Racism in Canada (split from A Deeply Fractured US)
- Thread starter jacksparrow
- Start date
Weinie said:
No? You feel you should be free to threaten, to defame, to incite, without legal sanction? On mulling it further I thought of another couple of criminalized instances of expression: Filing false police reports (Public Mischief, S.140 CC) and Perjury (S.131 CC). Also very reasonable instances in which freedom of expression is not absolute.
Don't forget, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms starts with S.1, the 'reasonable limitations' clause. "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." So, built right into our constitutional rights document is a recognition that the reality of human interactions with each other and the State is such that there will need to be limits- the old cliche of screaming 'fire' in a crowded theatre, etc. We have quite considerable freedoms, and a pretty rigorous system to protect them. But there is no blanket freedom to say whatever you want free from consequence if it transgresses something serious enough that the legislature has passed law and which law has survived Charter challenge.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
Even without Section 1, no right or freedom is absolute: One person's freedoms or rights stops where another's start and the courts, even without government involvement in the case, will strive to strike a proper balance between competing rights and freedoms.
Just to give a for instance: We have freedom of religion on one side and the right to life and safety of the person on the other. Yet, a muslim could not kill another muslim in Canada because he blasphemed the prophet. It is still murder and they (well, he, because the second muslim would have a hard time indicating he agreed to it on religious grounds) cannot claim their freedom of religion as a valid defence.
Same hing happens, under common law no less (it's not in the Canadian Charter, though it is found in many provincial Charters of rights), for the right to one's reputation where it conflicts with freedom of expression, thus we have defamation laws - which BTW every country in the world has regardless of the strength of their "freedom of speech". This last part is proof enough that nowhere on the planet are any rights or freedom absolute.
Just to give a for instance: We have freedom of religion on one side and the right to life and safety of the person on the other. Yet, a muslim could not kill another muslim in Canada because he blasphemed the prophet. It is still murder and they (well, he, because the second muslim would have a hard time indicating he agreed to it on religious grounds) cannot claim their freedom of religion as a valid defence.
Same hing happens, under common law no less (it's not in the Canadian Charter, though it is found in many provincial Charters of rights), for the right to one's reputation where it conflicts with freedom of expression, thus we have defamation laws - which BTW every country in the world has regardless of the strength of their "freedom of speech". This last part is proof enough that nowhere on the planet are any rights or freedom absolute.
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,518
- Points
- 1,140
My thinking was more along the lines of "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an *** of yourself. - Oscar Wilde." The public humiliation, scorn, and contempt so engendered, is to my mind, the real defender/arbiter of freedom of expression, and defines what is, and is not, acceptable in a society. And, it allows for the evolution of thought. What was acceptable thought in 1900 is sometimes acceptable today, other thinking from that period has been ridiculed and discarded. That some of it has been codified into law is both understandable, and frightening. Societies collectively should determine what is acceptable freedom of expression, a state, or government, even one democratically elected, goes there at their (and our) peril.
Now here's a problem. CTV is carrying a story out of WG where U.S. military dependants have been targeted because of a) COVID19 and b) their American license plates and told to go back from whence they came. By the logic expressed in this string, this situation should be addressed as a hate crime or as being racist or perhaps that only applies when the skin is a different colour?
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 925
- Points
- 1,160
YZT580 said:
"WG"??
Don't forget there was some very unfavourable press reports about Americans who entered Canada in order to transit to Alaska, and then were observed or apprehended in various locations not on a direct route to that state. Could there be a relationship, partial or not, here?
And there is a definite correlation between the attitude towards the Alaskan transients and the WG situation and that I believe can be attributed to fear and the uncertainty created by the quarantines. People are reaching their limits and are reacting in ways that they would normally never consider. It is the same emotional instability found road rage. They are looking for their own safe space and can't find it. You have the social breakdown in the US and the news reports that have thousands (exaggeration) rioting and then dying in the streets. Every American is infected with COVID so get them out of our safe place. COVID originated in China so every person of oriental appearance is infected so send them back to China. IMHO we are experiencing a break down of all our social norms. and we are going to witness more and more people lashing out. Suicide rates will likely increase as will marital breakdowns, family assaults and the like. If we could get it off the 6:00 news it would certainly help. Having the PM standing up pontificating every day contributes immensely. (also the other political leaders) There is no feel-good message in anything people are hearing and they are losing the ability to cope.
Dimsum said:
It seems a tricky balancing act...
On the one hand, you want people to be generally well informed. On the other hand, you don't want to create a panic or contribute to a society that breaks down due to fear, frustration, or a loss of faith in government.
In my own personal opinion, our mainstream media is a primary cause for society behaving the way it is.
As others have mentioned, many news outlets from other parts of the world just report the facts about a situation, and move on. It isn't 24hrs a day, with the requirement to fill that 24hrs with 'something' even if nothing is happening. So? They bring on 'experts', have talking heads hosting shows that clearly lean in a certain direction, filter information depending on the bias of the media agency, and hire talking heads to tell people what to think.
Staying interesting 24hrs a day is incredibly difficult, especially if nothing interesting happens that day. So? They have to make it interesting, usually to the detriment of factual integrity.
**Lately, I've really enjoyed WION of all outlets. Who knew?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX5rZVH-9hY
^^ This is just an example of one of their 'shows' - which never seem to be longer than maybe 7 minutes, and tend to look at issues harshly but objectively. I'm sure there could have been better examples to post, but hopefully it reinforces what other members here have said also - media in other countries tend to be more factual, less sensationalized.
100 years from now, it wouldn't surprise me if people look back on this 'transition' in society when it's taught in school, and not ask themselves "Why didn't they just shut off the media, if they were causing so many problems? If they were so clearly biased? If they were so non-credible with the facts, which is the opposite of their purpose?"
They won't understand that the mainstream media has become a foundation of our society, even though society knows it's toxic and garbage. Intellectual folks - and by that, I mean folks with common sense and the initiative to verify facts on their own and behave within the bounds of reason - aren't the problem.
It's the unbelievable number of stupid people that, prior to 1950 - wouldn't have survived past the age of 20 on grounds they are just too stupid.
Whether it's racism in the US, and the resulting civil unrest. Never ending COVID news, speculation, and nonsense. Never ending US Presidential drama and nonsense, etc etc - it's a never ending 'IV drip' of sensationalized, bad, biased information that can cause the easily influenced person - aka a majority of society that doesn't understand they are being misled - to behaving in ways that truly don't make sense. :2c:
OceanBonfire
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 392
- Points
- 1,080
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
CBH99 said:Good investigative work
We all have to be accountable. I'm glad they tracked him down
It's not the ticket I would be worried about. Doesn't sound like a hanging offence. I would be trying to figure out how to explain it to my employer.
haha, true MM
Although, my imagination would have me pretty darn nervous. "Excuse me sir, mind coming down to the police station for a chat about a hate crime?"
I'd be a wee bit nervous... and now that the footage is out there, AND his name, your right. Might be time to move soon, and make sure that resume looks spiffy
Although, my imagination would have me pretty darn nervous. "Excuse me sir, mind coming down to the police station for a chat about a hate crime?"
I'd be a wee bit nervous... and now that the footage is out there, AND his name, your right. Might be time to move soon, and make sure that resume looks spiffy
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
CBH99 said:
Probably depends on the employer, assuming he has one.
Mine would tolerate almost anything, unless you became a public disgrace.
They usually got transferred to Water Division, or some other department.
Similar threads
