Canadian House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52006159]but that doesn't mean that dissenting and critical speech should be strangled[/QUOTE] stop putting words in my mouth lmao. I was responding to the fact that pantz thinks violence is the only sacred line to be crossed. What about bullying?

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;52006145]You're basically saying "why should society tolerate assholes hurting peoples feelings".[/QUOTE] but spreading a message of hate towards a specific group of people has led to violence against that group of people in the past. its more than just hurting peoples feelings because its been observed that hate speech leads to violent acts of hate.

If it's ok to be a bigot does that mean it's also ok to be a bully and to bully people as long as it's verbal?

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006164]If you think there is no bridge between advocating violence and the escalation of violence then holy fuck what kind of world do you live in. It doesn't even have to be specifically people being convinced that they should attack a specific group of people and doing so. It can be people from that group feeling more and more threatened leading to erratic, irrational actions and violence and more crime. It works both ways. Here's a practical situation in which the advocating of violence as well as the systemic alienation of a minority lead to crime. The FN (France's leading far right wing party, which openly promotes xenophobia) organizes the same demonstration every year at the same location, pushing a "pro-french" rally and following the whole "France to the French" slogan. This is notably done on a day that used to celebrate Joan of Arc, something many people really didn't like because it took a national figure and degenerated it into a symbol of raving xenophobia. In 1995, the protesters who were doing the usual "France to the French, get everyone out" routine, started to harass a Moroccan bystander and pushed him into the Seine river, where he drowned. [I]It's almost like allowing people to say the same hateful shit over and over again leads to them actually harboring stronger and stronger resentment leading to harassment leading to violence, crime and death.[/I][/QUOTE] That is just thought and word policing for a what if scenario. I'd rather enshrine freedom of speech than your vision of what to do.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52006170]stop putting words in my mouth lmao. I was responding to the fact that pantz thinks violence is the only sacred line to be crossed. What about bullying?[/QUOTE] it is, bullying is rude, and should be discussed but not made illegal

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006172]but spreading a message of hate towards a specific group of people has led to violence against that group of people in the past. its more than just hurting peoples feelings because its been observed that hate speech leads to violent acts of hate.[/QUOTE] That's why inciting violence should be illegal and voicing your hate for a group shouldn't. You cant hold a person accountable for the way other people react if you're not inciting violence or making threats.

[QUOTE=Aman;52006158]People contract mental illnesses by someone being mean to them or saying hateful things to them? huh? I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this.[/QUOTE] Maybe yeah? People have serious anxiety and depression from being bullied so hard when they were little, are you being grossly naive on purpose?

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;52006173]If it's ok to be a bigot does that mean it's also ok to be a bully and to bully people as long as it's verbal?[/QUOTE] It's not "okay", its not[I] illegal [/I]. Cheating on your girlfriend isn't illegal, that doesn't mean its okay and accepted.

[QUOTE=Aman;52006174]That is just thought and word policing for [B]a what if scenario[/B]. I'd rather enshrine freedom of speech than your vision of what to do.[/QUOTE] The fuck do you mean a "what if scenario" ? Someone was literally killed. Like, I didn't make this shit up, people [I]died[/I] as a result. This is an actual practical consequence.

[QUOTE=Aman;52006180]It's not "okay", its not[I] illegal [/I]. Cheating on your girlfriend isn't illegal, that doesn't mean its okay and accepted.[/QUOTE] THANK YOU. We aren't arguing that it is morally perfect, we are arguing that it is not terrible enough to warrant outlawing and that the outlawing causes greater issues

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52006167]1) You'll help legitimize their hatred by criminalizing it 2) Slippery slope leading to broader regulations of speech 3) Ironic as it sounds, it goes against classical liberal philosophy[/QUOTE] 1) it wont legitamize their hatred because their hatred it illogical to begin with 2) isnt this a logical fallacy or something. just because x happens doesnt mean y will happen. 3) idk what this has to do with anything. i never claimed to be a liberal.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006184]The fuck do you mean a "what if scenario" ? Someone was literally killed. Like, I didn't make this shit up, people [I]died[/I] as a result. This is an actual practical consequence.[/QUOTE] I mean a what if scenario cause that's literally what you are arguing for the future

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52006176]it is, bullying is rude, and should be discussed but not made illegal[/QUOTE] but dude I didn't say that haha. I'm saying the idea that words have no consequence is dumb as fuck.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006114]why should we as a society tolerate somebody's hate towards a religious group, what good does that bring to the world?[/QUOTE] that's a good question. but why can't we as a society tolerate other peoples hateful opinions? or just accept that they have them? you can go ahead and immediately dismiss any opinion you find to be distasteful or harmful or you can try and educate those with hateful opinions and convince them to see a different viewpoint. but imagine if it became illegal, by law, to criticize islam, or any religion, in a western society. why is this okay? i for one don't believe we should tolerate a religious concept that strips rights away from any person, such as sharia law on women. would this opinion be "islamaphobic"? honest question.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;52006173]If it's ok to be a bigot does that mean it's also ok to be a bully and to bully people as long as it's verbal?[/QUOTE] That would be harassment, if you're just yelling random Islamophobic shit at the Sikh guy exiting the clock shop. Saying you hate a group and whatnot is tolerable, just don't harass people.

[QUOTE=Aman;52006192]I mean a what if scenario cause that's literally what you are arguing for the future[/QUOTE] No I'm arguing that the present situation calls for these measures because it has been a practical problem for a long time now. I don't give a shit what people may do in ten years time. I give a shit what they're doing [I]now[/I]. By now it's become obvious that the more you let people spread hateful ideas freely the more social tensions it creates, and it's really easy for those things to fester and turn to violence if left unchecked.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;52006178]That's why inciting violence should be illegal and voicing your hate for a group shouldn't. You cant hold a person accountable for the way other people react if you're not inciting violence or making threats.[/QUOTE] theres some big examples in history that illustrate, hate speech leads to acts of hate. why let get to that point before doing something

Are people here surely arguing about the same definition of hate speech laws as everyone else?

Hate is also subjective. How do you objectively define hate in a way that can be applied blindly across society? In the end there is always a subjective claim, no matter how narrowly you define it.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006184]The fuck do you mean a "what if scenario" ? Someone was literally killed. Like, I didn't make this shit up, people [I]died[/I] as a result. This is an actual practical consequence.[/QUOTE] They didn't die as a result of anything, they died in your example because someone murdered them by pushing them into a river. Thats like someone on 4chan saying "Liberals are fucking stupid and I hate them" then having someone read that message and then go out and shoot a bunch of people at a local liberal convention. Are you going to hold the guy on 4chan responsible for violence for voicing his opinion even though he wasn't inciting violence or the wacko who went out and shot up a bunch of people? You're essentially trying to police thoughts and peoples opinions if what you're banning has nothing to do with directly preventing crime from happening.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006204]and it's really easy for those things to fester and turn to violence if left unchecked.[/QUOTE] so, what do you think should be done? should we clamp it down by restricting speech, or should we take measures to educate? restriction would be like tightening your grip on a balloon. eventually it's going to pop.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;52006212]Hate is also subjective. How do you objectively define hate in a way that can be applied blindly across society? In the end there is always a subjective claim, no matter how narrowly you define it.[/QUOTE] The systematic targeting of a clearly defined group of individuals segregated based on an established criteria, calling for extraordinary action or treatment to be undertaken that would lead to the practical endangerment of their liberties, human rights and equal treatment. [editline]24th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=TheJoey;52006222]so, what do you think should be done? should we clamp it down by restricting speech, or should we take measures to educate? restriction would be like tightening your grip on a balloon. eventually it's going to pop.[/QUOTE] You clamp it down to mitigate and manage crime while simultaneously taking better measures to educate. They're not mutually exclusive and there's no reason why doing one would prevent the other.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006229]calling for extraordinary action or treatment to be undertaken that would lead to the practical endangerment of their liberties, human rights and equal treatment. [/QUOTE] That's a threat in other words, which is already illegal.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52006198]that's a good question. but why can't we as a society tolerate other peoples hateful opinions? or just accept that they have them? you can go ahead and immediately dismiss any opinion you find to be distasteful or harmful or you can try and educate those with hateful opinions and convince them to see a different viewpoint. but imagine if it became illegal, by law, to criticize islam, or any religion, in a western society. why is this okay? i for one don't believe we should tolerate a religious concept that strips rights away from any person, such as sharia law on women. would this opinion be "islamaphobic"? honest question.[/QUOTE] the concept of tolerating hateful intolerance is dumb. we can accept people have awful opinions, but when theyre speaking out about them, its transmitting that message to others. telling people they can't go around saying "i hate muslims/jews/blacks" doesnt exempt you from pursuing the options of dismissing the opinion and trying to educate the person either. in fact i reccomend those thigns as well. i never said a law prohibiting criticism of religion would be okay. that wouldnt be okay. and no, believing sharia law is bad isnt islamaphobic.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;52006239]That's a threat in other words, which is already illegal.[/QUOTE] It doesn't literally threaten with the forceful execution of those things, it promotes the overall concept as the proper ideology to adopt, which in turn makes people feel unaccepted or threatened because if enough people push an ideology, its chances of being adopted increases accordingly.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006229]The systematic targeting of a clearly defined group of individuals segregated based on an established criteria, calling for extraordinary action or treatment to be undertaken that would lead to the practical endangerment of their liberties, human rights and equal treatment.[/QUOTE] this is already illegal though? [quote]and no, believing sharia law is bad isnt islamaphobic. [/quote] says you, though. let's say you were a politician counting real hard on getting elected next year based on a large number of votes from a specific group of people that believe it IS islamaphobic. you'd probably think differently.

[QUOTE=Killer monkey;52005923]It's really weird how uncomfortable I get when foreigners talk about my country's politics. Do Americans feel like this a lot?[/QUOTE] We're kind of on the world stage, so I'm used to it. Others might not even be aware that people from out of country are watching what happens here. I'd just like to add that I don't live in Canada, so I don't really feel qualified to weigh in on this motion. You guys know your country best.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006229]The systematic targeting of a clearly defined group of individuals segregated based on an established criteria, calling for extraordinary action or treatment to be undertaken that would lead to the practical endangerment of their liberties, human rights and equal treatment.[/QUOTE] Saying "I hate niggers" doesn't even fall under this definition then. And a lot of that would still be subjective. What is considere "extraordinary"? And how does this differ significantly from criminal conspiracy?

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52006252]this is already illegal though? says you, though. let's say you were a politician counting real hard on getting elected next year based on a large number of votes from a specific group of people that believe it IS islamaphobic. you'd probably think differently.[/QUOTE] ok?

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006249]It doesn't literally threaten with the forceful execution of those things, it promotes the overall concept as the proper ideology to adopt, which in turn makes people feel unaccepted or threatened because if enough people push an ideology, its chances of being adopted increases accordingly.[/QUOTE] this is the bad we have to take with the good when it comes to free speech.