I couldn't see the thing you posted but I assume it was from his new series on Netflix. Whereas Netflix has removed the part which explains real science from his old show explaining X and Y chromosomes.
No it's much much worse. I actually don't recommend you watch the video, ever.
Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.
Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11
I don’t even know where to begin.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
A 5'8" 155 lb transgender male is going to have massive physical advantages over a 5'8" 155 lb women. Anyone who's gone through puberty as a boy should be outlawed from all female competitive sports, I don't see any wiggle room here.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane_Flame
Who knows how the law can be interpreted. Calling someone by the pronouns I think are I should use may be considered inciting hate.
Exactly. Just like people are routinely prosecuted for using racial slurs in their day to day lives because that's inciting hate. Because that is what this bill covers, some random person speaking to another person on the street.
Who knows how the law can be interpreted? I would say all of the lawyers & courts who have dealt with this exact legislation for a huge number of groups already on the same list.
It adds a group to a list, it doesn't substantially change the interpretation enforcement, or spirit of the existing legislation.
But all that aside, even if it was illegal to call a trans woman "he", which it isn't. It doesn't change the fact that actively doing so, after the person has asked you to do otherwise, legality aside, is a dick move.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following User Says Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
If you talk to a transgender person and you aren't a jerk to them specifically because they are transgender, I think you're in the clear
For now. Who knows how far this stuff will go. I am all for violent crimes being considered hate crimes against the LGBTQ2 community. Leave speech out of it.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane_Flame
For now. Who knows how far this stuff will go. I am all for violent crimes being considered hate crimes against the LGBTQ2 community. Leave speech out of it.
Any particular reason you think hate speech against this particular community should be okay?
You've already stated explicitly that this bill will force you to change how you speak about this community, so the only logical conclusions are that you are either actively inciting hate against them (or genocide, it could be genocide), or you really don't understand what this bill does/is about.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Any particular reason you think hate speech against this particular community should be okay?
You've already stated explicitly that this bill will force you to change how you speak about this community, so the only logical conclusions are that you are either actively inciting hate against them (or genocide, it could be genocide), or you really don't understand what this bill does/is about.
Any particular reason you think hate speech against this particular community should be okay?
You've already stated explicitly that this bill will force you to change how you speak about this community, so the only logical conclusions are that you are either actively inciting hate against them (or genocide, it could be genocide), or you really don't understand what this bill does/is about.
I think people should be left to decide what they think is right and wrong. I never think over policing by our government is a good thing. it only leads to bad things. Let people spout their hate, we don't have to listen to it. I do not hate anybody, I just think there is a road you go down that leads to oppression when you police what ppl say. Despite what the media wants to paint our society as or the victimhood mentality that is so prevalent, we do live in a very inclusive country and anyone I have ever seen spout overtly hateful things have been condemned by the majority of people. You need to give people the opportunity to decide what is right and what is wrong. it is how ideas are exchanged and allows society to evolve organically. This outrage culture we live in nowadays only serves to feed the Alt-Right. And it completely closes off paths of communication. Our country has never been more inclusive yet is has also never been more divided.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
what
Considering the bill adds transgender people to the list of groups that are protected from speech inciting hate or genocide, I figured it would be hypocritical of me to assume he was going to incite hate. He could be advocating genocide.
This is of course assuming that he both:
a) Understands what C16 is/does
b) Is telling the truth when he says it will force him to change the way he speaks about/to transgender people (which he explicitly stated it would)
I mean, if either of those conditions aren't true, then it's entirely possible he neither incites hate or advocates genocide. I'll let him clear that up.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Who knows how the law can be interpreted? I would say all of the lawyers & courts who have dealt with this exact legislation for a huge number of groups already on the same list. It adds a group to a list, it doesn't substantially change the interpretation enforcement, or spirit of the existing legislation.
Chiming in from the legal side, I think there is a circumstance where it would necessarily have to be interpreted that way - i.e., to compel you to use someone's preferred pronoun for them. However, I don't think that interpretation would hold up constitutionally. As a result, I think for practical purposes, people should just read it the way you're already reading it, as adding a new entry to the list of "you cannot discriminate against the following groups of people".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane_Flame
I think people should be left to decide what they think is right and wrong. I never think over policing by our government is a good thing. it only leads to bad things. Let people spout their hate, we don't have to listen to it. I do not hate anybody, I just think there is a road you go down that leads to oppression when you police what ppl say. Despite what the media wants to paint our society as or the victimhood mentality that is so prevalent, we do live in a very inclusive country and anyone I have ever seen spout overtly hateful things have been condemned by the majority of people. You need to give people the opportunity to decide what is right and what is wrong. it is how ideas are exchanged and allows society to evolve organically. This outrage culture we live in nowadays only serves to feed the Alt-Right. And it completely closes off paths of communication. Our country has never been more inclusive yet is has also never been more divided.
So you're saying the jury is out on genocide, and we should let people advocate for the extermination of a race of people?
I think that question is pretty well answered. That's what C16 does, it adds another vulnerable group to the list of people who's extermination we are no longer allowed to actively advocate for. You think that's a path of communication we should leave open?
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 01-11-2018 at 01:15 PM.
Suggesting that the government shouldn't have laws against hate speech isn't actually a crazy proposition. Michael Chong included the repeal of those laws in his platform when he ran for CPC leader and he was for all intents and purposes accused of being a Liberal party member in disguise.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
