We have a "conservative" supreme court that almost denied everything case with gun laws, instead deciding to pander to queers. What a joke. Conservatism is dead, American "conservatives" are liberals from 2 decades ago.
which conservatives were right in the LGBT civil rights supreme court case?
Posts
Total:
160
-->
@triangle.128k
What a joke. Conservatism is dead, American "conservatives" are liberals from 2 decades ago.
if by "conservative" you mean cross burning KKK members, then yes. That time is gone and it very much needs to stay that way.
-->
@triangle.128k
you used the phrase "pander to queers". If you think that protecting people's basic rights is the death of conservatism, then you think "conservatism" is synonymous with "bigotry". That is the exactly what the KKK think too.
-->
@triangle.128k
I don't think many conservatives today (who voted for Trump) would've supported Al Gore 20 years ago. For that matter, most of them probably wouldn't have supported George W Bush, either.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Do you know what the Oakes test is?
Also, do you think all forms of speech should be allowed (as long as it is within the limits set by the constitution)? For example, anti-semitism?
-->
@PressF4Respect
I looked up Oakes test
R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada which established the famous Oakes test, an analysis of the limitations clause (section 1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if it can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
Charter rights are not absolute and it is necessary to limit them in order to achieve "collective goals of fundamental importance".
It was in 1986??? wow The government made up its own rules that they could use to limit your rights and freedoms. Do you thank them for giving them to you?
The right to free speech is only needed to protect the speech you don't like and not protect hurt feelings, right?
The limits on free speech come from the basic principle that you're not allowed to harm others to get what you want. speech to threaten to hurt someone, either verbally or nonverbally. And you're not allowed to deceive people to get what you want – that's called fraud.
this is why hate speech isn't a real thing other that it could hurt someone's feelings :(
It's against my religion to believe in LGBTQ+. They should not be discriminated for that at all and should be equally loved. My church teaches us to love all, but hate sin itself, not the sinner.
-->
@PressF4Respect
you used the phrase "pander to queers". If you think that protecting people's basic rights is the death of conservatism, then you think "conservatism" is synonymous with "bigotry". That is the exactly what the KKK think too.
They already have basic rights, I'm not saying they should have that taken away. It is not, however, their right to be free from consequences. It is much less safe to keep children around adults partaking in LGBT lifestyles, which is why discrimination in some scenarios may be understandable.
Conservatives care more about pandering to queers than actually bother to conserve anything, let'a face it: American conservatism is a hilarious failure.
-->
@triangle.128k
you used the phrase "pander to queers". If you think that protecting people's basic rights is the death of conservatism, then you think "conservatism" is synonymous with "bigotry". That is the exactly what the KKK think too.
I wasn't the one to say this, but ok.
They already have basic rights, I'm not saying they should have that taken away. It is not, however, their right to be free from consequences. It is much less safe to keep children around adults partaking in LGBT lifestyles, which is why discrimination in some scenarios may be understandable.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Conservatives care more about pandering to queers than actually bother to conserve anything, let'a face it: American conservatism is a hilarious failure.
Really? Because it seems like American conservatism has been further right than it has been in the past 50 years. For example, many conservatives today are for disbanding the EPA, a federal agency that Nixon (a conservative) established.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
From your own link:
The key values of the Charter come from the phrase "free and democratic society" and should be used as the "ultimate standard" for interpretation of section 1. These include values such as:respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.Charter rights are not absolute and it is necessary to limit them in order to achieve "collective goals of fundamental importance".The Court presents a two step test to justify a limitation based on the analysis in R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd. First, it must be "an objective related to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society", and second it must be shown "that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified".The second part is described as a "proportionality test" which requires the invoking party to show:
- First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective;
- Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question;
- Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance".
many conservatives today are for disbanding the EPA, a federal agency that Nixon (a conservative) established.
I'm pretty sure Nixon would have disbanded the EPA if he knew it would mutate into a monstrosity that puts delta smelts before people. Clean air and water are fine, but enough with the technocracy overreach with audacious arbitrary goals, most of which are used punitively on those who refuse to donate to the ruling party coffers, both left and right.
In a direct and often biting decision, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger, a liberal judge, said the Fish and Wildlife Service had ordered a protection plan under the Endangered Species Act through a biological opinion that is "arbitrary, capricious and unlawful."
In the same breath, Wanger reiterated his position that the smelt is deserving of federal protection. But he does not agree with the standing scientific reasoning behind cutting back on water flows to districts and farms in the Central Valley to protect the tiny fish.
"The public cannot afford sloppy science and uni-directional prescriptions that ignore California's water needs," the judge wrote, adding that the state Legislature had failed "to provide the means to assure an adequate water supply for both the humans and the species dependent on the delta."
Moreover, in a remarkable side note that cuts to the heart of the many stresses in the Northern California region, Wanger appeared to suggest he does not see a legal avenue for finding a solution for the many interests, farms, wildlife and urban consumers that rely on the delta's water.
"The law alone cannot afford protection to all the competing interests at stake in these cases," Wanger said.
The bi-op at the center of the legal scrutiny was approved by FWS in 2008 to protect the smelt from an ecosystem that has deteriorated under pressure from farmers, developers, an ever-increasing population, drought, invasive predators and chemical runoff.
The ruling remands the bi-op back to the Fish and Wildlife Service to correct its work, which lawyers close to the case said should take at least nine months to complete. Those behind the lawsuit -- a coalition of urban and rural water districts in Central and Southern California -- praised the decision as a victory for common sense over what they argue was a faulty recovery plan from the outset.
"This is a great victory for sound science, Californians dependent on the [Central Valley Project] and [State Water Project], and, not least, the smelt," said Christopher Carr, an attorney for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in the case. "It requires the agency to go back to the drawing board and use the best available science in analyzing the impacts of the projects on the smelt."
The Central Valley Project refers to the federal half of Northern California's water infrastructure, with the reservoir at Mount Shasta representing the biggest source controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation. The State Water Project refers to the state half, with Lake Oroville representing the biggest state-controlled reservoir.
About 25 million California residents rely on the delta for water, which together with the San Francisco Bay represents the largest estuary on the West Coast of North America.
-->
@PressF4Respect
right, so you don't disagree with what I said, I mean there was no need for further posts but that's cool. If hate speech fits your government criteria then certainly many other things would easily as well, at least compared to the U.S. constitution....well not that it's really comparable.
-->
@Greyparrot
it may have been a funny movie but that part was totally based on reality imo.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
"Hate speech" is defined in Canada by Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada:
Public incitement of hatred
- (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
- (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
- (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
- (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
- Marginal note:Definitions
(7) In this section,
communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)
identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318 (groupe identifiable):
This definition of "Hate speech" is pretty objectively defined and isn't arbitrary.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Canada's code is so scary. If someone is offended by any speech, they can claim they "incited" others by such speech.
-->
@Greyparrot
where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace
-->
@PressF4Respect
Exactly. They don't need any evidence at all. Just a premonition. It's law by augury. The apex of arbitrary law.
-->
@Greyparrot
They don't need any evidence at all. Just a premonition.
No, there needs to be evidence. That's what a trial is for...
The accused is innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty.
-->
@PressF4Respect
"incites hatred" is not arbitrary or capricious at all LOL
This definition of "Hate speech" is pretty objectively defined and isn't arbitrary.
riiigghhhttt emotions certainly aren't arbitrary, um sure thing, isn't the word hate arbitrary though?
Why Your Brain Hates Other People
alt-f then type in arbitrary.
arbitrary: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
hate is arbitrary since it's based on or determined by individuals.
where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace
ahhh here we go, in other words Canadians can't control themselves when people talk bad to them, it all makes sense now, bunch of overly sensitive, easily made violent society.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace
Emphasis on the underlined part
-->
@PressF4Respect
where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace
Me saying the N word in a public place is protected under the first amendment. Can’t say the same in Canada
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
ahhh here we go, in other words Canadians can't control themselves when people talk bad to them, it all makes sense now, bunch of overly sensitive, easily made violent society.
That's your interpretation of it...
The US also has laws against this too (incitement and fighting words).
-->
@PressF4Respect
There is a huge difference between likely to lead to a breach of the peace
leads to a breach of the peace.
One is based on a premonition, the other is evidence.
There are more than a few (American) cases I can show where "fighting words" were ruled impossible to show evidence for because there was never any evidence that any word would necessarily lead to a fight in any given instance. That's because American law is based on evidence, not augury.
-->
@ILikePie5
Are you saying the N-word in a way that incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace?
-->
@PressF4Respect
Are you saying the N-word in a way that incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace?
It’s a simple question. Is saying the N word in public protected speech in Canada?
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s a simple question. Is saying the N word in public protected speech in Canada?
Unless it is said in a way that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, then yes, saying the N-word in public is protected speech in Canada.
-->
@Greyparrot
"Likely to lead to a breach of the peace" is a very high standard in court. Along with proving that the accused intended the speech to lead to a breach of the peace, they also have to, for example, prove that the recipient of said speech is capable of carrying out a breach of the peace, and is realistically likely to do so as a result of the speech. The standard that Canada uses to determine this is very similar to the "clear and present danger" standard laid out by Schenk v. United States (1919).
Like in the US, this is all determined in a courtroom through the rule of law.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Unless it is said in a way that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, then yes, saying the N-word in public is protected speech in Canada.
Is it ok to say “keep homosexuality out of public school?” In Canada? How would saying the N word in public ever lead to breach of peace?