|
Well there you go. I based that off a short article from late last year which vaguely talked about federal scientists no longer needing every communication signed off on by the government but it looks like you're right and substantively nothing is different.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Everything is different our new PM goes to pride. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Counterpoint: I think good-looking Harper without a whole bunch of the religious nonsense is actually pretty okay. He at least has the good sense to take care of his fitness, which makes him objectively a better person than Harper too  (<-- It's a joke based on my making fun of fat politicians, don't take it too loving seriously)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
How long has this government been running things again?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:How long has this government been running things again? 10 years, op
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Everything is different our new PM goes to pride. If only Mulcair was PM 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Mulcair would have been less popular by now and therefore there would have been less irritating to we curmudgeons. El Scotch posted:How long has this government been running things again? Long enough to have passed a budget. Long enough to have made the regulations governing the export of military equipment to foreign dictatorships less strict. Long enough that he has no excuse as to why there are now fewer scientists working for the government than there were under Harper. We can also look at who they have appointed to key positions like finance. Or we can evaluate the public statements they make -- for instance, both before and after getting into office Trudeau has repeatedly attacked the concept of universal social programs by invoking the logic of means-testing. That's presumably telling us something about the economic sensibilities of the PM and his team. And when Trudeau appoints someone like Bill Morneau to be finance minister that tells us something as well. So does the past track record of other Liberal governments who were staffed by the same group of people who staff the current party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Prediction: Using its rejection of the Northern Gateway pipeline as cover, this government will approve both Energy East and TMX. E: Not long enough to know to use ministerial drivers rather than hiring chauffeurs at exorbitant prices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Gerald Stanley got bail. But he has to stay within 6.4 km of his Biggar-area farm which is probably a worse punishment than jail. Next court appearance is Sept 13.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Chicken posted:Gerald Stanley got bail. But he has to stay within 6.4 km of his Biggar-area farm which is probably a worse punishment than jail. Next court appearance is Sept 13. So he must stay near his house and also stay away from the Red Pheasant First Nation? Is it normal for the conditions to include both: 1) You can't travel more than X distance from your house and 2) you must also not be within Y distance of another place? Presumably if you're abiding by the first, the second is implied. Still, I think the bail decision is good. He's not a risk to offend further, or escape.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
I was wondering the same thing. I'm not sure where exactly his farm is, but the Red Pheasant First Nation isn't too far from Biggar, so it may be a way of saying "You can go into Biggar to get groceries but you better go straight there and straight back" in legal terminology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Local jackass Mike Ward is appealing his fine from the Human Rights Commission and telling people to "fight back" against them. He also has a gofundme up to help him in his legal battle, with the header COMEDY IS NOT A CRIME. I guess his end goal is to destroy human rights? Anyway, this is political because it's the first case I've seen of such a high profile French Canadian celebrity spouting horrible alt-right bullshit. I hope it's not indicative of a sea change.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
He seems like a oval office, but I still believe he should have the right to free speech, just as all of us have the right to point out what a oval office he is for it. Protections on the freedom of speech are especially important when the speech in question is unpopular, or even repugnant; in the absence of incitement to a crime, free speech should be protected, no matter how hateful it might be. And this is why I hate these bullshit human rights councils.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Is his farm that exact distance out of town or something? As a layperson, I'd expect they might be trying to impair his ability to attend "fundraisers" and "protests" full of racist assholes who could get whipped into a frenzy. EDIT: Mind you they could include that as a condition of his bail without putting a geographical restriction on him, so now that I think about it, it doesn't seem that likely. Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:free speech should be protected, no matter how hateful it might be to what end? Are you afraid the government is going to start prosecuting people for uttering hate-speech in cases where they actually aren't?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:He seems like a oval office, but I still believe he should have the right to free speech, just as all of us have the right to point out what a oval office he is for it. Hahahaha how did I know you were one of those R FURST AMENDMENT RIGHT HUURRRRR morons
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:He seems like a oval office, but I still believe he should have the right to free speech, just as all of us have the right to point out what a oval office he is for it. Ah yes. We should allow people to spew racist, bigoted, or discriminatory hate speech everywhere. While we're at it let's get rid of libel and slander laws. Lain Iwakura fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:Hahahaha how did I know you were one of those R FURST AMENDMENT RIGHT HUURRRRR morons We don't have a first amendment, and I'm not necessarily talking about the rights we do have under the law, but the rights that we should have under the law. I've also made very little secret of my feelings on the issue so I'm guessing you "knew" this because I'd mentioned it before. OSI bean dip posted:Ah yes. We should allow people to spew racist, bigoted, or discriminatory hate speech everywhere. While we're at it let's get rid of libel and slander laws. Libel and slander are different because you have to prove damages other than "my feelings were hurt." Lots of people say things that I find hateful and disagree with completely, but I don't think that means the government should be able to forbid them from doing it. We cannot and should not trust the government to restrict such a fundamental freedom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
this full and completely free speech you claim is cultural appropriation from the americans if you actually knew what the gently caress you were talking about instead of doing that pedantic idiot posting poo poo you always do you would know that canada, like all the other commonwealth countries, has a long tradition in limiting the boundaries of speech speech has never been american levels of free here idiot
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Also free speech is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to say whatever the gently caress insane poo poo you want without consequence, especially if you're inciting others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
gently caress free speech bring back Lèse Majesté laws Ban this sick filth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Local jackass Mike Ward is appealing his fine from the Human Rights Commission and telling people to "fight back" against them. He also has a gofundme up to help him in his legal battle, with the header COMEDY IS NOT A CRIME. I guess his end goal is to destroy human rights? Since when does he do "alt-right" stuff? He got the fine because he made fun of some famous disabled kid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:31
|
|
Count Roland posted:Since when does he do "alt-right" stuff? He got the fine because he made fun of some famous disabled kid. I was referring to his crusade for "free speech" and claims that human rights are somehow an assault on his freedom, not his lovely comedy.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Also free speech is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to say whatever the gently caress insane poo poo you want without consequence, especially if you're inciting others. I agree. I said incitement to criminal activity should be the boundary of allowable speech, and I said nothing about any speech being consequence-free. There are consequences to any action, I just think that, in the case of speech which does not actually incite someone to crime, those consequences shouldn't come from the government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Fining comedians for a joke is p. stupid. Even if it's a bad joke. What is this Russia?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
You can be an unfunny rear end in a top hat while not doing anything illegal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Just so I'm clear, thread consensus is that language police in Quebec are bad but thought police in Quebec are good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:Just so I'm clear, thread consensus is that language police in Quebec are bad but thought police in Quebec are good? Seems that way. Maybe I'm committing some sin against socialism for believing this, but I think that women should be allowed to wear what they want and that this guy doesn't need to be fined for being a jackass. I haven't heard what he said to the kid but unless it was incitement to kill him, I'm not sure I'm on board with making social embarrassment illegal. What type of lefty am I if I want the government to provide strong social services and reduce inequality but otherwise nit regulate what I say or wear. I feel like there is a tendency to overlegislate the social sphere among today's left and it's the one thing I can never get on board with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
So the cabinet shuffle was just assigning a new leader of the house?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
lmao ~thought police Hey guys I never intellectually progres since English 10
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
a primate posted:I haven't heard what he said to the kid but... Surprise surprise, like everyone else who comments on this by just reading a title on a Reddit post. Read the analysis provided by CBC before you try and bring this American crap freedom of speech argument. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-comedian-human-rights-tribunal-1.3689465 BTW for you "FREEDDDDDDUMMMM" people, the Court specifically addressed protected speech: "...These include speech that aims at truth, speech that contributes to social and political decision making or speech that is an expression of self-fulfillment. Ward's jokes had to meet one of these conditions in order to qualify for free-speech protection." P-Value Hack fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
no guys I'm going to walk around screaming "kill all ragheads and niggers" and someone will rush to defend my rights to absolute free speech because if not then Hitler In the end what are we if not "I disagree with what you say but will sacrifice my life to defend your right to say it" crusaders?????? Now excuse me while I go finish my grade 10 social studies assignment
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
P-Value Hack posted:Surprise surprise, like everyone else who comments on this by just reading a title on a Reddit post. Read the analysis provided by CBC before you try and bring this American crap freedom of speech argument. I read the article and I still feel the same way. It may have been a correct ruling according to Quebec law, I'm not disputing that; what I'm saying is that the Quebec law is, then, a violation of fundamental human rights (not those rights guaranteed by law, but rather the rights that all human beings should have regardless of the law). You could argue that the law against insulting the monarchy in Thailand is not a violation of human rights because the right to criticize the monarchy is not a right provided by law in Thailand, but it would be foolish to say it's not a violation of people's inherent right to freely express themselves. I don't want the government ruling on whether any speech is necessary or "contributes to social and political decision making, or is an expression of self-fulfillment" in order to have protection for it, thank you very much. Like I said, I think the comedian is a sack of poo poo for what he said, and I don't approve of it at all, but I still believe that his right to say what he said must be protected. If no more comedy clubs want to book him because he's a piece of poo poo, that's okay; what's not okay is the government fining him five figures for making a joke in extremely poor taste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
This thread is turning me conservative. Great job, NDPhailures! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:no guys I'm going to walk around screaming "kill all ragheads and niggers" and someone will rush to defend my rights to absolute free speech because if not then Hitler That's incitement to a crime. On the other hand, promoting the idea of white supremacy should indeed be protected speech, and everyone should be free to treat you like human garbage for expounding it. Saying the government shouldn't interfere with free speech is very far from saying no one should suffer any consequences for what they say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
You don't even understand the loving statutes you cite You're that loving stupid
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
I'm not citing any statutes, so I don't see how that's possible. I'm not making a legal argument based on the laws that do exist, I'm making an argument about how the laws should work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I was referring to his crusade for "free speech" and claims that human rights are somehow an assault on his freedom, not his lovely comedy. Preventing others from hurting your feelings is not a human right. Ward's freedom of expression, awful as it is, is protected by the Charter. Did someone sneak an invocation of the notwithstanding clause into human-rights legislation when I wasn't looking?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
P-Value Hack posted:Surprise surprise, like everyone else who comments on this by just reading a title on a Reddit post. Read the analysis provided by CBC before you try and bring this American crap freedom of speech argument. That's a lot of salt for my morning coffee but the link you provided is pretty informative. Still, it doesn't include the actual words he uttered which doesn't directly address my worries about freedom of expression. Secondly, I didn't find it on Reddit - the only things I know about this case are what have been discussed in this thread. I'm not on an American crusade for first amendment rights - I understand there are already restrictions on freedom of expression in Canada. The problem is, comedy can seldom be argued to have bearing on "social and political decision making", and the court might be setting a dangerous precedent by limiting the speech of artists and others whose work exists in the free expression of speech and other media. If this man were an artist who drew a mocking picture of the disabled singer, would you still want him to be fined? Or a poet who alluded to him in a mocking way? We might judge these artworks meritless but I doubt most people would agree that fines and sanctions were an ideal way to address them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:29
|
|