Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Are Cultural Laws against Free Speech?...


Recommended Posts

I've opened this thread to continue with a discussion that Zeitgeist and myself begun in "Statistics, comparisons, contradictions". Anyone else interested may join in if they'd like.

...

[Zeitgeist]"I think you're creating a false dichotomy that religion is separate from culture."

No. "Religion" is a subclass of "Culture" because it is an artificial and arbitrary construct. I propose separating Culture from political lawmaking which includes any particular religious, recreational, or entertainment concepts. And my point is that our "Multicultural (TM)" government is hiding their special interest in the preservation of particular religious beliefs by broadening their intended interest in making laws respecting religion under the guise of 'culture'. And moreover, they add the "Multi-" to make it appear universal when it is not universally inclusive.

 

[Zeitgeist]"You can't separate atheism or humanism from culture either."

Yes you can. It is NOT an artificial and arbitrary construct except by those who are interpreting that the default of our Nature at birth as knowing some particular God and its particular story as though it were genetic. The fact that I may call myself "atheist" is only by the imposed artificial force by past governments to "theism". ALL people have 'culture' as defined as those particular artificial and arbitrary things each of us find entertaining, recreational, and inspiring personally. One without religion or human interest also can have 'culture'....such as a dog or cat. 

 

[Zeitgeist]"Canada was formed by two major cultural groups.  The country is redolent with the traditions of both nations.  To pretend that Canada would be the same country if it was settled by Indonesian islanders or atheist Maoist Chinese revolutionaries is wrong."

Canada was accidentally formed by the trivially populated and non-united settlers along the St Lawrence seaway external to the 13 colonies that stood up against its British Imperialist rulers. We were not a 'country' but a "Dominion of Britain" at that time. The population rose by those Loyalist to a King and its decreed religion [Anglican] along with the Loyalist of pre-Revolutionary world of France, who initiated and supported the concepts of American Republican-style governments. Their main ideal was to isolate separate cultural biases based upon the various religious and non-religious people alike from government top-down imposition of beliefs. You also missed that the territory of Canada was also pre-inhabited of many other cultures aboriginal to the land in the same respect of their own religions where they had them. 

And yes, our world would still be similar with exception to culturally defined aspects had civilization and technology were the same as it is now. Culture doesn't define civilization....civilization merely coincides with culture regardless. That's why the aboriginals would have equally had 'culture' prior to settled lifestyles. Their cultures did not PREVENT them from advancing. They were just not old enough be reach that similar maturity of large-scale organization and settlement. 

 

Culture doesn't go away just because a country doesn't dictate it. Communist-idealism that crushes one's capacity to EXPRESS themselves is also not comparable to the concept of the FREE-EXPRESSION restriction of governments that make laws regarding particular religious laws. Laws equally come from children playing pretend. Do you credit the act of pretending to be what grants legitimacy to some rules that may evolve from them that become more inclusive of other kids? Culture is just an extension of playing games as children. 

Or....for another example, while there is certain justifiable common links to many independent civilizations to have invented the symbols "1" and "0" for one and zero, the symbols are still arbitrary constructs because we could choose any symbols for these concepts. But the meaning of their symbol's origins, though may be useful, are NOT relevant to the reason mathematics today is valuable. We also don't require each person to define their own symbols for the concepts of one and zero to be functional as a cooperative society....and in fact this would be MORE counter-cooperative. Imagine if each kid from grade 1 to 12 were allowed to pick their own symbols independently and require the teachers and all other kids to know each others' distinct symbols. Can you not see that the symbols, like culture, are arbitrary and artificially constructed and only MEAN something collectively when they are shared in general terms but expressed freely in one's own specific use of those general terms? That is, we agree to use this alphabet to communicate IN GENERAL, but we (or some of us at least) don't think we require everyone to communicate precisely with a limited SPECIFIC style of expression.

Culturalism, multi- or mono- are means of limiting freedom of expression because it dictates etiquette and style, particular concepts of preferences, versus the general concepts of grammar rules we use of some arbitrary but universally chosen language. I'm not against culture but just the opposite. I just know that with our system that commands a right to constitute culture as its means of governing with priority over logic, it is no different than expecting our emotions to dictate how we should add numbers together. A 'government' is only a management system that the people collectively utilize to organize itself in the essentials. Culture is a personal concept that belongs to the individual. 

Edited by Scott Mayers
name change
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

No question in my mind:  these kinds of laws are very much constraint on free speech.  If someone's hate speech is causing actual harm from slander or resulting loss, it needs to be addressed by civil suit.

Why am I such a hard-ass about this?   As has been pointed out, much of our "soft side" law is based upon the culture of certain religion.  Well, if you have a look at religion in any form, it sure is a bunch of fairy tales punctuated by some pretty serious rounds of hate (crusades, prosecution of jihad, etc.)  I come down more like a Yankee Libertarian on speech.  We don't make spewing that kind of BS illegal, in fact we expose our children to it constantly. 

ANYTHING to do with religion, culture, etc. has no place in criminal law.  Political correctness has no place in a free society.  Government dictating what we can and can not say, feel, write, etc. is equivalent to living in a theocracy.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what this is about but we can make laws promoting culture if we want to.  Or not.

We pass laws saying that you can't work on Christ's Birthday.  We can pass laws that make it illegal to spread hate   

 

We could even ban religion, but it would be a little harder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not sure what this is about but we can make laws promoting culture if we want to.  Or not.

We pass laws saying that you can't work on Christ's Birthday.  We can pass laws that make it illegal to spread hate   

 

We could even ban religion, but it would be a little harder.

No problem with civic holidays, but NOT when violating PC becomes criminal.

Banning religion would require an intellectually disciplined majority - and that is not a hope in hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cannuck said:

No problem with civic holidays, but NOT when violating PC becomes criminal.

Banning religion would require an intellectually disciplined majority - and that is not a hope in hell.

Violating PC won't be criminal don't worry about that.  It will be hate crimes.  

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

Violating PC won't be criminal don't worry about that.  It will be hate crimes.  

What used to be just not PC is now hate crime.  That option should not be available to the crown.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

One person's hate is another person's political incorrectness.

Good quote.  You won't be able to get it printed, as the press injunction will cover all aspects of your jailing for hate crimes.... theoretically.

Conservatives who want me to speak up for them have to stop repressing me on here first.... :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Good quote.  You won't be able to get it printed, as the press injunction will cover all aspects of your jailing for hate crimes.... theoretically.

Conservatives who want me to speak up for them have to stop repressing me on here first.... :D 

I only argue.  I don't censor.

I might censure, but I wouldn't censor something even if it was worthy of censure.

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

More complete horseshit and hyperbole.  Canada is not Saudi Arabia - your credibility goes to zero if you try to say so.

Sorry you fail to be able to see the similarities.  When you can be jailed for what you think, write and say instead of what you actually do = same/same.  My credibility with the wishy-washy middle of the road is not important - my ability to be objective is.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Good quote.  You won't be able to get it printed, as the press injunction will cover all aspects of your jailing for hate crimes.... theoretically.

Conservatives who want me to speak up for them have to stop repressing me on here first.... :D 

I'm not conservative and still stand strong against culture and religion in lawmaking. Many people on all the political spectra get abused because of this. The individuals in all parties can't compete over the power of those affiliated with religions and cultural purists. 

 

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, cannuck said:

Sorry you fail to be able to see the similarities.  When you can be jailed for what you think, write and say instead of what you actually do = same/same.  My credibility with the wishy-washy middle of the road is not important - my ability to be objective is.

If you can point out a single example of a hate-speech law crafted by this cabinet that parallels the KSA maybe that would help ?

If you can provide an example of someone jailed for what they think ?

Let's see if you can manage to produce these.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deny the holocaust in Canada, go to jail (ask Zundel).   Deny Allah in KSA, go to jail.   Same/same.

I may not agree with Zundel, but think about the hateful things that are said by the Quran and repeated by jihadist imams.  If you are going to lock up Nazis for their beliefs and pronounciation of same, we need to lock up Muslims.  You see, even the PC idiots can't get this stuff straight with their own laws.  We either have freedom of expression or we do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I disagree in principle that free speech should be curtailed by government, it can be threatening to our society if certain political/cultural movements take hold. Cultural "movements" make use of politics to establish their agenda. What we must not allow is to threaten the core principles of Canada, and these by and large also relate to tolerance of free speech, among other things.

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

While I disagree in principle that free speech should be curtailed by government, it can be threatening to our society if certain political/cultural movements take hold. Cultural "movements" make use of politics to establish their agenda. What we must not allow is to threaten the core principles of Canada, and these by and large also relate to tolerance of free speech, among other things.

One of those core principals is supposed to be some degree of personal freedom.  When you codify a restriction on that to a criminal level, you get what we have now:  government using that tool to jail one hate group while giving a free pass to another that has far more potential political benefit to them at the polls.  That is bannana republic legislation, has no place in what is ASSUMED to be a free country.

Of course, if you think the Liberals give a rat's ass about freedom, ask Andy McMechan what happens when you sell your own barley - legally.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we take the classical liberal concept of "We should have the freedom to do what we want as long as that freedom doesn't impose upon the freedom of others to act in the same way," the acts of speech that cause harm to others is included. An example of today's "movements" are like those who presently use the media to accuse some public figure of some act of sexual violation, implied especially with the most direct means to harm one's reputation in ways that no amount of anything short of admitting guilt and repentance is expected. 

I used to favor feminist concerns, for instance, where the average of society seemed to prove that women were 'systematically' abused by men who were often understood to be directly abusive because of those men who treated them as something less than they were as humans. But this was about particular behaviors of only specific kinds of men represented by their tendency to abuse anyone, including other men, by this action. It doesn't mean that my 'feminism' of this type was about the whole class of men nor women as today's redefined extension to hold the whole class of women as victims and men as predators. What was understood as 'systematic' to me was about the means of others looking the other way while their own friends and family would actively abuse. 

Continuing with this example (not the only present 'cultural' beliefs about whole genetic subclasses of humans), when we enable laws that permit cultural adjustments DIRECTLY through laws, if those who believe some subclass of victimhood requires treating the defined class genetically, as is being done, it holds not merely the voluntary behavior of people accountable to particular acts of abuse, but assigns some whole GENETICALLY defined class accountable regardless of the particular members of those defined classes. But this is precisely what created the kinds of thinking of the past PARTICULAR abusers: they assumed something true about the behavior of any arbitrary member of the GENERAL class they themselves were treating as 'laws of nature'. 

Obviously, if the intent is to stop abuses realized and shared by all or most universally, you have to focus on the particular classes of those who hold strong culturally particular beliefs about GENETIC causation 'systematically'. So, to me, when I hear of some collection of people supporting the class WOMEN  against MEN distinctly rather than some recognition of distinction of the CULTURE OF PARTICULAR beliefs of those who hold stereotypes about the whole classes of men and women, I have to ask whether these fighters are not merely trying to stop the actual cultural causes of the harms of their nemesis or are trying to avenge the whole class in mere opposition of the prior stereotypes by ALTERING those who are the abusers versus the victims. This makes these kinds of 'feminists' EQUAL in respect to the very POWER they want in kind of the abuser, but doesn't STOP THE ABUSE!! **

To keep laws that favor creating laws that directly manipulate culture when culture itself is non-genetically relevant is to prove that those supporting such power in lawmaking have some of their own agenda to maintain power THROUGH laws that give them DISTINCT POWER based upon some belief about their own GENETICS and of all others. They only hold 'diversity' as a virtue in the same way one might prefer the value of a zoo: Lots of variety of different animals held in distinct cages where they and their own unique genetic classes are the ones empowered to play the role of the human visiting these zoos. They 'love' the animals but believe they are nevertheless distinct creatures who are most threatening if they were to mingle freely among them. THIS is what our "Multiculuralism" is about. They want the power of being the zookeepers of people believing in the distinctions of peoples ENVIRONMENTAL options to behave as though they are specie-distinct and inevitable. We might be entertained by watching bear families play safely but know that we cannot allow them to mingle because bears are intrinsically incompatible with humans. 

When you get multiple groups of similar thinkers, they act as though they respect their differences because they share seeing each of their own groups as like distinct animals. They thus believe in sharing power in a grand zoo where they have walls that prevent the violation of each from interfering with each other. But they also share the view that no one should be allowed to freely mix independently outside of cages. They believe these are necessary to preserve the purity of their own or they risk the POWER they hold on the culture as a whole they believe is significantly due to their own genetic roots. 

**Compare this kind of reasoning regarding guns: to stop the abuses of those using guns, some suggest that instead of tackling the problem, guns, empower all people EQUALLY to abuse. The belief is that if the 'victims' of gun abuse is EMPOWERED by being able to own guns, they can overcome the risk of the enemy who holds guns by 'cancelling' their power out. But now imagine if those very lovers of guns who abuse ARE the ones EMPOWERED in law to disarm those they believe are GENETICALLY classed abusers!!

Edited by Scott Mayers
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, cannuck said:

One of those core principals is supposed to be some degree of personal freedom.  When you codify a restriction on that to a criminal level, you get what we have now:  government using that tool to jail one hate group while giving a free pass to another that has far more potential political benefit to them at the polls.  That is bannana republic legislation, has no place in what is ASSUMED to be a free country.

Free in the classically liberal sense but still a monarchy not a republic.

Thus, in Canada,  there is the inherited Queen's Peace, which is for the protection of the monarch, to include from rabble rousers who might incite an insurrection against the Crown.

In the United States the First Amendment is for the purposes of inciting insurrection against the Union in extremis as necessary, whereas your right to free expression is tempered by the interest of the Queen's Peace in preventing rabble rousers from stirring things up, Canada being the fundamentally counterrevolutionary American state in the face of America's revolutionary republic.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

....In the United States the First Amendment is for the purposes of inciting insurrection against the Union in extremis as necessary, whereas your right to free expression is tempered by the interest of the Queen's Peace in preventing rabble rousers from stirring things up, Canada being the fundamentally counterrevolutionary American state in the face of America's revolutionary republic.

 

"Peace, Order, and Good Government" vs. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

"Peace, Order, and Good Government" vs. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Well PO&GG is a failed state of course, and so what is happening is that it is sliding into a soft Bolshevism in a Marxist paradigm, while the United States is carrying on as the only classically liberal state in North America and the reason of course is; The First Amendment and the Second Amendment.

Canada meanwhile is reduced to socialist welfare gulag which would collapse as all Marxist states do, except for the fact that it is propped by special access to the most dynamic economy in the history of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cannuck said:

1. Deny the holocaust in Canada, go to jail (ask Zundel).   Deny Allah in KSA, go to jail.   Same/same.

2. I may not agree with Zundel, but think about the hateful things that are said by the Quran and repeated by jihadist imams.  If you are going to lock up Nazis for their beliefs and pronounciation of same, we need to lock up Muslims.  You see, even the PC idiots can't get this stuff straight with their own laws.  We either have freedom of expression or we do not.

1. How is this the Liberal cabinet ? Zundel went to the Supreme Court during a Conservative government as did Keegstra  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra 

2. The hateful things said in the bible and Quran are moral condemnations, not lies and race bating.  Sorry you can't see the difference between Naziism and holy books.  But even holy books can be disallowed by our Hate Laws and this has happened also.

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

1. How is this the Liberal cabinet ? Zundel went to the Supreme Court during a Conservative government as did Keegstra  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra 

2. The hateful things said in the bible and Quran are moral condemnations, not lies and race bating.  Sorry you can't see the difference between Naziism and holy books.  But even holy books can be disallowed by our Hate Laws and this has happened also.

1.  The CPC is about one millimeter to the right of the LPC.  

2. Bible, tora, Quran, Mein Kampf - all just a bunch of pure bullshit.  Same/same.   Also, those condemnations were what guided the sponsors of the Crusades, which are simply the counterpart of jihad, which is no different from the Final Solution.  

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

1. How is this the Liberal cabinet ? Zundel went to the Supreme Court during a Conservative government as did Keegstra  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra 

2. The hateful things said in the bible and Quran are moral condemnations, not lies and race bating.  Sorry you can't see the difference between Naziism and holy books.  But even holy books can be disallowed by our Hate Laws and this has happened also.

You asked:

On 1/11/2019 at 6:54 AM, Michael Hardner said:

If you can provide an example of someone jailed for what they think ?

Which cannuck kindly provided. Now that he's done that it seems you are attempting to move the goal posts. The issue is political, but not partisan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...