Canadian House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52006645]When people cannot speak freely, they act in secrecy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=orcywoo6;52006611]Everything I don't agree with is hate speech or Nazi, ban it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52006685]1) It will legitimize their hatred to themselves, I should have explained that better. If they are legally forced underground they will feel like martyrs against the state which would create a thought bubble to help radicalize their thoughts further. 2) That's true, but wouldn't that also make hate speech leading to further discrimination the same fallacy? 3) Classical liberalism is the pedestal for the pillar of constitution that all free societies follow. So yes I amused you had those values, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone here who doesn't.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52006689]I thought there were already anti discrimination laws in this country. Why does there absolutely need to be a special one that applies to discrimination against Muslims? Why can it not just a be a blanket law that covers discrimination against all religions?[/QUOTE] See what you have done autismopiggo. You have fucked the discussion from the get-go by calling it a law rather than "a motion condemning islamophobia and other forms of racism followed by a study into what causes racism". The title should've been Canada passes motion condemning islamophobia.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006189]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] 1) It will legitimize their hatred to themselves, I should have explained that better. If they are legally forced underground they will feel like martyrs against the state which would create a thought bubble to help radicalize their thoughts further. 2) That's true, but wouldn't that also make hate speech leading to further discrimination the same fallacy? 3) Classical liberalism is the pedestal for the pillar of constitution that all free societies follow. So yes I amused you had those values, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone here who doesn't.

I thought there were already anti discrimination laws in this country. Why does there absolutely need to be a special one that applies to discrimination against Muslims? Why can it not just a be a blanket law that covers discrimination against all religions?

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52006620]I think it should go as follows; saying "I hate niggers" anywhere you want - fine saying "I hate niggers and also [I]go kill them[/I]" - hate crime for advocating violence beating the shit out of a black guy with racial motivations - definitely a hate crime I don't think taking away the ability to publicly hate a group would do much good. In this country you'd probably see KKK membership skyrocket[/QUOTE] Basically this.

The loudest denouncers of hate speech laws are inevitably the ones least affected by hate speech.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52006781]The loudest denouncers of hate speech laws are inevitably the ones least affected by hate speech.[/QUOTE] It's cowardly and useless to make this a personal, motive, issue instead of addressing the actual arguments being presented.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;52006153]Your views are mentally harmful to me. Stop posting immediately. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Rude and unnecessary, was given last chance" - icemaz))[/highlight][/QUOTE] [URL="http://i.imgur.com/sP7dL8J.png"]"The mods are AFTER MEEEE"[/URL] [QUOTE=ZakkShock;52005983]Why can't we just be excellent to one another[/QUOTE] People suck too much for that sadly [QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52006167] 2) Slippery slope leading to broader regulations of speech[/QUOTE] I mean, I'm not really sure about that the border lies where the border is set [QUOTE=01271;52006684]See what you have done autismopiggo. You have fucked the discussion from the get-go by calling it a law rather than "a motion condemning islamophobia and other forms of racism followed by a study into what causes racism". The title should've been Canada passes motion condemning islamophobia.[/QUOTE] It's good to argue as if it were a law regardless because the implications are pretty huge

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52006781]The loudest denouncers of hate speech laws are inevitably the ones least affected by hate speech.[/QUOTE] The mentally ill are one of the most ostracized groups almost anywhere, I know what it's like being told that I'm insane and/or a waste of space. Making it illegal for them to say mean things won't help jack shit, the reasons that have lead them to hate me are still there.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52006859]It's cowardly and useless to make this a personal, motive, issue instead of addressing the actual arguments being presented.[/QUOTE] Not really, a big requirement of being a respectable and responsible statesman/policymaker is to be able to put oneself into other's shoes. I mean if I were just thinking of myself, we could get rid of anti-racial discrimination laws easily. I'm a white dude in a pretty white area where the wealthy people tend to be white, so I'LL turn out just fine. [QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52006881]The mentally ill are one of the most ostracized groups almost anywhere, I know what it's like being told that I'm insane and/or a waste of space. Making it illegal for them to say mean things won't help jack shit, the reasons that have lead them to hate me are still there.[/QUOTE] You know you can still say mean things with hate speech laws.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52006920]Not really, a big requirement of being a respectable and responsible statesman/policymaker is to be able to put oneself into other's shoes. I mean if I were just thinking of myself, we could get rid of racial discrimination laws. I'm a white dude in a pretty white area where the wealthy people tend to be white, so I'LL turn out just fine.[/QUOTE] His statements was an ad hominem. People have presented arguments and he dismissed them by attacking the person behind the argument. You're saying the equivalent of, "You are not part of X group, therefore you are not able to contribute to the discussion." That's a fundamentally flawed and often bigoted opinion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52006931]His statements was an ad hominem. People have presented arguments and he dismissed them by attacking the person behind the argument. You're saying the equivalent of, "You are not part of X group, therefore you are not able to contribute to the discussion." That's a fundamentally flawed and often bigoted opinion.[/QUOTE] So, motives are not a reasonable thing to consider over a topic like this, which is a topic not really based on fact but instead ethics and justice? And headhumpy didn't say that you can't contribute. Just that there might be reasons behind certain people tending towards certain opinions.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52006881]The mentally ill are one of the most ostracized groups almost anywhere, I know what it's like being told that I'm insane and/or a waste of space. Making it illegal for them to say mean things won't help jack shit, the reasons that have lead them to hate me are still there.[/QUOTE] it sends a message that such ideas are not tolerated in society, which shockingly has the effect of decreasing the number of people subscribing to those ideas

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52006942]So, motives are not a reasonable thing to consider over a topic like this, which is a topic not really based on fact but instead ethics and justice?[/QUOTE] You're question is basically, "So, ad hominems are not a reasonable thing to use in an argument?" No, of course not. Going after a person's hidden motivations instead of addressing their presented argument is inherently unreasonable.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52006931]His statements was an ad hominem. People have presented arguments and he dismissed them by attacking the person behind the argument. You're saying the equivalent of, "You are not part of X group, therefore you are not able to contribute to the discussion." That's a fundamentally flawed and often bigoted opinion.[/QUOTE] my point was that the people who are shielded from hate speech don't actually know what it's like to be on the receiving end of it, and therefore should probably listen to those who do before going off on how free speech is the best thing since sliced bread.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52006945]it sends a message that such ideas are not tolerated in society, which shockingly has the effect of decreasing the number of people subscribing to those ideas[/QUOTE] When you say "ideas," do you actually mean ideas, or do you mean the presentation of those ideas? I fundamentally disagree with the idea that society doesn't tolerate ideas, in and of themselves. Society tolerates all ideas. To say otherwise would be an argument for literal thought crime.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52006920]You know you can still say mean things with hate speech laws.[/QUOTE] I guess I have the wrong definition of hate speech. [QUOTE=Headhumpy;52006945]it sends a message that such ideas are not tolerated in society, which shockingly has the effect of decreasing the number of people subscribing to those ideas[/QUOTE] Do you have any examples on this?

What a pointless motion. It just comes across as "doing a lot, but really doing nothing at all".

[QUOTE=sgman91;52006949]You're question is basically, "So, ad hominems are not a reasonable thing to use in an argument?" No, of course not. Going after a person's hidden motivations instead of addressing their presented argument is inherently unreasonable.[/QUOTE] Not entirely, it's not fallacious if it's relevant. This is why it's important to remember what kind of issue this is, which is a social justice issue. It's important in those cases to carefully make clear who's trying to gain, and who's trying to avoid any loss, to aid in coming to a reasonable balanced conclusion. And I mean just skimming the thread you haven't really provided an argument, and all I see is fear-mongering, slippery slopes, and misunderstandings on what "hate speech" means.

If I went into south central LA/Urban Detroit and started screaming at the top of my lungs " Fuck niggers, niggers are the lowest of the low" or if I was black and went into a rural Texan community and started screaming " All crackers are child rapists" and could walk away from both with zero consequences is pretty bad to be honest. Both those actions cause harm to society and breed radical views. It divides communities and causes problems all round. That shouldn't be protected because it's a objectively bad thing for society and isn't some rational thought. Free speech should protect you and let you criticize people, organizations, ideas and so on. It shouldn't let you be a racist cunt who's goal to cause nothing but trouble. I can't walk down the road naked despite it causing no physical harm or major emotional issues, why can I poison my local community with hate? It's not right.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52007032]Not entirely, it's not fallacious if it's relevant. [/QUOTE] You seem to be saying that ad hominems are perfectly fine, as long as you think it's relevant. The whole point of fallacies like the ad hominem is that they aren't relevant when addressing an argument. The same argument could be made by anyone, including a minority. This means that the argument stands on it's own and doesn't rise or fall based on the person making the argument. To attack the person, and not the argument, is inherently not relevant and fallacious.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52007050]You seem to be saying that ad hominems are perfectly fine, as long as you think it's relevant. The whole point of fallacies like the ad hominem is that they aren't relevant when addressing an argument. The same argument could be made by anyone, including a minority. This means that the argument stands on it's own and doesn't rise or fall based on the person making the argument. To attack the person, and not the argument, is inherently not relevant and fallacious.[/QUOTE] it's not an ad hominem?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52007050]You seem to be saying that ad hominems are perfectly fine, as long as you think it's relevant. The whole point of fallacies like the ad hominem is that they aren't relevant when addressing an argument. The same argument could be made by anyone, including a minority. This means that the argument stands on it's own and doesn't rise or fall based on the person making the argument. To attack the person, and not the argument, is inherently not relevant and fallacious.[/QUOTE] Credibility is not a useless thing. But even if I just take what you say as absolutely being true and that a person NEVER matters. I just have to switch the wording a bit and have a similar argument that many of the negative responses in this thread are just flat dismissive. Whew that was difficult.

People forget that the nazis got into power LEGALLY. People say only fight back once actual harm is being done, but the nazis only did harm when they basically controlled the state.

I will say that the lack of a definition for Islamophobia is unsettling. It's a term I really hate because it's pretty broad unless you give a specific definition. What it really means is irrational hatred or fear, so while you might hate islam, you don't have to think that inviting muzzies in = literal genocidal death of the west holy fuck shariah law is coming guys. But, if you're talking shit about islam, someone might confuse you as being islamophobic, which sux.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52007037]If I went into south central LA/Urban Detroit and started screaming at the top of my lungs " Fuck niggers, niggers are the lowest of the low" or if I was black and went into a rural Texan community and started screaming " All crackers are child rapists" and could walk away from both with zero consequences is pretty bad to be honest. Both those actions cause harm to society and breed radical views. It divides communities and causes problems all round. That shouldn't be protected because it's a objectively bad thing for society and isn't some rational thought. Free speech should protect you and let you criticize people, organizations, ideas and so on. It shouldn't let you be a racist cunt who's goal to cause nothing but trouble. I can't walk down the road naked despite it causing no physical harm or major emotional issues, why can I poison my local community with hate? It's not right.[/QUOTE] It's not right and if you did any of those things you would get your ass beat. The laws we have should reflect the reality we have while respecting peoples rights. In the real world you shouldn't be afraid of someone running around detroit screaming "fuck niggers I hate them" because you know they're going to get shit for it and it has literally no effect on you. Your freedom to express ideas and views that people may disagree with is more important than protecting people from that one crazy guy running around detroit starting lynch mobs screaming "fuck niggers I hate em". For all those other hate groups out there you have to accept people will hold those views and opinions no matter what laws you make or what thought crimes you can come up with. At the end of the day the only way to enact positive change is still through education. Fear and ignorance breeds hate without malice.

To be fair Nazism is an idea, and a lot of people here would agree that it should be illegal to hold are share those ideas. I don't, and this is why. If your society has a potentially harmful idea that is quickly spreading, you need to find out why. Hateful ideas don't spread just 'cus, there is always a reason why a certain group has become a scapegoat, it means something is amiss. Don't get me wrong - it is never the victim's fault; but there is a problem with the society and it never starts with saying "Jews have no place righting legislation in the Reichstag". Hateful and discriminatory speech is always the symptom, never the cause. The cause is usually due to poor education and even lack of interaction with said group caused by an already established prejudice. Here is a common one: Jews are greedy. Why are they "greedy"? Are they actually greedy, or are they just good at swindling (not all would swindle, but disproportionate enough to cause a stereotype) likely because they were barred from taking up any respected profession therefore would end up viewing the world of Christendom around them as being judgmental, untrustworthy and almost inhuman, which may allow some to swindle Christians without feeling all that bad for doing so. Because after all they hate us! And the ironic thing about all this is Christendom treated the Jewish diaspora as second class citizens, as stated earlier, which has lead to this dangerous feedback loop that has eventually lead to multiple pogroms, inquisitions and even genocide. Hateful speech is ALWAYS the symptom, NEVER the cause. banning it only makes the problem less easily visible but no less dangerous (in fact maybe even more so). You have almost everything to gain by allowing people to say what they want outside of threats and outright harassment. You should allow an open forum for people to discuss and debate their ideas no matter how dangerous they are or appear to be, if you are only allowed to say what the majority of society believes is right to say, and this applies to everything, you will create a large underground bubble that will only get larger and will eventually pop when large enough. You eradicate hate through public discourse, not by making these ideas forbidden to say. Give every group and idea a platform to be heard, and in the end the best and most clear voice will shine through. Hitler rose to Chancellery because people were divided and unwilling to listen to one another, citing the other side(s) as evil. The Nazi Party won their plurality due to a growing underground idea that would have disappeared as soon as it came up if only everyone was level-headed and listened to one another (and this definitely includes those with prejudice! Allow them to speak their true thoughts to those they despise!).

[QUOTE=AutismoPiggo;52005862][B]THIS.[/B] The law would have been amazing if they hadn't refused to include other religions/beliefs in it. Its very clearly biased. [editline]24th March 2017[/editline] Good thing it still includes the others tho[/QUOTE] The wording is there because islamophobia is the biggest problem in our country regarding discrimination. [editline]24th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52007111]I will say that the lack of a definition for Islamophobia is unsettling. It's a term I really hate because it's pretty broad unless you give a specific definition. What it really means is irrational hatred or fear, so while you might hate islam, you don't have to think that inviting muzzies in = literal genocidal death of the west holy fuck shariah law is coming guys. But, if you're talking shit about islam, someone might confuse you as being islamophobic, which sux.[/QUOTE] Islamophobia - think anti-semitism but with islam.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52007224]The wording is there because islamophobia is the biggest problem in our country regarding discrimination. [editline]24th March 2017[/editline] Islamophobia - think anti-semitism but with islam.[/QUOTE] Is it? I know Jews still have more hate crime directed at them in the US.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52006139]'Sticks and stones' hasn't been relevant since it became apparent that things can be mentally harmful as well as physically harmful.[/QUOTE] ~~Sticks and stones may break your bones, and words will break your heart~~ [editline]24th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52007232]Is it? I know Jews still have more hate crime directed at them in the US.[/QUOTE] I'm Canadian.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52007236]I'm Canadian.[/QUOTE] Yes, I know that. My question is whether Canada has different stats than the US. Usually, the same trends apply to both. Are there actually more hate crimes directed at Islamic peoples than at Jews in Canada?