Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Senator Lynn Beyak Suspended from Senate

Recommended Posts

There has been very little publicity or discussion about this case. To my mind that speaks to just how cowed Canadians are, how inured we have become to the idea that there is no free speech here, and that anyone who dares to speak words which someone considers offensive to this or that identity group must be harshly dealt with.

In essence, Beyak has been talking about native issues and veering from the approved official narrative (Canada horrible and evil, natives helpless victims). Thousands of Canadians have sent her letters or posted their opinions on her web page. Some few of those emails on her site have been deemed 'racist' because they didn't say flattering things about natives. They referred to them as Lazy, for example, and used other derogatory language. 

For the crime of having these letters on her web site Beyak was ordered first, to remove them, then to apologize to natives, and then to take an anti racism course. When she refused the senate suspended her without pay for the remainder of this session.

Now when you think about it what we have is a representative of the people having an opinion which goes against the standard narrative, and being ruthlessly shut down for it. It seems any opinion other than the mandatory approved "Canadians are shitheels, Natives are virtuous and noble victims" constitutes unforgivable racism and cannot be tolerated.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-beyak-ethics-report-1.5129767

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can discuss a communist takeover into submission.

It will have to get much worse before there will be revolution against the leftist elites, thus I would hope for more leftist extremism, the more crazy they get, the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argus,

2 hours ago, Argus said:

...

To my mind that speaks to just how cowed Canadians are, how inured we have become to the idea that there is no free speech here, and that anyone who dares to speak words which someone considers offensive to this or that identity group must be harshly dealt with.

...

 

I disagree.

We are now in a world where once private personal "politeness/hypocrisy" is exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Argus,

I disagree.

We are now in a world where once private personal "politeness/hypocrisy" is exposed.

What does that mean in English?

Share this post


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

What does that mean in English?

The State has no business deciding what is polite.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, August1991 said:

The State has no business deciding what is polite.

The problem is not with the state, but with the public that has degenerated.  A few shrill people who advocate for social justice and are uncompromising are now declared to be 'the left' by conservatives who need an enemy.  On the other side, the techniques of the Soviet Union are being employed to redefine facts.

The problem is that the public is behaving like shills - not that the government is doing anything with politeness.  Show me an example of the government arresting someone for being impolite and I will defend that person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as anyone even slightly to the right of centre is decried as 'racist'.....   or put your slur here........

I'd like to know what the comments were that she refused to remove, where they just critical of liberals and immigration in general or what, how can we judge if we don't know what was written on her page.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, August1991 said:

The State has no business deciding what is polite.

 

 

Agreed. The only time the state should regulate speech is if it incites hatred or crime and you know that sometimes is hard to draw a line on as well but if it decides what is "polite" we are talking about censorship based on what standard? Political correctness as a standard is jello. It appears to have substance until you try to grasp it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Just as anyone even slightly to the right of centre is decried as 'racist'.....   or put your slur here........

I'd like to know what the comments were that she refused to remove, where they just critical of liberals and immigration in general or what, how can we judge if we don't know what was written on her page.   

Well you will find that interesting. I will try help you with an answer:

First off in a debate in the Senate she trigged emotional reactions when she basically said that the religious teachers of Canada's residential school system were "well-intentioned."  and she also said  that not enough attention is drawn to positive stories from the era.

She also wrote letters in support of her comments

So if then if you to this source it says : https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/14/sen-lynn-beyak-doubles-down-on-latest-comments-about-indigenous-people_a_23209608/

"In Beyak's original letter, she says that Canada's "real problem" is the "Indian Act Industry in Ottawa, all living and working together comfortably, huge bureaucracies, massive expense accounts, fully assimilated to the ways of the white and Indigenous worlds, with available 5 star accommodations and business class travel ...

"Move forward together just like the leaders already do in Ottawa," Beyak told Canada's 1.4 million Indigenous citizens in the letter. "All Canadians are then free to preserve their cultures in their own communities, on their own time, with their own dime."

It goes on to say:

"In both her letter and press release, Beyak called former prime minister Pierre Trudeau's so-called White Paper "brilliant."

The paper, published in 1969, was essentially a proposal to eliminate Indian status, fast-track land claims, terminate treaties and dissolve the department of Indigenous Affairs."

So then what happens is she put up letters on her site from Canadians supporting what she said and apparently the contents of some of those letters had negative stereotypes about aboriginals written in them:

source for below:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/01/04/lynn-beyak-s-letters-of-support-could-be-grounds-for-human-rights-complaint-indigenous-senator_a_23324263/

"Letters of support posted on Sen. Lynn Beyak's webpage backing controversial remarks she made last year about residential schools could warrant a human rights complaint, an Indigenous senator says.

Sen. Lillian Dyck said some of the letters, which are dated between March and October of 2017, promote "awful stereotypes." She referenced one letter on Beyak's Senate site as perpetuating the myth that Aboriginal men are predators and First Nations communities don't know how to manage money.

"I'm at a loss for words," Dyck told HuffPost Canada Thursday. "It's deeply offensive. And hurtful."

One of the letters written in support of Beyak's views especially triggered strong reaction: (also from above site)

"One letter, dated April 5, 2017, written from a supporter named Hubert praises Beyak for her comments, saying "I feel that the First Nations people should be very grateful that there was such a service or system in place for their benefit."

Hubert continues: "There have been many people that have been educated by the Residential School systems, that had it not been for those school they probably would not be the doctors, nurses, teachers politicians that have greatly contributed to our current multicultural society that is enjoyed in Canada and in turn, are able to greatly assist their own people."

Dyk also said this:

"So why are we tolerating it when it comes to Aboriginal people?" she asked. "And if the content can be perceived as motivating hate or be perceived as targeting mythologies, stereotypes about Aboriginal people, then she's responsible for that."

So some of the anger is directed at Beyak's opinions and some at letters she has on her web site containing certain words.

The letters areon Beyak's personal site so the Senate stated in that regard:

"Senator Beyak's website at http://lynnbeyak.sencanada.ca/ is her personal website and she is therefore responsible for sharing content of her choosing on it," Korn said. "The Senate does offer limited website services such as templates and hosting to senators for their personal and individual use, as part of its toolkit of administrative resources available to all senators."

You can go to that web-site to see what is on it.

I appears when she refused to take down the LETTERS not her views it triggered the sanctions from the Senate and her own caucus as the LETTERS appear to be the source of allegedly hateful comments about aboriginals, i.e., calling them lazy.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Just as anyone even slightly to the right of centre is decried as 'racist'.....   or put your slur here........

I'd like to know what the comments were that she refused to remove, where they just critical of liberals and immigration in general or what, how can we judge if we don't know what was written on her page.   

On it and I tried to give you an explanation, hope it clarifies it. It appears its not necessarily Beyak's words but the letters of others on her personal web site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rue, I tried her page yesterday but it's no longer available.   From what I've read, what she has said doesn't warrant suspension IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, August1991 said:

The State has no business deciding what is polite.

Well if that's what you meant then you're not disagreeing.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


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

Well you will find that interesting. I will try help you with an answer:

First off in a debate in the Senate she trigged emotional reactions when she basically said that the religious teachers of Canada's residential school system were "well-intentioned."  and she also said  that not enough attention is drawn to positive stories from the era.

Well, an argument could be made this is true. What percentage of the people who went through this system were abused vs those who merely got an education? What percentage of those who went t here and got an education were emotionally harmed by being separated from their families? Note, at the time it was routine for the British upper classes to send their kids away to boarding schools. I don't believe that practice started to be curtailed until the last 50 years or so.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Sen. Lillian Dyck said some of the letters, which are dated between March and October of 2017, promote "awful stereotypes." She referenced one letter on Beyak's Senate site as perpetuating the myth that Aboriginal men are predators and First Nations communities don't know how to manage money.

Gee. I'm amazed anyone could possibly have such beliefs.  /s

What's the crime rate around Thunder Bay again? Aren't all the municipalities and regions in Canada with the highest crime rates adjacent to large native populations?

1 hour ago, Rue said:

"So why are we tolerating it when it comes to Aboriginal people?" she asked. "And if the content can be perceived as motivating hate or be perceived as targeting mythologies, stereotypes about Aboriginal people, then she's responsible for that."

We tolerate it because the whole point of free speech is to protect speech which is unpopular or offensive - as long as its not libelous or falls within the boundaries of hate speech.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

I appears when she refused to take down the LETTERS not her views it triggered the sanctions from the Senate and her own caucus as the LETTERS appear to be the source of allegedly hateful comments about aboriginals, i.e., calling them lazy.

Is it really hateful to call natives lazy? I mean, that might be insulting or derogatory, but I think that term 'hate' has really been thriving of late among the Left. They seem intent to use it to describe almost any sort of speech which is less than flattering about any kind of 'protected' identity group.

Share this post


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

The problem is that the public is behaving like shills - not that the government is doing anything with politeness. 

The public has always behaved like shills. There's nothing new about people spouting and ranting and calling people names. The difference today appears to be the belief that such speech is dangerous in that the public are idiots and easily influenced. Thus such speech could 'incite' people to racism or even violence.

Given the lack of coherence and vocabulary of most of those who rant on such things I find that exceedingly unlikely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What "falls within the boundaries of hate speech" is arbitrary,  the totalitarian left simply expands the definition at their whims, weaponization of the Charter.

The law is the definition of Thought Crime, it renders all governance in Canada totalitarian.

Failed state Confederation.

A totalitarian fake country has a totalitarian fake Senate, quelle suprise.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, scribblet said:

Thanks Rue, I tried her page yesterday but it's no longer available.   From what I've read, what she has said doesn't warrant suspension IMO.

Y'all ask me I would agree with you that what SHE said is actually well within the grounds of free speech.  I think people really got into  some of the comments in the letters sent to her private site which she herself did not write and refused to delete.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Argus said:

 

Is it really hateful to call natives lazy? I mean, that might be insulting or derogatory, but I think that term 'hate' has really been thriving of late among the Left. They seem intent to use it to describe almost any sort of speech which is less than flattering about any kind of 'protected' identity group.

To some aboriginals no, to others yes. To some non aboriginals no, to others yes which is your point. It comes down to a subjective take on what you think it means.  The word lazy removed from context and intent would not necessarily be hateful.

The meaning of any words necessarily depends on understanding full context  of intent on how their author used them.

Its true  people can jump to the MOST negative meaning of words if they take them literally without analyzing intent and context. In that sense they may have not understood the intent and context.

Then again other times, when people say deliberately ignorant or hateful things they may try  couch them with ambiguity so they can leave themselves a way out and deny what their hateful meaning when confronted with one audience but snicker along with the hatred with another audience. 

As well there are what are called code or emotional trigger  words placed in speeches with double meanings used in a process called meta-speech used as a deliberate and powerful manipulative tool by marketers and politicians to get strong emotional reactions.. This technique was actually perfected by Dr. Goebels the Nazi propaganda Minister and Orson Wells demonstrated how  well it can  work on Radio with his popular Invasion of the Worlds radio play  that actually caused wide spread panic.

I have no time of day with anyone using couched and coded references to whip up anger, hatred  and recruit followers and/or are too lazy to differentiate between an entire people or any people and their politicians or government. I will challenge them to the ends of the earth. I loath both Trump and Trudeau who pander with coded references to their audiences to try  get votes. Trump appeals with hateful stereotypes and insults, Trudeau with ethnic token displays and pandering language. Both play to the audience's feelings of being a special interest being placated by a self appointed savior. 

On the other hand you are also right and I do not think censoring speech is the way to deal with it-debate is. I think if you censor it, it goes underground and continues.

Me personally, I believe only if the words incite hate and violence should they be considered as possible hate crimes or disturbing the public. Given we need to balance freedom of speech with threats to public safety its a constant dynamic tension.

I think our legal system does its best with this issue. Who really can be said to be the best at balancing it? Certainly not Russia or China. I think when we look at free speech countries, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US do it as best we can albeit with some differences. I will take that over Russia and China or say North Korea or Iran.

In this particular case its words of others the Senator left on her web site that technically went over the line in the opinions of the Senate that censored her and the Tory partner who interestingly are accused by some on this board as condoning racists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite apparent that she doesn't represent all of the people in her region, only the 'good Indians' who praise the residential schools, give up their status, treaty entitlements and Aboriginal rights and become 'just Canadians'. She posts letters from Canadians full of racist stereotypes.

She thus dismisses, disparages and degrades a significant portion of the population in her region. 

I wonder what would happen if other Senators likewise persistently attacked and disparaged one cultural group in their region and posted racist letters against them, and refused to remove them? 'All the ragheads are drunk and lazy welfare bums', etc. 'All the chinks are thieves' Stuff like that. (You know you've beard it from some Canadians.) 

Seems to me that Senators who would persistently support such racial slurs wouldn't be people we want representing our country in the Senate.

She validated such racial slurs by refusing to remove the letters.Seems to me that rises to the level of 'inciting and promoting hatred against a whole group of people', and that is a crime in Canada. 

Share this post


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

Y'all ask me I would agree with you that what SHE said is actually well within the grounds of free speech.  I think people really got into  some of the comments in the letters sent to her private site which she herself did not write and refused to delete.

True, but is it really now hate speech to say anything about aboriginals that is not laudatory and pro everything they say and do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, scribblet said:

True, but is it really now hate speech to say anything about aboriginals that is not laudatory and pro everything they say and do?

It's certainly hateful to smear a whole cultural group. (See my examples above. Are they hateful?)

I think the question is ... Is it acceptable behaviour for a Senator?

She immediately got kicked off the Senate Aboriginal committee. She still refused to remove the racist letters.

Scheer read part of a letter, called it "racist" and booted her out of the Conservative Party. She still refused to remove the racist letters.

So now she's finally lost her job. 

I recall several incidents in the last year or so in Ontario where people lost their jobs for racist behaviour, usually because they got caught on video 

- flying a confederate flag on his truck at his worksite in Hamilton (fired) 

- ranting hateful racist words at a family in a parking lot, in a company truck (fired)

- Cop posts hateful screed on Facebook along with his pic in uniform ('retired')

Etc.

Employers generally don't want the bad publicity of being associated with blatant racist behaviour, and they are free to fire them.

Lynn Beyak was an employee of the people of Canada. Most of us do not want to be associated with the racism persistently displayed on the government-funded website we pay for.

So now she's fired. 

No biggie. Happens all the time.

What's surprising is that it took this long, but that's government.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These Cultural Marxist attempts to persecute people for thought crime are simply empowering the fascists.

Liberalism is dying, fascism is making a big comeback.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

It's quite apparent that she doesn't represent all of the people in her region, only the 'good Indians' who praise the residential schools, give up their status, treaty entitlements and Aboriginal rights and become 'just Canadians'. She posts letters from Canadians full of racist stereotypes.

She posted many letters, only a very few of which had nasty things to say about natives.

3 hours ago, jacee said:

She thus dismisses, disparages and degrades a significant portion of the population in her region. 

What percentage of natives who went to residential schools were abused? Context is important. I'm guessing it was a small number.

Was Pierre Trudeau hateful for saying the Indian Act should be removed, and that natives should be transitioned off their reservations and back into society?

3 hours ago, jacee said:

I wonder what would happen if other Senators likewise persistently attacked and disparaged one cultural group in their region and posted racist letters against them, and refused to remove them? 'All the ragheads are drunk and lazy welfare bums', etc. 'All the chinks are thieves' Stuff like that. (You know you've beard it from some Canadians.) 

Seems to me that Senators who would persistently support such racial slurs wouldn't be people we want representing our country in the Senate.

Suppose she was to say "Too many visible minority immigrants are coming to Canada?" Is that acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2019 at 10:23 AM, Rue said:

Agreed. The only time the state should regulate speech is if it incites hatred or crime and you know that sometimes is hard to draw a line on as well but if it decides what is "polite" we are talking about censorship based on what standard? Political correctness as a standard is jello. It appears to have substance until you try to grasp it.

 

Agreed. Where to draw the line?

=====

I'm not American. But I reckon that the US 1st Amendment is a first good start.

Trudeau Snr managed to establish a Charter of Rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Argus said:

She posted many letters, only a very few of which had nasty things to say about natives.

She should have removed those.

14 hours ago, Argus said:

What percentage of natives who went to residential schools were abused? Context is important. I'm guessing it was a small number.

80,000 were still alive during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

http://www.iap-pei.ca/story-eng.php

38,000 submitted claims for serious physical, sexual and emotional abuse. 

Over 34,000 were awarded settlements. (Average $91k)

Likely another 34,000 deserved them, but they were already deceased.

Not a small number.

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Was Pierre Trudeau hateful for saying the Indian Act should be removed, and that natives should be transitioned off their reservations and back into society?

Yes. And he lost.

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Suppose she was to say "Too many visible minority immigrants are coming to Canada?" Is that acceptable?

She likely does. She's a racist idiot.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read she didn't say anything a lot of people are thinking, but Lorne Gunter says it better than I can.   Who is next:

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-the-beyak-suspension-leaves-us-to-ask-who-is-next
Believe it or not, at the time, that was considered enlightened.

During hearings for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Cree novelist and pianist Tomson Highway testified, "There are many very successful people today that went to those schools ... I have a thriving international career, and it wouldn't have happened without that school. You have to remember that I came from so far north and there were no schools up there."

But for saying pretty much what I have written above, Lynn Beyak has been suspended from Canada's Senate.

I guess Tomson is also a racist idiot

Actually, I seem to remember a Native Chief not too long ago who demonized Jews but didn't suffer any sanctions.  There really is a double standard for some groups as Muslims and Natives seem to be sacrosanct, any criticism is deemed racist.

Edited by scribblet

Share this post


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...