Difference between revisions of "User:Quertenu8"

<div itemscope itemtype="/BlogPosting"><p>This week, in the case of Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of human rights commissions to censor (what they regard as) hateful speech. For the benefit of readers who have not read the decision, here it is reduced to Q&amp;A’s. I ask imaginary questions; the Court gives imaginary answers,karen millen uk. Some will object that the Court would never say such things,christian louboutin heels. I say it already has.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Dear Supreme Court, is there free speech in Canada?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> It’s not absolute, you know.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Well, yes, we know that, but is there limited free speech?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> There must be. The Charter says there is, and the Charter wouldn’t lie,louboutin shoes. We support the Charter.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Spiffy. So can I go and say whatever I like?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> Yes, of course. That’s what “free” means. Unless you cross a line. Like anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott. He said some nasty things, you know.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Is that the line, saying nasty things?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> Oh no, you can say nasty things,louboutin uk. It’s a free country.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> So where is the line?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> When you cross it, we’ll let you know.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Does it have a name?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> We call it hate speech.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> What is hate speech?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> It’s speech we hate.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> But speech you don’t hate needs no Charter protection. What do you say to people who argue that unless the Charter protects speech you hate it protects nothing?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> Let them say it, we say. It’s a free country.</p><p>Some colleagues were dismayed after the Whatcott decision came down. But National Post writer Jonathan Kay looked at the bright side,karen millen uk, emphasizing the fact that the Supreme Court specifically gave a pass to speech that is merely rude or impolite. “Given the mania for censorship sweeping many other developed nations, especially in Europe, the Supreme Court judgment in Whatcott was far from a worst-case scenario,” Kay wrote. “It signals that political correctness has its limits in Canada.”</p><p>You could have fooled me, but it’s true,Unlike most parties. For example, it seems ethnic jokes aren’t being outlawed. Well, thank God for small mercies. I never much liked ethnic jokes, but then I never looked at them as the symbolic remnants of what used to be a fundamental freedom.</p><p>You’ve come a long way,karen millen outlet, baby, is one way of looking at what happened in Canada in the last half century. When I stepped ashore in the last days of December, 1956, same-sex practices between men were against the law. It wasn’t a crime to be homosexually inclined, but to do something about it, such as engaging in a homosexual act with another consenting adult, could land one in jail. The law remained on the books and was enforced, if somewhat sporadically, during the first 12 years of my life in Canada (as were similar provisions in most other parts of the world.) Such laws cut across cultural and religious lines, indicating either that the collective consciousness of mankind was homophobic (as we might say today) or that it sensed something unsavory about homosexuality (as people did say back then). The two, of course, aren’t mutually exclusive.</p><p>The law didn’t interfere with me personally, as I would rather have had sex with a porcupine than with another fellow, but I joined those CBC colleagues (yes, I was a CBC staffer for 23 years) who were pushing for its repeal. It was in the spring of 1969 that Pierre Trudeau’s Bill C-150, the amendment to decriminalize homosexual acts, which Trudeau introduced as Justice Minister in 1967, received its third reading in Parliament. I remember it, because it was one of the few times in my life that I participated (in a minor supporting role) in political action. Our aim, which we accomplished, was to secure assent to the law in the summer of the same year.</p><p>Back then, the liberal position was that homosexuality wasn’t a sin but an illness, and while making a sin a crime was one thing, making an illness a crime was like recommending jail for someone with gallstones. Those who defended the status quo made frequent references to Sodom, and Trudeau, who coined the phrase about the state having no business in the nation’s bedrooms, was described correspondingly as a Sodomite,christian louboutin shoes.</p><p>Human Rights Commissions,and transferred the, had they existed back then, could have had a field day prosecuting participants on both sides of the debate. Some of the arguments used to push for decriminalization were as politically incorrect as the moral and religious injunctions offered for retention,christian louboutin uk. (Imagine a “progressive” debater arguing that those seeking libidinal congress with their own, rather than with the opposite sex, aren’t bad people, only crazy,christian louboutin heels. Chances are he’d be on the wrong side of the Supreme Court’s hate-speech line before he could say “Bill Whatcott.”)</p><p>But in 1969 Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, as we know them today, were still in the future. So were most other rules, restrictions, taboos, and shibboleths of liberal totalitarianism. The brave new world of political correctness, already clamoring at the gates, was still outside the walls of a fort that looked impenetrable. The traditional freedoms to which Canada was heir had withstood sieges and onslaughts before.</p><p>That was 40-plus years ago. The siege has been continuous ever since,And the amount of p. The walls are still standing, but if they don’t protect Whatcott,karen millen dresses, they protect no one. The enemy is now inside the gates.</p><p>National Post</p></div>

<div itemscope itemtype="/BlogPosting"><p>This week, in the case of Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of human rights commissions to censor (what they regard as) hateful speech. For the benefit of readers who have not read the decision, here it is reduced to Q&amp;A’s. I ask imaginary questions; the Court gives imaginary answers,karen millen uk. Some will object that the Court would never say such things,christian louboutin heels. I say it already has.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Dear Supreme Court, is there free speech in Canada?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> It’s not absolute, you know.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Well, yes, we know that, but is there limited free speech?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> There must be. The Charter says there is, and the Charter wouldn’t lie,louboutin shoes. We support the Charter.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Spiffy. So can I go and say whatever I like?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> Yes, of course. That’s what “free” means. Unless you cross a line. Like anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott. He said some nasty things, you know.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Is that the line, saying nasty things?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> Oh no, you can say nasty things,louboutin uk. It’s a free country.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> So where is the line?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> When you cross it, we’ll let you know.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Does it have a name?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> We call it hate speech.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> What is hate speech?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> It’s speech we hate.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> But speech you don’t hate needs no Charter protection. What do you say to people who argue that unless the Charter protects speech you hate it protects nothing?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> Let them say it, we say. It’s a free country.</p><p>Some colleagues were dismayed after the Whatcott decision came down. But National Post writer Jonathan Kay looked at the bright side,karen millen uk, emphasizing the fact that the Supreme Court specifically gave a pass to speech that is merely rude or impolite. “Given the mania for censorship sweeping many other developed nations, especially in Europe, the Supreme Court judgment in Whatcott was far from a worst-case scenario,” Kay wrote. “It signals that political correctness has its limits in Canada.”</p><p>You could have fooled me, but it’s true,Unlike most parties. For example, it seems ethnic jokes aren’t being outlawed. Well, thank God for small mercies. I never much liked ethnic jokes, but then I never looked at them as the symbolic remnants of what used to be a fundamental freedom.</p><p>You’ve come a long way,karen millen outlet, baby, is one way of looking at what happened in Canada in the last half century. When I stepped ashore in the last days of December, 1956, same-sex practices between men were against the law. It wasn’t a crime to be homosexually inclined, but to do something about it, such as engaging in a homosexual act with another consenting adult, could land one in jail. The law remained on the books and was enforced, if somewhat sporadically, during the first 12 years of my life in Canada (as were similar provisions in most other parts of the world.) Such laws cut across cultural and religious lines, indicating either that the collective consciousness of mankind was homophobic (as we might say today) or that it sensed something unsavory about homosexuality (as people did say back then). The two, of course, aren’t mutually exclusive.</p><p>The law didn’t interfere with me personally, as I would rather have had sex with a porcupine than with another fellow, but I joined those CBC colleagues (yes, I was a CBC staffer for 23 years) who were pushing for its repeal. It was in the spring of 1969 that Pierre Trudeau’s Bill C-150, the amendment to decriminalize homosexual acts, which Trudeau introduced as Justice Minister in 1967, received its third reading in Parliament. I remember it, because it was one of the few times in my life that I participated (in a minor supporting role) in political action. Our aim, which we accomplished, was to secure assent to the law in the summer of the same year.</p><p>Back then, the liberal position was that homosexuality wasn’t a sin but an illness, and while making a sin a crime was one thing, making an illness a crime was like recommending jail for someone with gallstones. Those who defended the status quo made frequent references to Sodom, and Trudeau, who coined the phrase about the state having no business in the nation’s bedrooms, was described correspondingly as a Sodomite,christian louboutin shoes.</p><p>Human Rights Commissions,and transferred the, had they existed back then, could have had a field day prosecuting participants on both sides of the debate. Some of the arguments used to push for decriminalization were as politically incorrect as the moral and religious injunctions offered for retention,christian louboutin uk. (Imagine a “progressive” debater arguing that those seeking libidinal congress with their own, rather than with the opposite sex, aren’t bad people, only crazy,christian louboutin heels. Chances are he’d be on the wrong side of the Supreme Court’s hate-speech line before he could say “Bill Whatcott.”)</p><p>But in 1969 Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, as we know them today, were still in the future. So were most other rules, restrictions, taboos, and shibboleths of liberal totalitarianism. The brave new world of political correctness, already clamoring at the gates, was still outside the walls of a fort that looked impenetrable. The traditional freedoms to which Canada was heir had withstood sieges and onslaughts before.</p><p>That was 40-plus years ago. The siege has been continuous ever since,And the amount of p. The walls are still standing, but if they don’t protect Whatcott,karen millen dresses, they protect no one. The enemy is now inside the gates.</p><p>National Post</p></div>