• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

New Canadian Politics Thread

MindzEye said:
Why does it have to be "under the guise of" instead of "legitimately believe there is a risk to"?

If there is a legitimate risk of protest, counter protest and other public disruption, why issue a permit? Cities have limited resources, when you issue a permit knowing that you might have to send a significant portion of your active police resources to maintain the peace, why the fuck would you issue the permit?
Click to expand...
Same logic applies to cancel all pride events. That’s why…

Goose and gander and all…
 
MindzEye said:
I think you're missing the point on Feucht. He's publicly advocating for the broad hatred of homosexuals and the removal of their rights. He just says it in somewhat coded language usually. He's not speaking about specific acts of homosexual sex (which appears to be the case in what you've posted), but about the entire "identifiable group".
Click to expand...
And so do a lot of preachers in churches in Canada. But we let them cause we believe in freedom of expression.

Your beef kinda seems like it is with the Charter.
 
LeafGm said:
I think some of the stuff Feucht has said about gays and trans people in particular qualifies as hate speech.

At the same time though, I’m also not a lawyer that’s laser-focused on minutiae and on coming up with the strictest possible, letter-of-the-law interpretation of our hate speech and religious freedom laws for the benefit of shielding this fucking choade.

I think you’re failing to see the forest for the trees when that’s what you’re fixated on. That’s the game these fascists play—hide behind the rights and freedoms granted in a liberal democracy while seeking to completely dismantle them.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I have identified his speech as offensive repeatedly. That’s not really what this is about though imo. Yall want to place limits on freedom of expression beyond what our laws stipulate to shut up this christian maga asshole.

I’m fine trying to shut him up, just do so in a way consistent with our laws and charter
 
manny said:
Feucht is free to take the city to court if he thinks his rights have been infringed. So are the organizers.

Meanwhile, let’s learn a lesson from our southern neighbours who have seen this kind of hatred deepen and fester when it’s been given a bullhorn without restriction.
Click to expand...
I don’t think limiting folks freedom of expression is the best way to combat hatred.
 
Wayward DP said:
Same logic applies to cancel all pride events. That’s why…

Goose and gander and all…
Click to expand...

What identifiable group is a pride parade trying to create hatred towards?

Your argument on this whole thing is deeply shaky while you wrongly insist that I'm arguing with the charter
 
MindzEye said:
What identifiable group is a pride parade trying to create hatred towards?

Your argument on this whole thing is deeply shaky while you wrongly insist that I'm arguing with the charter
Click to expand...
The permit was revoked for ‘security’ concerns. Ie protesters.

Same as pride, but your opinion changes based on your views of the affected group.

If we revoked permits for ‘security concerns’ (instead of protecting the groups ability to exercise their charter rights) you give a veto to protesters over public space
 
Wayward DP said:
I disagree. I have identified his speech as offensive repeatedly. That’s not really what this is about though imo. Yall want to place limits on freedom of expression beyond what our laws stipulate to shut up this christian maga asshole.

I’m fine trying to shut him up, just do so in a way consistent with our laws and charter
Click to expand...
Id prefer that he was beaten up and dumped in a ditch on the American side of the 49th parallel. He's coming to Edmonton and, naturally, is being permitted to perform on the grounds of the provincial legislature because this province is already run by Christofascists.
 
Wayward DP said:
The permit was revoked for ‘security’ concerns. Ie protesters.

Same as pride, but your opinion changes based on your views of the affected group.

If we revoked permits for ‘security concerns’ (instead of protecting the groups ability to exercise their charter rights) you give a veto to protesters over public space
Click to expand...

Except pride pays about 500k in insurance and police costs or else their permits wouldn't get approved on those exact same grounds.
 
Wayward DP said:
I don’t think limiting folks freedom of expression is the best way to combat hatred.
Click to expand...
The city doesn’t have to issue a permit for anything that might qualify as constitutionally protected speech. It also doesn’t need a legal opinion saying the speaker has violated the criminal code to cancel a permit. These are red herrings.

If there is a legit belief that permitting certain speech in public will cause public safety concerns, then they’re free not to permit it. The offended parties can take it up through the courts.
 
He played an entire Canadian tour and there was no threat to public safety. Besides, they tried to prevent him from playing inside of a private property. It wasn’t only public space use,

Let’s be honest At least, it’s 100% about censoring a person whose beliefs 5’5)3 government disagree with and nothing more. This is plain as day when they allow similar, and even violent speach, on public property, with no permits, that aligns with government views. They have refused to calls to revoke visas to Bob Vylan and Kneecap that have literally called for violence in their shows.

It’s not about who he is. It’s about who we are.

Using the guise of public safety to restrict rights it’s the same thing they did to the truckers prostrating government policy. It’s the same reason China justifies their security state. It’s the same reason the EU is censoring the internet.

At the end of the day this is all stripping away rights from people and giving them to the state. Which is bad. It’s anti-liberalism.

I’m pretty sure Canadian society can withstand a Jesus nut.
 
Last edited:
leafman101 said:
He played an entire Canadian tour and there was no threat to public safety. Besides, they tried to prevent him from playing inside of a private property. It wasn’t only public space use,

Let’s be honest At least, it’s 100% about censoring a person whose beliefs 5’5)3 government disagree with and nothing more. This is plain as day when they allow similar, and even violent speach, on public property, with no permits, that aligns with government views. They have refused to calls to revoke visas to Bob Vylan and Kneecap that have literally called for violence in their shows.

It’s not about who he is. It’s about who we are.

Using the guise of public safety to restrict rights it’s the same thing they did to the truckers prostrating government policy. It’s the same reason China justifies their security state. It’s the same reason the EU is censoring the internet.

At the end of the day this is all stripping away rights from people and giving them to the state. Which is bad. It’s anti-liberalism.

I’m pretty sure Canadian society can withstand a Jesus nut.
Click to expand...

Some fucking reaches there....and sticking the landering with the tolerance trap imo.

We have to have a line. The line is pretty reasonably set at promoting some form of hatred towards identifiable groups. Canadians should feel safe being who they are in their country, point blank period. Fomenting hatred against law abiding Canadians for being who/what they are should have consequences, again point blank period.

If there's hypocrisy in the government's approach it's that they're too permissive towards violent pro palestinian public discourse, not that they're being too harsh here in dealing with Feucht. Sign me up for "free palestine" being entirely good and fine but any mention or insinuation of violence towards jews being hate speech and then enforcing our laws, and it's only political cowardice that keeps us from appropriately confronting that bullshit. The Americans got that whole "tip of the nose" bit right and hiding violent hatred behind diffuse language isn't fooling anyone. We know that "from the river to the sea" means violently throwing jewish people out of israel, and we know "I'm just trying to protect my children" means disenfranchising and ostracizing LGBTQ people specifically. We can stop being children about this shit any time now with the coded bullshit language being a fucking hall pass.

Would that make us China? I don't know, call me when we put a million people from an ethnic group in internment and re education camps because we don't like their culture and religion. I keep being warned about a slippery slope, but I've only ever seen it slide in one direction over the last few decades and it never seem to be towards protecting identifiable groups.

I thinky you're deeply underestimating the risk of normalization here.
 
The uneven application is the exact problem though. What is permissible and non permissible speech is dictated by the whims of our government deciding arbitrarily whose rights get protection and whose don't based on their own self interest and lying to say they are just keeping us safe.

To infringe rights based on protecting public safety, there has to be a legitimate threat, and it has to be the least infringing method of addressing that threat, which is obviously not the case here.

And maybe its not a slippery slope, but some of the stuff we are seeing in other western countries like the EU's internet censorship and Biden/Trump admin with scocial media is scary. And when a different party get in office and wants to shut down certain opinions, the precedent is now there.
 
leafman101 said:
The uneven application is the exact problem though. What is permissible and non permissible speech is dictated by the whims of our government deciding arbitrarily whose rights get protection and whose don't based on their own self interest and lying to say they are just keeping us safe.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the answer here is to close this stupid gap and protect our jewish citizens appropriately, not to slide backwards and allow "insert minority here" to have to fend for themselves.

leafman101 said:
To infringe rights based on protecting public safety, there has to be a legitimate threat, and it has to be the least infringing method of addressing that threat, which is obviously not the case here.
Click to expand...

But there is a legitimate threat, just look south of us. I would argue that stopping one guy from spreading a message of hate is the least infringing method of addressing the threat. We're not over here bulldozing churches, outlawing evangelical christianity, etc. We're telling one guy with a documented history of using coded language to drive the bus on a hate movement that he can't do it here. That seems like a pretty minor thing imo.

leafman101 said:
And maybe its not a slippery slope, but some of the stuff we are seeing in other western countries like the EU's internet censorship and Biden/Trump admin with scocial media is scary. And when a different party get in office and wants to shut down certain opinions, the precedent is now there.
Click to expand...

This really smells to me like the same talk that got the Americans into the shit they're in now, where the left navel gazes about what they're willing to do to protect civil society(very little), while the right normalizes the use of coded language to build coalitions of hate that they ride into power. Literally the tolerance trap in action. Again, the slope seems to only slide in one direction for some reason.
 
leafman101 said:
He played an entire Canadian tour and there was no threat to public safety. Besides, they tried to prevent him from playing inside of a private property. It wasn’t only public space use,

Let’s be honest At least, it’s 100% about censoring a person whose beliefs 5’5)3 government disagree with and nothing more. This is plain as day when they allow similar, and even violent speach, on public property, with no permits, that aligns with government views. They have refused to calls to revoke visas to Bob Vylan and Kneecap that have literally called for violence in their shows.

It’s not about who he is. It’s about who we are.

Using the guise of public safety to restrict rights it’s the same thing they did to the truckers prostrating government policy. It’s the same reason China justifies their security state. It’s the same reason the EU is censoring the internet.

At the end of the day this is all stripping away rights from people and giving them to the state. Which is bad. It’s anti-liberalism.

I’m pretty sure Canadian society can withstand a Jesus nut.
Click to expand...
I agree. Im fine with stating that the reason he wont be permitted to perform is because nobody likes him and that if he insists on going ahead, he'll probably get the shit kicked out of him because the cops will be instructed not to interfere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top