Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Scott Mayers

"HATE" crime legislation IS 'hate'-ful....

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Like your question I guess. Our justice system delivers just that, justice but I suspect critics see it as vengeance.

My reference to local natives stems from a local story I was told about a band hereabouts that wiped out the inhabitants of an entire neighbouring village,  every man woman and child. No survivors were allowed due to the tradition of vengeance. The reason for the conflict was to avenge the rape of a chiefs daughter.

I'm not sure which of the major groups in Mexican ancestry, the Mayans or the Aztecs, have had a 'culture' of human sacrifice. I'd like to see them demand a right to their tradition! :)

Share this post


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

There are no right wing political party's in Canada. But we do have plenty of alt-leftwing socialists/communists party's in Canada. I fear the alt-left political party's in Canada like the liberals and NDP socialists/communists party's because they tend to be more anti-freedom/freedom of speech and they all do push for more censorship. The Human Rights Commissions are a prime example of censorship. They seem to only go after what conservatives, Christians, straight white people and what they have to say or do and are willing to deny them their right to their opinions and points of view even if their opinions and points of view go about hurting some minorities sensitive hurt feelings. The people today that should be bitching are white people. They are always being made to look like a bunch of racists and haters. I always say that if white people are so racist and hate all non whites then why do the white people of Canada allow more non whites to immigrate to Canada rather than more white people immigrate to Canada? 

Many shows on TV and in many movies also white people are always being insulted, made to look bad, and always get beaten up by some non-white. But I do not run to the HRC and whine and cry about my hurt feelings and call for censorship. I just try and point these insults out to white people to try and make them wake the hell up. Lets put those white haters in Hollywood and the entertainment business out of business. It is the leftist liberal/socialists people who are the intolerant and bigoted and hater ones here. Conservatives are not the enemy. The leftist liberals/socialists/communists among our midst are the ones to fear and the enemy of conservatives and conservatism. They are the center right. :)  

I've lived in both here and the U.S. Many THINK we are more 'left-wing' socialists. The opposite is true. We are more 'conservative' because we demand conservation of the English Anglican and French Catholics (or intermixes of the two) with absolute priority. We have no law of actual 'freedom of speech' where we have hate-laws that are still way stronger than the U.S.. The concentration of wealth here is also more 'conserved'. "Communism" has never actually existed. It is an 'ideal' aim of Socialist Union countries that base voting THROUGH their direct fields. Like that workers of say a paper mill would elect their head supervisor among them, and they in turn among other people of the same level in other industries vote for a higher level and so on through 'unions'. The 'ideal' of communism is an 'anarchy' similar to right wing groups but where they hope that people would get to a point to voluntarily get along. THAT's the only real KINDS of problems with communist aimed governments. Right wing governments believe more in a right is MIGHT, at the strongest extreme, they too have an Anarchy concept: but it is based solely on FORCE of one's will over others by ANY MEANS necessary. This is 'barbaric' and non-concerning of 'democracy' in the least. So don't get on your high horse about those on the left. The "right" wing utilizes irrational bully religions because they want....DEMAND others obey their will with the idiotic claims that their 'gods' favor them by 'nature'. If you hold a right wing view, you lean towards an anarchy that favors only kings and queens, and powers ONLY GRANTED to those who 'own'. This is ant-democratic and worse than the socialist (pro-Communist) versions of similar extremes because at least the left has compassion... even if misplaced. But the problem among them is the relative selfishness that you get of 'groups' advocating in a similar extreme to the gun lobby, not something INTENDED by  the meaning of 'communal' as Communist refers to. 

Since the 'right' is only wanting to destroy a democratic power (power of the people equally) of management that 'government represents, the major interest of any form of 'government' by them is to be as 'police servants' to the fortune of those who own. If inheritance were actually out of the question, this MIGHT be fair where everyone could begin without 'ownership' and EARN it. But this is not the case. And it is why they prefer the extreme religions with Gods that Threaten people not to accept their unfortunate lot in life with a promise of reward in an afterlife should they remain obediently subservient to those 'owners'.

I agree with you on the unfair treatment of people that adds anger to people for being presumed 'well off' for being white when they aren't. The discrimination of laws that favor people based upon genetic roots (and associated 'cultures') are imposing a stereotype of not only those they specifically target as the prior benefactors and abusers, but they stereotype themselves and impose this upon others they think SHARE their struggle based on irrational qualities. A woman, for instance, doesn't require supporting a law that demands a default trust in any of their sex's accusation of men simply for being a woman. So the feminist who acts as though the 'advocate' for all women as though they all share the identical problem and view is itself vile stereotyping when it involves laws that treat the whole class, "women" as having a 'minority status.' 

Share this post


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

How does it matter whether one is at some place 'first'?

How does it matter? By the rule of law is how.  

Why does the rule of law matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, you seem to have an issue with religion. However, you over estimate the power of religion in Canada.  You seem to underestimate the horror of communism as it has been practiced. However, today is a glorious day for celebrating our blessings because of where we live. Happy Canada Day and to our American correspondents on this forum, Happy Independence Day!

 

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm not sure which of the major groups in Mexican ancestry, the Mayans or the Aztecs, have had a 'culture' of human sacrifice. I'd like to see them demand a right to their tradition! :)

We, the children of Britain, also have human sacrifice in our past. Ahhh, the good old days.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

We are all from the same Earth. How does it matter whether one is at some place 'first'?

You realize you're talking to someone who is an ultra-nationalist Turk who is delighted at her country's invasion and bombing of neighbouring countries, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2019 at 4:08 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

And yours is hypocritical, but what the heck, who really cares what we think. Happy Dominion Day. :D

There's nothing the least hypocritical about embracing the logic of self-interest. Your comment is something like "Well, we took over the natives' land, so it's only right for us to let others come and take over from us."

Share this post


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

lThere's nothing the least hypocritical about embracing the logic of self-interest. Your comment is something like "Well, we took over the natives' land, so it's only right for us to let others come and take over from us."

We have thrived because homo sapiens balance self interest with compassion for others from the Neanderthals at Shanidar  to the Marshall Plan and the military administration of Japan under General MacArthur. People will risk their lives for strangers and even animals. I've witnessed people give their coats to disadvantaged strangers in winter. Note to Scott: that is what religion strives to be about.

Edited by Queenmandy85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We have thrived because homo sapiens balance self interest with compassion for others from the Neanderthals at Shanidar  to the Marshall Plan and the military administration of Japan under General MacArthur. People will risk their lives for strangers and even animals. I've witnessed people give their coats to disadvantaged strangers in winter. Note to Scott: that is what religion strives to be about.

Yeah, that's crap. What we do is form tribes, and then protect ourselves and our territory, and attack our neighbours to get more. We did that for a hundred thousand years, and the strongest thrived while the weak fell by the wayside. The natives practiced the same thing, to a brutal degree, before we took over the land from them.

Letting large numbers of foreigners come here and set up colonies will not end any better for us than it did for the natives.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 12:31 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

If many people tell you that you are wrong, you are probably wrong.

In Canada, the Constitution guarantees you Freedom of Religion, unless the Quebec government invokes the not- withstanding -clause, or you are the Queen. Some women chose to cover their hair for the same reason most men cover their junk. I think I should challenge the Premier of Quebec to stop wearing pants if he wishes others to stop wearing a head scarf or a Kipa. 

Or maybe the policy or law is meant to be neutral for everyone....NO wearing of religious symbols period, be it that your white, brown, black, or purple....so it favors no one, nor does it decimate against any one religion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An well thought--out column about who exactly is pushing hate, and what that even means.

What was really wrong with Cooper’s point, though? We can debate the merits of mentioning the name of the Christchurch mosque attacker. But we can’t debate the validity of causally linking “conservative commentators” to mosque shootings without referencing the real motives of the attackers and, where their motives are in doubt, by researching the things they’ve written, said and done, and quoting their own words. If we want to understand these “recent tragedies,” and not use them merely to bolster our prejudices, we have to know and analyze what was said. This is normal. Historians must study Mein Kampf if they wish to thoroughly understand the causes of WWII. Nobody sensible believes that the mere act of reading Hitler makes one a committed Nazi.

Nor do we avoid using the name Marc Lepine or ban what he wrote about his motives for the École Polytechnique shooting in December 1989. On the contrary, we still remind ourselves of these things every December 6th – with leftist politicians in the forefront. We are not only allowed to mention the name “Anders Breivik”, the Norwegian who killed eight with a bomb and shot to death another 69, mostly youths, in 2011 – we can even read handily excerpted passages from his 1,500-page manifesto. The ravings of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, are published in book form – and even score a 90 percent “like” rating on Google!

https://c2cjournal.ca/2019/06/lookin-for-hate-in-all-the-wrong-places/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 7:13 AM, eyeball said:

How does it matter? By the rule of law is how.  

Why does the rule of law matter?

So if the 'first' person claims all of some territory and demands all others to pay a duty where they have no other FREE lands to choose from, that first person OWNS the land and the people (as slaves)? 

My point is about ownership and inheritances. No one has a 'right' to some claim regarding properties where these are defaulted essential to ALL people. Also those who expect it fair to BENEFIT from inheritance, has to accept the DEBTS too. That is, if it is alright to take the BEST qualities of one's ancestor's as stereotypes, they should require the NEGATIVE stereotypes. 

P.S. I don't know what it is with asserting "Rule of Law" as though it is something unique. In translation is means Rule of Rule or Law of Law, nothing more than saying that laws are what governments create. If merely being 'ruled by some law' is meaningful, then it doesn't matter who is in power to make the laws. That statement "Rule of Law" is thus without meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 8:02 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

Scott, you seem to have an issue with religion. However, you over estimate the power of religion in Canada.  You seem to underestimate the horror of communism as it has been practiced. However, today is a glorious day for celebrating our blessings because of where we live. Happy Canada Day and to our American correspondents on this forum, Happy Independence Day!

 

Yes. I have a problem with it when it is IN GOVERNMENT laws. The 'hate' laws are forms of religious ethics as they don't have any grounding to speak on behalf of each individual NOR the whole. The word is an 'emotional' one. Our system here is WAY MORE RELIGIOUS then the U.S. It is anti-free-speech and along with many of the other laws being put in place to 'protect' us, these laws prejudice classes of people for the sake of some other class and makes it offensive to those NOT in those protected classes. 

Who has a right to define behaviors  of speech as worthy of being considered immoral? Obviously the one speaking is begged to SHUT UP for having specific thoughts expressed by these laws. And while many involved in supporting these may not claim any religious association, they ARE being so because these kinds of laws are "blaspheme" laws based upon mere etiquette,. If it is okay to have religion in politics, then it is indifferent to WHICH religion it is because there will always be some who are certain to be abused at the expense of those IN those religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 8:24 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

We, the children of Britain, also have human sacrifice in our past. Ahhh, the good old days.:D

And there's your stereotype being imposed upon me. I am not your 'we'. I had no choice to be born here and do not have a right to claim some part of England if I had genetic roots from there. The point is about what 'cultural' attributes are considered 'good' or 'bad'. If you DEMAND OTHERS to see you the way you want, do it on your own time and space, ...not in conservative laws that dictate THAT we 'own' some homage to artificial irrelevant behaviors to ALL people individually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

So if the 'first' person claims all of some territory and demands all others to pay a duty where they have no other FREE lands to choose from, that first person OWNS the land and the people (as slaves)? 

No. Are you seriously suggesting our legal system would yield anything like what you've just described?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 11:56 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

We have thrived because homo sapiens balance self interest with compassion for others from the Neanderthals at Shanidar  to the Marshall Plan and the military administration of Japan under General MacArthur. People will risk their lives for strangers and even animals. I've witnessed people give their coats to disadvantaged strangers in winter. Note to Scott: that is what religion strives to be about.

WHICH religion? People's initial adaption of any morality comes from the individual as a child and is ONLY 'selfish' at that point. To repeat, though, I am NOT against people believing in anything. Religion derives as a reflection upon an afterlife and only takes on other characteristics of 'kindness' where it exists based upon some expectation about that afterlife. Thus it is ART and has no place in politics. [note that I'm FOR supporting museums and preserving historical things. But ONLY where we don't extend this to literal SPECIFIC people. ART is ALL OF OURS. No one person nor group OWNS any culture such that they require laws that make their cult PROPRIETARY. This goes against my FREE power to CHOOSE what beliefs or lifestyles I chose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No. Are you seriously suggesting our legal system would yield anything like what you've just described?

I'm saying KEEP your own religious beliefs about INTRINSIC factors about us regarding culture or religion OUT of politics because they are comparative to expecting science as an institute to favor 'alternative' religious-science views to play a essential role there. Legislating beliefs that are based ONLY upon some subset of people's beliefs regardless of concern to prove nor disprove is abusive where used in politics anywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QueenMandy85.  I believe you did not understand (as you admitted) what Scott Mayers was trying to explain.  He does not believe (nor do I) in a censorship group that goes far beyond what you were saying that they had censored.  Your conclusion that it is our society making these decisions is also false.  It is a small group of Reporters who do it for political and personal gain.  We have several voices in our society that need to be heard.  Don't confuse a person's beliefs with hate.  When violence does occur I can agree with you that there is no room for that, but that goes for both sides of an issue.  People can agree to disagree.  But hiding the truth and not letting people express themselves is very harmful.  It especially brainwashes the young.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an excellent example of how the liberals and their media pundits wildly exaggerate the level of 'hate crimes' . As we've seen, there are any number of progressives in Canada (and on this site) running around with their arms in the air screaming in horror at the rise in 'hate crimes'. All based on little to no real evidence.

A look through the data that has been made available from Seattle’s office of the City Auditor reveals that there is little basis for panic. First, most of the situations contained in the 500-plus documented incidents for 2018 turned out not to be hate crimes at all. Out of 521 confrontations or other incidents reported to the police at some point during the year, 181 (35 percent) were deemed insufficiently serious to qualify as crimes of any kind. Another 215 (41 percent) turned out to involve some minor element of bias (i.e., an ethnic slur used during a fight), but did not rise to the definition of hate crime. Only 125, or 24 percent, qualified as potential hate crimes—i.e., alleged “criminal incidents directly motivated by bias.” For purposes of comparison: There are 745,000 people living in Seattle, and 3.5-million in the metro area.

Indeed, if there is a single archetypal Seattle hate incident that emerges from this data, it would seem to involve a mentally ill homeless man yelling slurs at someone. According to the City Auditor, 22 percent of hate perps were “living unsheltered” at the time of their crime, 20 percent were mentally ill, and 20 percent were severely intoxicated.

https://quillette.com/2019/07/07/the-hate-crime-epidemic-that-never-was-a-seattle-case-study/

Share this post


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

This is an excellent example of how the liberals and their media pundits wildly exaggerate the level of 'hate crimes' . 

Blah blah blah.... Anyone else recall how cons and their pundits focused on every reported crime and declared how crime rates were far worse because the rate of unreported crimes was thru the roof?

Any reason to believe the number of unreported hate crimes is any different?

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to Stats Canada crime is up for the fourth year in a row. But hate crime is down. Led by a 50% decrease in hate crimes against Muslims.  So much for the lefties running around shrieking with their arms in the air, the noble (self appointed) protectors of Islam and Muslims who spent months crying and wringing their hands and making wild accusations here. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/police-reported-crime-statistics-canada-1.5219995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 5:33 AM, Scott Mayers said:

I don't have to agree to other group's opinions to know that they should have a right to a freedom to speak. I am extremely pissed at the present laws being PUSHED upon us non-democratically (other than the 'cult' as the minimal individual). Yesterday (June 27, 2019), CBC announced the new internet legislation telling us indirectly that the capacity of the polices here to IMPOSE REDIRECTION of our searches through Google by specifically targeting those who search for 'trigger searches' that tell us they KNOW what 'hate' is. This is VERY DANGEROUS to our DEMOCRACY!! It is itself a VIOLENT LAW and those proposing it ARE NECESSARILY the 'haters' by DEFINING their political counter-opinions they approve of to be treated as extreme  criminals. 

Now while this may be considered 'good' by some, I assure you that when we have increasing 'MODERATION" of our own 'free speech' (like at the CBC's forums that hide and protect their secret censors of their own POLITICAL anti-democratic impositions), we are DOOMED in MORE than any concern of terrorism. In fact, this only AMPLIFIES it as it PROVES to those being 'criminalized' that their IS a 'conspiracy' of 'hate' with specific INTEREST groups. These groups are religious in nature themselves (even under potential denial) because they impose that WE THE PEOPLE should default some FAITH in some specific humans as 'superior' to others. 

Also, they are giving policing a power here of 'superior' judges by enabling them to decide what OUR rights are of 'privacy' and 'freedom'. 

 

Today, the news added more proof of the counter-hate evidence of this behavior by targeting some Nationalist group (Canadian Nationalist Party). What is ironic is THAT the thinking of these arrogant extremists making these laws ARE NATIONALISTS. Just because it is composed of different cults of SOME subset of competing groups, they ALL agree to 'disagree' with individual differences while they are not directly in power. But collectively, these actual HATE groups are constituted here to with such power and momentum that they are doing completely the opposite of the American means at every step of whistleblowers there regarding privacy and anti-free speech.: For every new realization of the American public about abuses of independent powers in policing or present government opportunists, we are CREATING means to spy and harm our 'citizens' here!

 

Like I said, I don't agree with certain views. But the way these laws and behaviors of other issues of our governments are making me concerned about these arrogant idiots in power imposing MORE anti-democratic laws. All parties here are 'conservatives' of just different subsets: so now even the NDP lacks concern for individual democracy. I don't know what we can do...but the way things are, the parties here are acting worse than the very Chinese by our own HIDDEN means to CENSOR our communications. 

 

I wish others here would get involved and try to overrule this danger. I already know that what HAS been done already limits us here from seeing much of the Internet we saw only ten years ago. And it IS of a select subset of religiously-propagated groups that operate as though they are 'democratically' shared of us all. 

 

We need to redress our Constitution and the SELECT 'supremist' groups being empowered by it to be disempowered if they continue to do this without OUR CONSENT! Is there any hope?

In Canada it is a Criminal Code offence to kill anyone. Thou shalt not kill. Whether a person kills someone for whatever reason they have or kills someone maybe out of hatred for that person it is still a killing. So should they be charged with a hate crime killing? No. They need to be charged for murder. Period. Whether hate or not was involved should not be the issue. Killing someone is still murder and murder is an offence against the Criminal code of Canada. More hate laws will not change that. 

As far as I am concerned the hate laws are there to try to shut down and violate conservative, Christian and straight people's rights to their freedom of expression and their right to their opinions and points of view that leftist liberals like Trudeau do not agree with. Now that is a real hate crime. 

Share this post


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

So according to Stats Canada crime is up for the fourth year in a row. But hate crime is down. Led by a 50% decrease in hate crimes against Muslims.  So much for the lefties running around shrieking with their arms in the air, the noble (self appointed) protectors of Islam and Muslims who spent months crying and wringing their hands and making wild accusations here.

Actually you can thank lefties for wisely spotlighting Islamophobia and causing borderline racists who might subscribe to the crazy Islamophobes to think twice about committing hate crimes - or running around shrieking with their arms in the air like ignoble (self aggrandizing) sphincters, many of whom will probably spend the rest of their miserable and hopefully short lives crying, wringing their hands and making hateful accusations here.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So according to Stats Canada crime is up for the fourth year in a row. But hate crime is down. Led by a 50% decrease in hate crimes against Muslims.  So much for the lefties running around shrieking with their arms in the air, the noble (self appointed) protectors of Islam and Muslims who spent months crying and wringing their hands and making wild accusations here. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/police-reported-crime-statistics-canada-1.5219995

Increase in crime mostly due to online fraud, and "some" sexual assaults.  Perhaps more people are reporting the "groping" type of sexual assault due to the pussy-grabber next door.

Homicide is down, good news.  

Hate crimes down, more good news.  No doubt due to widespread condemnation of racist and Islamophobic attitudes and videos shaming those who hurl abuse at people based on skin-color or mode of dress.

I hope declines continue and politicians have to stop stoking "fear of others" as part of their campaigns.

 

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...