to ask. Anyhoo, less than a decade later those American researchers are getting happier and happier because states either have anti bullying regulations, are moving towards them or as the us researchers say ‘ there are hopeful indications in recent lawsuits’. 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


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

Be fair. You also feel that your way is the best way. 

There's a difference.  I feel that my way is the best way but I do not believe I should be able to force my way of thinking onto everyone else.

 

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

There is sometimes but not always a tendency to give employees more rights in affluent countries. When it became common for European countries to have anti-bullying/anti harassment laws, Canada also began in enacting laws like this province by province. At conferences, international groups would discuss these laws and I attended these meetings. The Americans said that such laws would never have such laws. The Americans were not happy about this because they studied stress, absenteeism and turnover. The Americans would sadly read the comments and decisions of judges, important because these comments and judgements mold the law. The judges would be absolutely scathing. I remember one judge saying something like ‘ workplaces should not become a showplace for civility’ 

And ‘why ever not?’ I wanted to ask. Anyhoo, less than a decade later those American researchers are getting happier and happier because states either have anti bullying regulations, are moving towards them or as the us researchers say ‘ there are hopeful indications in recent lawsuits’. 

Yes, the USA is becoming more and more like Canada... but that is prophesied... the USA will eventually fall with the rest of them before Jesus comes.

Share this post


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

So this is why I am wondering if this is a windup. 

From wiki us employment lawince the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all employing entities and labor unions have a duty to treat employees equally, without discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."[9] There are separate rules for sex discrimination in pay under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Additional groups with "protected status" were added by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. There is no federal law banning all sexual orientation or identity discrimination, but 22 states had passed laws by 2016. These equality laws generally prevent discrimination in hiring, terms of employment, and make discharge because of a protected characteristic unlawful

I.e. you can't fire someone or refuse to hire him/her because of the fact that s/he is of a certain (protected) class. You can't refuse to hire a black man because he's black. You can't (generally) fire a white woman because she's a woman. You can SAY whatever you want. You can complain about it or even openly campaign against it, recruiting others to your cause. That's what liberty looks like. It's loud and messy and often unruly, like Americans themselves. And most non-Democrat Americans would not have it any other way. We consider laws as you have in Canada to be a form of slavery. You are literally slaves to your governments, who dictate what you may or may not say as a parent does to a child. The evil of such a system is appalling.

Many in the US disagree with those laws, but to say they are equivalent to the Canadian Goodthink laws you describe is simply not true. I've always held Canada in some affection, but if what you say is true, I don't think I want to go there again even to visit. It makes me sick to think about.

Share this post


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

I don’t know about other states but california’s list of prohibited grounds, or whatever term is used there, is pretty close to ours.

California sucks. Many in the US, including most Republicans, abhor California politics and mock it as the pinnacle of US political stupidity. This is why many of us refuse to consider living in California, despite the beautiful weather, the money, the beaches, and other attractive features of the place. (The fact that LA has turned into a giant gridlocked swamp doesn't help their cause.)

Share this post


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

I find this attitude odd

I know. Like I said, our freedoms are very hard to understand for people who don't live in America. All I can say is that I also find hate speech disgusting, but I find the government trying to ban it even more disgusting. 

Share this post


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

But...in us you cannot preach immediate violence against a particular group! It’s a start!

So this is not about your efforts to understand US law and the way Americans think. This is about you wanting your unruly southern neighbors to be less offensive by being more like you.

God save the USA, especially from ever becoming like that. May I and my descendants forever be protected from living under totalitarian thought-crime rule such as you have in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vort Canadian citizens can think whatever they like but they cannot for prolonged period of time, publicly denounce a particular group.

We will not jail you but you may have to pay a fine. But at least I know this. Now I know why my American students look a little uncomfortable. Actually some of them behave a little strangely too at times. Immediately after this lecture, they sometimes act out by stealing something from another student or being extremely rude to another student. Perhaps they are vexed and are working off their animosity. 

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