Denying Holocaust Will be Illegal
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
- Status
Here's a tiny violin playing for the neo-Nazi fuckwits who will feel butt-hurt by this excellent move from our government.
You really think Neo-Nazi fuckwits are the only ones concerned about this, about the government criminalizing what you can and cannot say?
Imagine for a second, that some right-wing party comes to power in the future, and then criminalizes the right to say there are more than two genders (as they may view such opinions to be harmful to children), or the right to express pro-choice opinions on abortion (as they may view it tantamount to condoning murder). There's now precedent for them to enact such legislation, and being pro-children and anti-murder sound like good justifications. But you see, not everyone sees those issues through the same lens as them, but doesn't matter: they're the government, and they set what's criminal and what's not.
Denying the Holocaust is absurd, and the people who do so are idiots. That doesn't mean I think we should prosecute them for having an idiotic opinion and voicing it.
But also consider that until recently, voicing the theory about the coronavirus stemming from a lab in Wuhan made you a racist conspiracy theorist. That was the government's position. Now they're walking that back because it is possible as an origin point for COVID. But imagine a government empowered to prosecute you because you went against their narrative. Going after Holocaust deniers is easy, because almost everyone understands it did happen. The problem lies in giving the government the power to criminalize opinions they don't agree with, no matter how ludicrous those opinions are. Because you never know how wonky the government narrative will be in the future.
"Laws against speech are much better than social shunning by people who disagree with what you say" is a hell of a take.
What about the defenses in Section 319 do you take issue with?
Where?
Who is trying to pass this law?
The government has always criminalized what you can and cannot say.
The question is the boundaries of that action.
What about this law do you find objectionable and do you find the rest of Section 319 of the criminal code objectionable?
laws against free speech are evil no matter how you slice it
Don't underestimate the power over your life of these these unelected and unaccountable SJW's.
Its a fundamental difference between Canada and the US, isn't it?
Canada has hate speech laws and the US has that first amendment thing.
Kinda like you can choose to post here, on a moderated board with no free speech or you could post on 8chan or Truth social or somewhere with no moderation and total free speech.
the loonies always think they will be spared for supporting the lunatic left movement
History has shown it does not work that way
I do find Section 319 to be *question*able on the whole. I think it should be scrapped, and instead enfold those scenarios under Section 264 and 264.1.
But even if we said it's a necessary evil, then this latest law is a matter of how you define "hate". While stupid, I don't see logically how denying an event occurred, even the Holocaust, is "hateful" in and of itself.
I really find this entire conversation quite humorous. The same people objecting to the restraints on free speech etc are among the same people who have no problem with banning certain books and the "Don't say gay" laws etc..
You have the Library of Alexandria in the palm of your hand (for now anyway). Lot's to question, lots to confrim. Asking questions and outright denial should not be considered the same thing and the topic should not be a binary one.
Why don't those that deny that Potato Famine (or still call it that), the Holodomor or the Armenian Genocide have the same scrutiny? They aren't even taught.
I guess some are more equal than others.
There is no don't say gay law. Just a law to stop teaching little kids about things they shouldn't be learning about at that age. Let them be kids. I don't find it humorous that people like you walk the streets.
COLUMN: Bill C-36 resembles 1984’s infamous offence of Thoughtcrime
"What someone thinks you might think could therefore become reasonable grounds for prosecution."
www.stalberttoday.ca
In the wording of the proposed statute, anyone can take you to court if they fear you might commit: “an offence motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor."
All you are doing is imposing you opinion about what children should be learning or not. You don't see the irony in your statement? Of cousre not. Free speech to many people is only free if they agree with it.
LOL!! You want to teach gender dysphoria to FIVE year olds?
- Status
