Free speech or hate speech??

[icespot]

There is so much rhetoric about Muslims now and you can’t even utter a negative word or have an opinion any longer .
The simple fact is Islam is not a religion it is an ideology. Many here should go and buy an English copy of the Quran . It is clearly a book of peace if you are Muslim but it is clearly full of hate and violence if you are a non believer . I personally completely agree with every point he made regarding Muslims . I was just In London you would be very surprised to feel the tensions that are clearly present in their communities at this moment . An awful Muslim family moved into the house next to me and not a week later I had my house up for sale . I can’t stand the hypocrisy of the Muslim community . I am willing to bet that my account will be closed over this post and all I am doing is expressing my opinion . I will close with one thought , how do you think it would be received if I immigrated or had to move my life to a predominant Muslim country and I wanted to start to change their laws toward a more moderate way of thinking as the Muslims want to do with Sharia ? Death for me possibly ?? I have worked in Dubai , Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the oil business and let me tell you it would not be appreciated in the very least . The Muslim community uses our democratic system against us and only for their advantage and I for one am so sick and tired of their victim mentality .

Islam is a religion, many of us here studied world religions and philosophy of religion. The Quran is a religious text just like the Bible.
There are so many crimes committed in the Bible and I would argue that some of the text would fall under hate speech.

In exodus Moses killed 3000 for praying to a face idol. In today's society Moses would be done for genocide.

But the real problem is not the religion, but the followers that have some stupid belief that humans can offend God, and anything offensive to God most be destroy. In doing so forgetting that God is love, and only hatred is a destructive human emotion.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

He deserves to be fired.
What idiot doesn't have an anonymous twitter account to shitpost on?
Anyone that stupid shouldn't wear a badge

LOL....and he put his mugshot online for everyone to see :biggrin1:

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Why don't you test it out here, Phil.
You could just see if posting similar comments here, which isn't far off what you post, gets you banned again

I was never banned for racism, honeybun, I was only banned for calling guys like you an idiot.

I'm pretty drunk now actually, lets all try to get along shall we :biggrin:

 

[luckyjackson]

Should he lose his employment? Maybe. Should his opinions be punishable in a free society? No.

I've never heard a persuasive argument for anti hate speech laws. As long as you're not calling for violence or doing the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, I think speech should be tolerated.

 

[doggystyle99]

He deserves to be fired.
What idiot doesn't have an anonymous twitter account to shitpost on?
Anyone that stupid shouldn't wear a badge.

Nothing says coward more than posting hate filled tweets with a fake account.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

Should he lose his employment? Maybe. Should his opinions be punishable in a free society? No.

I've never heard a persuasive argument for anti hate speech laws. As long as you're not calling for violence or doing the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, I think speech should be tolerated.

FWIW...This is the Law from the Justice Canada govt site:

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(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.

I think we need these laws in order to have tools to clamp down on Hate Sites like the one the NZ Mosque Shooter was radicalized by. This stuff leads directly to domestic terror attacks.

 

[rhuarc29]

Fixed for you

Yeah, I'm sure there's full cooperation until an overt act of racism occurs.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Every parking enforcement officer harbors some personal biases and holds some political views. I'm sure that most of them strongly dislike or hold strong views in relation to something, including in relation to any or all of the following: a) gay people, v) people who drive cars, c) unattractive women, d) people who lie to police, e) people who don't support police presence in their community, f) people who are smarter than them, g) people who are wealthier than them, etc, etc. The only difference between this guy and other parking officers is that he's chosen to express his views publicly. Holding any of these views is not unlawful, no matter what the popularity of those views are. He hasn't advocated harm to anyone, or that anything at all should be done to anyone.

I don't think there is any reason or basis to dismiss a parking officer from employment unless or until there is some evidence that he is improperly exercising his discretion (to the extent that parking enforcement officers ever do that! ). Frankly, if he's not doing his job properly, I don't care why. I just want competent people doing his job.

Insisting that he be fired for his views is really insisting that the only "official" public position on these political issues must be that of the liberal left. Much too 1984 for me to get on board with. Likewise, I'm not in favor of firing enforcement officers who support the communist party, or who hold the view that there should be no borders or immigration screening. This guy was not a public outreach officer. I've seen no reporting that he expressed his views in connection with his dealings with the public.

This is mob rule, torch and pitchfork stuff. "Kill the Monster!"

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Every parking enforcement officer harbors some personal biases and holds some political views. I sure that most of them strongly dislike or hold strong views in relation to something, including in relation to any or all of the following: a) gay people, v) people who drive cars, c) unattractive women, d) people who lie to police, e) people who don't support police presence in their community, f) people who are smarter than them, g) people who are wealthier than them, etc, etc. The only difference between this guy and other parking officers is that he's chosen to express his views publicly. Holding any of these views is not unlawful, no matter what the popularity of those views are. He hasn't advocated harm to anyone, or that anything at all should be done to anyone.

I don't think there is any reason or basis to dismiss a parking officer from employment unless or until there is some evidence that he is improperly exercising his discretion (to the extent that parking enforcement officers ever do that! ). Frankly, if he's not doing his job properly, I don't care why. I just want competent people doing his job.

Insisting that he be fired for his views is really insisting that the only "official" public position on these political issues must be that of the liberal left. Much too 1984 for me to get on board with. Likewise, I'm not in favor of firing enforcement officers who support the communist party, or who hold the view that there should be no borders or immigration screening. This guy was not a public outreach officer. I've seen no reporting that he expressed his view in connection with his dealings with the public.

This is mob rule, torch and pitchfork stuff. "Kill the Monster!"

Post of the year!!

This has to be a Bud Plug alt, nobody else on Terb is this intelligent

 

[gilford]

Canada doesn't have free speech laws. We are very much open to legal penalties for saying certain things. But I digress, most employers have standards and whether on or off the clock you represent that company. They have grounds to dismiss to protect themselves.

 

[oldjones]

Every parking enforcement officer harbors some personal biases and holds some political views. I'm sure that most of them strongly dislike or hold strong views in relation to something, including in relation to any or all of the following: a) gay people, v) people who drive cars, c) unattractive women, d) people who lie to police, e) people who don't support police presence in their community, f) people who are smarter than them, g) people who are wealthier than them, etc, etc. The only difference between this guy and other parking officers is that he's chosen to express his views publicly. Holding any of these views is not unlawful, no matter what the popularity of those views are. He hasn't advocated harm to anyone, or that anything at all should be done to anyone.

I don't think there is any reason or basis to dismiss a parking officer from employment unless or until there is some evidence that he is improperly exercising his discretion (to the extent that parking enforcement officers ever do that! ). Frankly, if he's not doing his job properly, I don't care why. I just want competent people doing his job.

Insisting that he be fired for his views is really insisting that the only "official" public position on these political issues must be that of the liberal left. Much too 1984 for me to get on board with. Likewise, I'm not in favor of firing enforcement officers who support the communist party, or who hold the view that there should be no borders or immigration screening. This guy was not a public outreach officer. I've seen no reporting that he expressed his views in connection with his dealings with the public.

This is mob rule, torch and pitchfork stuff. "Kill the Monster!"

[bad Horror Flic vid in the original post above, if you're interested]

There's lots of truth in what you say about everyone having prejudices, and the critical point being whether they act on them, not what they think to themselves.

If we paid the taxes to have each PKO shadowed by a Supervisor to check every interaction (and then had every Shadowing Supervisor similarly surveilled, and so on up the line) then we cpould ignore what people like this guy say that gives ample reason to doubt their even-handedness and impartiality. But we don't.

Instead, we rely on trust, particularly in law enforcement. And the only surveillance the guy gets is done by citizens who we don't trust as much as the uniforms, and who likely just pay their $30 because it isn't worth the hassle.

If he had kept his opinions to himself, and his drinking buds, we'd not be posting here. If he had actually spouted these views in his interview, would you still be saying you don't care, hire him anyway?

 

[WarGames]

It's Freedom OF speech not Freedom FROM Speech

Let's keep it that way.

The whole point of freedom of speech is that not everyone is going to like what you have to say which is why it is protected.

 

[basketcase]

...

I don't think there is any reason or basis to dismiss a parking officer from employment unless or until there is some evidence that he is improperly exercising his discretion (to the extent that parking enforcement officers ever do that! ). Frankly, if he's not doing his job properly, I don't care why. I just want competent people doing his job....

Part of the job is dealing with the public and law enforcement needs to have (some level) of public trust. Any actions that undermine the public trust means he is making it harder for himself and other to do their job.

 

[Dutch Oven]

There's lots of truth in what you say about everyone having prejudices, and the critical point being whether they act on them, not what they think to themselves.

If we paid the taxes to have each PKO shadowed by a Supervisor to check every interaction (and then had every Shadowing Supervisor similarly surveilled, and so on up the line) then we cpould ignore what people like this guy say that gives ample reason to doubt their even-handedness and impartiality. But we don't.

Instead, we rely on trust, particularly in law enforcement. And the only surveillance the guy gets is done by citizens who we don't trust as much as the uniforms, and who likely just pay their $30 because it isn't worth the hassle.

If people feel they have been mistreated by a parking officer, they can complain about what happened, and the interaction can be reviewed on the facts of the interaction, not based on the thoughts in the officers mind. If such "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" are too trivial for the victim to follow up on, I'd say they're also not worth worrying about as a matter of police policy.

If he had kept his opinions to himself, and his drinking buds, we'd not be posting here. If he had actually spouted these views in his interview, would you still be saying you don't care, hire him anyway?

When a person encounters a parking officer, and has some misgivings about what happened, they don't need to start a search on the internet to find out what views may have influenced what happened. They can simply complain about what happened. If the officer chooses to tell the citizen that he's getting a ticket because he's an immigrant, black, gay, short, ugly, etc, then the officer is showing poor judgment, because those are not reasons to hand out tickets. Likewise, choosing to talk about such views in an interview about policing is demonstrating a lack of appreciation for the relevant policing principles. No one should be hired who doesn't appreciate that. However, no one should be doing the hiring who, similarly, believes that such views should be relevant to policing or choosing police officers. The interview process can achieve everything it needs to by exploring what the prospective officer would say are the correct criteria for exercising discretion.

However, social media posts are not a job interview, or actual job performance.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Part of the job is dealing with the public and law enforcement needs to have (some level) of public trust. Any actions that undermine the public trust means he is making it harder for himself and other to do their job.

We require that police officers perform their duties properly. What did the officer say that indicated he wouldn't be doing that?

Citizens are required to observe the laws (even parking laws), regardless of whether the political views of police officers match their own.

Police officers are not public relations officers for whatever the government of the day happens to to want to promote. They exist to enforce the laws that have been passed, not to ensure that no one ever proposes new laws or changes to the law.

 

[doggystyle99]

It's Freedom OF speech not Freedom FROM Speech
Let's keep it that way.
The whole point of freedom of speech is that not everyone is going to like what you have to say which is why it is protected.

Hate speech is not freedom of speech.

 

[malata]

keeping his opinions to himself is one thing, but sharing it on social media is another

law enforcement officials have a code of conduct to uphold:

Law Enforcement Code of Conduct (1991)
Private Life
Police officers will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to their agencies or themselves.

A police officer's character and conduct while off duty must always be exemplary, thus maintaining a position of respect in the community in which he or she lives and serves. The officer's personal behavior must be beyond reproach.

Code of Professional Ethics
- Are guided by the values of the service which include our people, community, integrity, leadership, accountability, competence and teamwork
- Preserve the rights and freedoms of all individuals in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Ontario Human Rights Code
- Are guided by the values of the service which include our people, community, integrity, leadership, accountability, competence and teamwork

 

[Spaceballs-1]

Nothing says coward more than posting hate filled tweets with a fake account.

Cowardly or not, I'm pointing out that he's just an idiot.

We live in a time where having the "wrong" opinion can get you brigaded in real life, get you fired and harrassed incessantly.
Look at what they tried to do to Jordan Peterson for example. Many or us don't have tenured positions like he has and there's a lot of risk to posting any divergent opinion.
"Hate speech" is free speech.
If you don't believe me, then confront some of those students walking around in "Che" shirts or flying the "Hammer and Sickle".

 

[luckyjackson]

Thank you KB...but I have read the law, I just don't agree with it. According to the law, or perhaps bad interpretations of it, I'd be breaking the law if I say I hate Catholics or Muslims or Jews or whatever. I might mean I don't like their beliefs, but as a society we've sucked at telling the difference. Why should it be illegal anyway to say you dislike a group of people? It might not be nice, but there are other remedies (social ones) that can be used to resolve such situations without resorting to the law. In short, it should not be illegal to be offensive.

 

[icespot]

Thank you KB...but I have read the law, I just don't agree with it. According to the law, or perhaps bad interpretations of it, I'd be breaking the law if I say I hate Catholics or Muslims or Jews or whatever. I might mean I don't like their beliefs, but as a society we've sucked at telling the difference. Why should it be illegal anyway to say you dislike a group of people? It might not be nice, but there are other remedies (social ones) that can be used to resolve such situations without resorting to the law. In short, it should not be illegal to be offensive.

What about the rights of the other group? Don't they also have a right to feel save in a public place and not have their rights violated by your rights? It's a balance you see.

Now you can exercise your rights of free speech. Find a cop that is all alone away from ear shout. Go tell him that he is a piece of fucking shit asshole that is a waste of good tax payers money. He is nothing but a pathetic fucking loser that probably couldn't do anything better with his life than oppress people. Their is no single law in this country that could give that officer the right to arrest you.

Say those same things when there is a single person of the public that can be offended, and it's off to jail you go.

Moral of the story, there is a place for your hate speech and there is another where people other than you have the same rights, and you can't violate those rights in a true free and democratic society.