Transgender Community

[B-cock #1 641]

This will be an unpopluar opinion, but I've been having it roll around my head for a while. Feel free to add insight and teach me if there is something you can add. I'll preface that I don't give a fuck if you're LGBQIA+ (that whole thing I think is stupid as fuck though.)

 

By nature, people and animals have the desire to breed. This is to be able to maintain numbers so the populace doesn't go extinct, but there are people that are attracted to the same sex. I personally believe that is for lack of a better term, something wrong mentally. Now, I'm not saying they're stupid or anything, there are plenty of smart gay people. I'm just saying by nature, they wouldn't breed which goes against what nature intends.

 

Although I know sex doesn't just have to be just for reproducing, especially in this day and age it's mostly for pleasure. This is fine, and in this day and age you can still have insemination to have a child of your own, but at the core of how nature intended, and whether you like it or not, you're born one of two sexes (Idk, maybe there are a few cases where someone was actually born w/ male and female anatomy). Mentally, you can be whatever the fuck you want, but no matter how much you change your body, you are still what you were born with (at this current time).

[Fugner 1019]

Just now, B-cock #1 said:

By nature, people and animals have the desire to breed. This is to be able to maintain numbers so the populace doesn't go extinct, but there are people that are attracted to the same sex. I personally believe that is for lack of a better term, something wrong mentally. Now, I'm not saying they're stupid or anything, there are plenty of smart gay people. I'm just saying by nature, they wouldn't breed which goes against what nature intends.

Couldn't this also apply to heterosexual people who don't breed?

[B-cock #1 641]

And that's where it get's a little confusing, sex in general is meant to be for breeding. But we as people have gotten to a point where were able to have sex w/o actually creating children. Were one of the few life forms that have sex for pleasure (I think dolphins do as well). But we still act these instincts out by wanting to have sex with the opposite sex. Our evolution and technology has changed us so it's hard to say.

[Ironic 2278]

1 hour ago, B-cock #1 said:

This will be an unpopluar opinion, but I've been having it roll around my head for a while. Feel free to add insight and teach me if there is something you can add. I'll preface that I don't give a fuck if you're LGBQIA+ (that whole thing I think is stupid as fuck though.)

 

By nature, people and animals have the desire to breed. This is to be able to maintain numbers so the populace doesn't go extinct, but there are people that are attracted to the same sex. I personally believe that is for lack of a better term, something wrong mentally. Now, I'm not saying they're stupid or anything, there are plenty of smart gay people. I'm just saying by nature, they wouldn't breed which goes against what nature intends.

 

Although I know sex doesn't just have to be just for reproducing, especially in this day and age it's mostly for pleasure. This is fine, and in this day and age you can still have insemination to have a child of your own, but at the core of how nature intended, and whether you like it or not, you're born one of two sexes (Idk, maybe there are a few cases where someone was actually born w/ male and female anatomy). Mentally, you can be whatever the fuck you want, but no matter how much you change your body, you are still what you were born with (at this current time).

I've always thought about this too. Whether you believe in a God or whatever, breeding (AKA sex) has always been, or was primarily made for having children and keeping our species going. This day and age, yeah sex is mostly for pleasure now. To put some food for thought though, could some say we are failing at one of our primary jobs as human beings by not reproducing? This ultimately could be why some look down on those in the LGBTQ+ community, because normally what they do could (as some might say) "go against one of our main jobs as human beings" which is to reproduce and keep our species going, and improving.

[Rune 2783]

1 hour ago, B-cock #1 said:

By nature

 

I'm not sure how you don't think this isn't a piss poor argument in essence. If we tried to argue everything should be considered to be done by how nature intends, we'd still be dying by the ripe age of 20, harvesting our own food daily, and haven't an inkling of a clue what civilized society today would look like. As it is right now, a good majority of us would die within the first week if we reverted to what is "natural." In other words, to try to define what "nature intends" is complete horseshit because clearly we've defied it time and time again as a species. We define our own societal standards because, unlike animals, we are sentient beings (Perhaps the wrong term, but hopefully you get the gist.) 

 

Of course, someone could argue different things about what is natural based on their personal bias, but I guess to each their own. All I can argue as a counter point is: if you think things should be done as nature intends, you can't get angry when you get mauled by a bear. T'is only natural. I'm sure some idiots would try to act like that's okay.

 

I really can't say anything about the "ideal" that you posted where gays have something "wrong mentally". Clearly I have my opinions in the matter and they differ vastly from yours. All I can really say is you should consider reading up what a mental condition entails before you try to say something as stupid as that.

[trav 6834]

I thought sex for breeding only was a social construct created by religious fanatics. Hunter gatherers have been having sex for pleasure for much longer than religion has existed. I think we assume sex is only for reproduction when I don't think it really is.

 

As well homosexuality exists in nature too, bonobos are a good example as well for animals having sex for pleasure.

 

This is a very interesting read btw:

https://www.amazon.ca/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

[B-cock #1 641]

 

Just now, Rune said:

 

I'm not sure how you don't think this isn't a piss poor argument in essence. If we tried to argue everything should be considered to be done by how nature intends, we'd still be dying by the ripe age of 20, harvesting our own food daily, and haven't an inkling of a clue what civilized society today would look like. As it is right now, a good majority of us would die within the first week if we reverted to what is "natural." In other words, to try to define what "nature intends" is complete horseshit because clearly we've defied it time and time again as a species. We define our own societal standards because, unlike animals, we are sentient beings (Perhaps the wrong term, but hopefully you get the gist.) 

 

Of course, someone could argue different things about what is natural based on their personal bias, but I guess to each their own. All I can argue as a counter point is: if you think things should be done as nature intends, you can't get angry when you get mauled by a bear. T'is only natural. I'm sure some idiots would try to act like that's okay.

 

I really can't say anything about the "ideal" that you posted where gays have something "wrong mentally". Clearly I have my opinions in the matter and they differ vastly from yours. All I can really say is you should consider reading up what a mental condition entails before you try to say something as stupid as that.

 

When I say by nature, I mean the things humans are born to want. Natural instincts if you will, to survive. We need nourishment and at a later age desire sex, we don't know what the pleasure is but we desire to have sex naturally and puberty aids in that cause with all the body changes to make a male that is able help make babies and to allow females to have the ability to have babies. It's not like we hit puberty because our body wants to feel good when having sex, it does so because it wants to reproduce.

 

Just now, Travesty said:

I thought sex for breeding only was a social construct created by religious fanatics. Hunter gatherers have been having sex for pleasure for much longer than religion has existed. I think we assume sex is only for reproduction when I don't think it really is.

 

I don't know why the church really makes it about sex before marriage, but I don't think it's for breeding purposes. It's easy to assume sex is for reproduction since nearly every non-human uses sex only for reproduction.

[trav 6834]

Just now, B-cock #1 said:

I don't know why the church really makes it about sex before marriage, but I don't think it's for breeding purposes. It's easy to assume sex is for reproduction since nearly every non-human uses sex only for reproduction.

 

Fair point but we are also lot more evolved now as well. And in nature animals have sex just to have sex, as homosexuality is natural.

[B-cock #1 641]

Just now, Travesty said:

 

Fair point but we are also lot more evolved now as well. And in nature animals have sex just to have sex.

Yeah, evolution makes this topic a littler harder, what are we in the process of evolving towards? I guess I just don't know what the next step. I guess you then have to look at the emotion that I think we developed, love. Right now it makes sense, you love someone and then you may decide you want to have a child together. But back in earlier times, I don't believe love was a thing, we were more like animals and just had sex to reproduce. But I do get what you are saying about hunter-gatherers, but I just don't know when pleasure started outdoing reproduction.

[Rune 2783]

Just now, B-cock #1 said:

Yeah, evolution makes this topic a littler harder, what are we in the process of evolving towards? I guess I just don't know what the next step. I guess you then have to look at the emotion that I think we developed, love. Right now it makes sense, you love someone and then you may decide you want to have a child together. But back in earlier times, I don't believe love was a thing, we were more like animals and just had sex to reproduce. But I do get what you are saying about hunter-gatherers, but I just don't know when pleasure started outdoing reproduction.

 

This is quite a far stretch to try to prove an argument with very little basis in today's society. Even if for some reason it were true, you'd have to be really pushing hard to try to prove something that may have been true several thousand years ago. If for some reason you could prove it to be true, which I doubt that you can, it's still irrelevant for what is true today.

 

Your logic is that humans want to reproduce when they have sex.

 

Your logic is flawed in that we have a plethora of things to prevent reproduction from happening when we have sex. I'm not sure how you think you have a plausible argument in the grand scheme of TODAY's society. Anyone could push an argument to say we didn't have condoms, birth control, etc ~100 years ago, but that doesn't have any application to the 21st century either.

[B-cock #1 641]

Just now, Rune said:

 

This is quite a far stretch to try to prove an argument with very little basis in today's society. Even if for some reason it were true, you'd have to be really pushing hard to try to prove something that may have been true several thousand years ago. If for some reason you could prove it to be true, which I doubt that you can, it's still irrelevant for what is true today.

 

Your logic is that humans want to reproduce when they have sex.

 

Your logic is flawed in that we have a plethora of things to prevent reproduction from happening when we have sex. I'm not sure how you think you have a plausible argument in the grand scheme of TODAY's society. Anyone could push an argument to say we didn't have condoms, birth control, etc ~100 years ago, but that doesn't have any application to the 21st century either.

Then why is it when we hit puberty, that we just get an urge for sex? I get that we have sex for pleasure now, it's really obvious. Are you saying we have puberty just so our bodies can feel pleasure in a different way?

[Rune 2783]

Just now, B-cock #1 said:

Then why is it when we hit puberty, that we just get an urge for sex? I get that we have sex for pleasure now, it's really obvious. Are you saying we have puberty just so our bodies can feel pleasure in a different way?

 

And unfortunately your logic in this is in itself a fallacy. Simply because puberty occurs and our bodies have an inclination towards sex as a result, doesn't necessarily mean we act on that impulse to reproduce. You didn't see teenagers in high school talking about, "oh man, I want to fuck that chick to have a kid." No, to desire sex is to desire the pleasure that is brought with it.

We have sex because it feels good. We wouldn't masturbate as a species if we had sex to just have kids. The stigma that our bodies make it feel good in order to reproduce is the idea that, "Well because A happens, B must be true." Can you prove it to be true? I can't. You can't exactly try to compare us to animals either because we are different as a whole.

 

On the logic that puberty occurs because of reproduction, we also learn to hate people as we grow. When someone doesn't agree with us on something we feel strongly about, we are inclined to violence because that's how we react as a species. As impulse would have it, some people act on that and become violent. We've seen this same behavior for as long as humans have been alive. I'd argue that's what is natural for us, but does that make it right? Of course not.

[Kim 469]

12 hours ago, B-cock #1 said:

This will be an unpopluar opinion, but I've been having it roll around my head for a while. Feel free to add insight and teach me if there is something you can add. I'll preface that I don't give a fuck if you're LGBQIA+ (that whole thing I think is stupid as fuck though.)

 

By nature, people and animals have the desire to breed. This is to be able to maintain numbers so the populace doesn't go extinct, but there are people that are attracted to the same sex. I personally believe that is for lack of a better term, something wrong mentally. Now, I'm not saying they're stupid or anything, there are plenty of smart gay people. I'm just saying by nature, they wouldn't breed which goes against what nature intends.

 

Although I know sex doesn't just have to be just for reproducing, especially in this day and age it's mostly for pleasure. This is fine, and in this day and age you can still have insemination to have a child of your own, but at the core of how nature intended, and whether you like it or not, you're born one of two sexes (Idk, maybe there are a few cases where someone was actually born w/ male and female anatomy). Mentally, you can be whatever the fuck you want, but no matter how much you change your body, you are still what you were born with (at this current time).

 

There's many examples in nature of same sex couples raising kids that can't be raised by straight couples due to certain circumstances, many times overpopulation. 

 

One theory for homosexuality in nature is that it is a good solution to orphan children who need someone to support them. There's many other things I could say to counter your argument here, but that's the only one I figured I'd say for now.

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

Honestly, there's a ton of hetero couples that absolutely should not reproduce. And the couples that have one or more trans individuals? I think the human species will continue if people aren't fucking to reproduce in that regard. 

[Llethander 230]

The contents of this thread are pretty much the reason my eyes begin to bleed any time someone mentions this shit around me.

 

"This is my opinion because X and Y and Z."  *Has self-righteous bullshit crammed down his throat because people disagree with said opinion and think they can change it.*

 

My former step-father, now aunt, is trans. One of my best friends, formerly male now female, is trans. I don't care what others do with their bodies as long as it doesn't directly affect me in a negative way (ie. physical danger, monetary distress, etc) and, since it's very unlikely that someone's choices regarding their body are going to affect me in such a manner, the amount of fucks I give is zero. When I start to have issues is when people try to tell me how to think, how to speak, or how to act towards other people. I think I'm a generally accepting person; I treat everyone with a basic level of respect and the amount of respect they are shown either increases or decreases based on how our interactions turn out.

 

To answer the questions in the OP:

 

Are you scared of questioning/criticizing the community in fear of being called transphobic? - No. If someone calls me transphobic then they have shown they don't know what the word means.

Are you unable to take the community seriously due to people who voice, loud, generally radical opinions? - I have trouble taking the community seriously because I have yet to speak with someone whose opinions are based on empirical evidence and, instead, either regurgitate the Tumblr/Buzzfeed garbage they have read/heard or base their statements on feelings over science.

What is your opinion on the community? - I think that the visible community - media, social media, etc - is a cancerous tumor doing far more damage than good. Their actions are the kind that turn people away from their movement; see "basket of deplorables". Social Justice is not a good thing. It is, actually, very dangerous.

 

I have problems when things like Bill C-16 are written into law with no opposition in parliament even though the very real problems with the bill have been mentioned time and again. In Canada our government is, instead of telling us what we're not allowed to say, telling us what we our REQUIRED to say. Facing potential jail-time for refusing to use someone's self-identified pronouns doesn't sit right with me.

 

I'm going to end my rambling here because I have reached the point where the less I see/hear about this sort of thing the better for my sanity.

 

tl;dr - I have a seething distaste for anything social justice. Whatever someone wants to do with their own body is up to them. Don't tell me what I have to say, think, and/or believe. I will not use most pronouns other than he/she/they.

[JFK 546]

49 minutes ago, Llethander said:

I have problems when things like Bill C-16 are written into law with no opposition in parliament even though the very real problems with the bill have been mentioned time and again. In Canada our government is, instead of telling us what we're not allowed to say, telling us what we our REQUIRED to say. Facing potential jail-time for refusing to use someone's self-identified pronouns doesn't sit right with me.

 

 

 

I'm going to end my rambling here because I have reached the point where the less I see/hear about this sort of thing the better for my sanity.

 

tl;dr - I have a seething distaste for anything social justice. Whatever someone wants to do with their own body is up to them. Don't tell me what I have to say, think, and/or believe. I will not use most pronouns other than he/she/they.

 

I'm not a Canadian so I don't follow your country's politics as closely, but I was the under the impression the actual text of the bill only forbids your federal government and businesses within its jurisdiction from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. The only source I've found indicating the bill does otherwise is some professor that already believes non-binary gender identities don't exist and unsurprisingly opposes hate speech laws in general.

 

You probably shouldn't worry about being arrested over this passing unless you're planning on purposefully misgendering people with the intention of harassing or belittling them.

[Llethander 230]

16 minutes ago, JFK said:

 

I'm not a Canadian so I don't follow your country's politics as closely, but I was the under the impression the actual text of the bill only forbids your federal government and businesses within its jurisdiction from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. The only source I've found indicating the bill does otherwise is some professor that already believes non-binary gender identities don't exist and unsurprisingly opposes hate speech laws in general.

 

You probably shouldn't worry about being arrested over this passing unless you're planning on purposefully misgendering people with the intention of harassing or belittling them.

 

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/third-reading

 

It is not specific to business and/or government, the wording is non-specific. Vague language use in laws is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion. The thing one has to realize is that, without going too far into it, wherein discrimination-based verbal harassment is concerned all someone has to do is state that they felt harassed by the language used for the other party to have harassed them, within reason of course. This can take the form of refusal to refer to someone using their self-identified pronouns such as "Xe/Xem/Xyr" and "Ey/Em/Eir" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_protologisms/third_person_singular_gender_neutral_pronouns) which, in my personal opinion, are ridiculous when considered for normal speech. The issue is with the deliberately vague nature of the wording of the bill.

 

I'm not worried that I, myself, will find myself on the receiving end of such a situation. It's simply the erosion of our rights that I have issue with. The government should not be able to legislate language that we must use, full stop.

[JFK 546]

Quote

 

Criminal Code

 

2014, c. 31, s. 12

3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

 

Definition of identifiable group

(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

1995, c. 22, s. 6

 

4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

 

I was referring to that specifically. Maybe Canada has changed beyond recognition since the last time I've been there, but I'm finding it extraordinarily hard to believe that Canadian transgender community is going to explode and have people arrested enmass because someone innocently or accidentally used the wrong pronoun. Which Canadian law says nothing about as far as my limited knowledge goes.

 

Even if they did, their charges wouldn't hold up considering you guys have things like defined hate speech laws that very specifically classify what's considered a hate crime. Unless you're advocating for transgender genocide or are being such a blatant asshole that it leaves no room for doubt, this law isn't going to adversely affect anyone. Well except of course, the people are who are upset that they won't be able to discriminate or deliberately harass people on the basis of their gender identity.

 

The way I see it, you're overestimating the impact tumblr trolls have on real life but to each his own.

[Dakota 4722]

On 6/10/2017 at 2:44 PM, B-cock #1 said:

And that's where it get's a little confusing, sex in general is meant to be for breeding. But we as people have gotten to a point where were able to have sex w/o actually creating children. Were one of the few life forms that have sex for pleasure (I think dolphins do as well). But we still act these instincts out by wanting to have sex with the opposite sex. Our evolution and technology has changed us so it's hard to say.

In chimps sex is used for pleasure breeding and literal prostitution.

[Llethander 230]

16 hours ago, JFK said:

 

I was referring to that specifically. Maybe Canada has changed beyond recognition since the last time I've been there, but I'm finding it extraordinarily hard to believe that Canadian transgender community is going to explode and have people arrested enmass because someone innocently or accidentally used the wrong pronoun. Which Canadian law says nothing about as far as my limited knowledge goes.

 

Even if they did, their charges wouldn't hold up considering you guys have things like defined hate speech laws that very specifically classify what's considered a hate crime. Unless you're advocating for transgender genocide or are being such a blatant asshole that it leaves no room for doubt, this law isn't going to adversely affect anyone. Well except of course, the people are who are upset that they won't be able to discriminate or deliberately harass people on the basis of their gender identity.

 

The way I see it, you're overestimating the impact tumblr trolls have on real life but to each his own.

 

It actually has nothing to do with actual legal courts. It also doesn't necessary have to do with the Trans Community as it takes only one person to submit a complaint against you to truly ruin your day. The way things could play out, in a worst-case theoretical situation, would be like this:

 

 

Person A (transgender) is interacting with Person B. (A) requests that (B) uses a specific set of pronouns to refer to them. (B) refuses (A)'s request. (A) feels offended and discriminated against by (B)'s refusal to use their self-identified pronouns. (A) submits a complaint against (B) to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The CHRC determines through their own preliminary investigation that discrimination-based harassment has occurred and forwards the case to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. (B) is summoned before the Tribunal.

 

Important note: The Tribunal is not actually a court but acts in much the same way as a court wherein the Tribunal has the power to question both the complainant and the complainee. The tribunal also acts as judge and jury. (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/index-en.html)

 

The Tribunal interrogates (B) in much the same way that an attorney would question a litigant. The Tribunal determines that (B) was indeed guilty of discriminatory harassment against (A). The Tribunal can choose to place a Cease and Decist order against (B) in order to force him to comply with (A)'s demand of pronoun use and/or levy a fine against (B) if they so choose. If (B) refuses to comply he can be found in contempt and receive jail time. (http://lawyersforemployers.ca/federal-court-appeal-finds-tribunal-orders-hold-weight-court-orders/)

 

Important note: Decisions of the Tribunal are considered final and are not subject to a right of appeal. You may request a reconsideration but the chances of such are unlikely. (http://www.hrlsc.on.ca/en/publications-resources/information-sheets-guides/requesting-reconsideration)

(http://asjn.communitylivingontario.ca/content/human-rights-hearing-process)

 

 

This process is as Jared Brown described in the video I linked above. The actual process may be somewhat different, this theoretical description of events is based off of my own very brief research on the matter. I am, however, like to take the statements of Mr. Brown during the Senate hearing to be true. Where the Tribunal is concerned, the following image should show the kind of precedents that have been set:

 

(http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/953-2000.html)

 

Neither truth nor intent are defenses. Whether or not the speaker is speaking truth or believes what they are speaking to be true is irrelevant.

 

Personal note: The citations provided above are meant only to show the plausibility of my statements and are not intended as a means to validify any claims that the CHRC/CHRT would for-sure rule in such a way.

 

There are reasons why people have issues with Bill C-16. With it's writ into Law the Canadian government has, essentially, gone from telling us what we are not allowed to say  to telling us what we are required to say. Is it likely that there will be a wide-spread epidemic of complaints to the CHRC? No, I don't think so. Is it alarming that the possibility is there due to the vague nature of the language in the bill? Yes, very much so.

[JFK 546]

2 hours ago, Llethander said:

This process is as Jared Brown described in the video I linked above. The actual process may be somewhat different, this theoretical description of events is based off of my own very brief research on the matter. I am, however, like to take the statements of Mr. Brown during the Senate hearing to be true. Where the Tribunal is concerned, the following image should show the kind of precedents that have been set:

 

(http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/953-2000.html

 

"Neither truth nor intent are defenses. Whether or not the speaker is speaking truth or believes what they are speaking to be true is irrelevant."

 

I really suggest doing a little bit more than some "brief research" before peddling the words and claims of one of the most notorious holocaust deniers out there. Of all the possible things you could have cited from that, you decided to go with Zündel's own account and summation of the case he gave at a press conference, and not the CHRC's. For extremely blatant reasons, you should be taking his words with a grain of salt.

 

I have no idea why you thought it was good idea to cite this as an example of a dangerous precedent. That case has very obvious evidence that Ernst violated just about every standard of decency.

 

2 hours ago, Llethander said:

There are reasons why people have issues with Bill C-16. With it's writ into Law the Canadian government has, essentially, gone from telling us what we are not allowed to say  to telling us what we are required to say. Is it likely that there will be a wide-spread epidemic of complaints to the CHRC? No, I don't think so. Is it alarming that the possibility is there due to the vague nature of the language in the bill? Yes, very much so.

 

The fact that the best case you could find of freedom of speech being infringed was of a holocaust denier who spent his entire life denying the holocaust and promoting hatred of Jews should be enough proof that your concerns are seriously blown out of proportion.

[Llethander 230]

3 hours ago, JFK said:

 

I really suggest doing a little bit more than some "brief research" before peddling the words and claims of one of the most notorious holocaust deniers out there. Of all the possible things you could have cited from that, you decided to go with Zündel's own account and summation of the case he gave at a press conference, and not the CHRC's. For extremely blatant reasons, you should be taking his words with a grain of salt.

 

I have no idea why you thought it was good idea to cite this as an example of a dangerous precedent. That case has very obvious evidence that Ernst violated just about every standard of decency.

 

 

The fact that the best case you could find of freedom of speech being infringed was of a holocaust denier who spent his entire life denying the holocaust and promoting hatred of Jews should be enough proof that your concerns are seriously blown out of proportion.

 

That's a University of Minnesota document, just saying.

 

In addition, while I disagree with Holocaust Denialism and am of the opinion that anyone who believes such is retarded, it is well within their rights to believe such and speak such. That is the entire purpose of freedom of speech. Ernst Zundel was essentially found guilty and jailed for Holocaust Denial - a thought crime.

 

I used the ruling  in that case to show a previously set precedent - ie. A ruling that will affect rulings on similar cases in the future. This legal precedent is that "truth is not a defense" or, in layman's terms, speaking the truth or speaking what you firmly believe to be the truth is not a defense. In addition, only the interpretation matters, the actual intent is irrelevant.

 

I am "peddling" nothing of Ernst's. It was a real trial and they were statements that were actually made thus myuse of it as an example is relevant.

 

 

 

[JFK 546]

1 hour ago, Llethander said:

I used the ruling  in that case to show a previously set precedent - ie. A ruling that will affect rulings on similar cases in the future. This legal precedent is that "truth is not a defense" or, in layman's terms, speaking the truth or speaking what you firmly believe to be the truth is not a defense. In addition, only the interpretation matters, the actual intent is irrelevant

 

The thing is that your interpretation is off because Zundel was found to have blatantly have an intention to expose Jews to hatred and condemnation on several occasions. Additionally, holocaust denial is based off of falsified history and isn't remotely close to the truth or a "differing opinion." You would be extremely hard-pressed to find anyone that suggests that holocaust denial is not antisemitic. He wasn't some poor sap who accidentally offended a Jewish person who wrongfully overreacted. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

Stuff like holocaust revision is kept suppressed and is universally condemned, because vulnerable disenfranchised people fall for it and become radicalized. Allowing shit like this to perpetuate on the scale Zundel was is extremely dangerous and can have serious repercussions on Jewish communities. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes against Jewish communities skyrocketed in Canada and the U.S. last year.

 

1 hour ago, Llethander said:

In addition, while I disagree with Holocaust Denialism and am of the opinion that anyone who believes such is retarded, it is well within their rights to believe such and speak such. That is the entire purpose of freedom of speech. Ernst Zundel was essentially found guilty and jailed for Holocaust Denial - a thought crime.

 

The thing is that the guy had actively been spreading Neo-Nazi propaganda for 25 years or so I believe at the time of this case. It was later so severe that he was found to be a threat to national security and was deported for inciting racial hatred. To say he was jailed because he only believed the holocaust never happened is a massive understatement considering the role he played in perpetuating it and radicalizing people into becoming Neo-Nazis. He wasn't some ordinary denier who just so happened to say the holocaust never happened some one time.

 

1 hour ago, Llethander said:

 

 

 

Again, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to accomplish by citing these obscure holocaust revisionists when you say they're retarded. I mean, the women has no legal credibility considering she's apparently a model and an actress, not even a lawyer. How is she at all relevant?

 

Can't you bring up some other political group besides holocaust deniers or petty obvious bigots that are having their rights infringed? That's all I'm asking for really. I mean, the fact the only people you can find that are being impacted are all holocaust deniers that think Judaism is a poison has to mean your country is pretty effective when it comes to only punishing people who are actually hateful individuals and not those who accidentally offended others. It's not like you're being jailed if you say something bad about Trudeau.

 

1 hour ago, Llethander said:

I am "peddling" nothing of Ernst's. It was a real trial and they were statements that were actually made thus myuse of it as an example is relevant.

 

Dude, you outright cited his own account in a holocaust denial case that, "Neither truth nor intent are defenses. Whether or not the speaker is speaking truth or believes what they are speaking to be true is irrelevant." as if that was official statement made by the CHRC. You peddled his argument as if it was a fact.

 

I can understand wanting to protect Freedom Of Speech, but it was not designed as a shield to empower racists and very obvious bigots like holocaust deniers.

[Llethander 230]

7 hours ago, JFK said:

 

The thing is that your interpretation is off because Zundel was found to have blatantly have an intention to expose Jews to hatred and condemnation on several occasions. Additionally, holocaust denial is based off of falsified history and isn't remotely close to the truth or a "differing opinion." You would be extremely hard-pressed to find anyone that suggests that holocaust denial is not antisemitic. He wasn't some poor sap who accidentally offended a Jewish person who wrongfully overreacted. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

Stuff like holocaust revision is kept suppressed and is universally condemned, because vulnerable disenfranchised people fall for it and become radicalized. Allowing shit like this to perpetuate on the scale Zundel was is extremely dangerous and can have serious repercussions on Jewish communities. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes against Jewish communities skyrocketed in Canada and the U.S. last year.

 

 

The thing is that the guy had actively been spreading Neo-Nazi propaganda for 25 years or so I believe at the time of this case. It was later so severe that he was found to be a threat to national security and was deported for inciting racial hatred. To say he was jailed because he only believed the holocaust never happened is a massive understatement considering the role he played in perpetuating it and radicalizing people into becoming Neo-Nazis. He wasn't some ordinary denier who just so happened to say the holocaust never happened some one time.

 

 

Again, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to accomplish by citing these obscure holocaust revisionists when you say they're retarded. I mean, the women has no legal credibility considering she's apparently a model and an actress, not even a lawyer. How is she at all relevant?

 

Can't you bring up some other political group besides holocaust deniers or petty obvious bigots that are having their rights infringed? That's all I'm asking for really. I mean, the fact the only people you can find that are being impacted are all holocaust deniers that think Judaism is a poison has to mean your country is pretty effective when it comes to only punishing people who are actually hateful individuals and not those who accidentally offended others. It's not like you're being jailed if you say something bad about Trudeau.

 

 

Dude, you outright cited his own account in a holocaust denial case that, "Neither truth nor intent are defenses. Whether or not the speaker is speaking truth or believes what they are speaking to be true is irrelevant." as if that was official statement made by the CHRC. You peddled his argument as if it was a fact.

 

I can understand wanting to protect Freedom Of Speech, but it was not designed as a shield to empower racists and very obvious bigots like holocaust deniers.

 

I'm only going to respond to this briefly since I'm at work using my phone and have little interest in continuing this discussion as it is clear to me that there is going to be no compromise on either side.

 

In my original post I stated that the scenario I was describing was a theoretical worst-case scenario. That is important wording. As it is a worst-case scenario the only evidence that I need to provide is that which substantiates the plausibility of the claim. 

 

In 2007 a CHRC investigator, Dean Steacy, made the following statement:

 

Quote

Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value... It's not my job to give value to an American concept.

 

https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/chamber/403/debates/013db_2010-03-30-e#52

 

Additionally:

 

Quote

 

Q: Shouldn’t truth or benign intent be a valid defence?

A:

Mr. Whatcott claims what he says is the medical truth and his intent is not to promote hatred, but to express his love of people who are engaged in immoral behaviour. Similarly, Ernst Zundel once tried to argue the truth of his Holocaust denial as defence against a similar complaint, which would have put his tribunal in an awkward spot, entertaining arguments designed to spread hate. This fear of a hijacked platform is a main reason human rights hate speech tribunals will not accept a defense of truth or benign intent, whereas a criminal court will. They are meant to be remedial and conciliatory, rather than punitive, and so offer fewer legal safeguards. (No one can be convicted criminally of wilful promotion of hatred, for example, if he can prove what he said was true, or the good faith expression of a religious belief, or was pointed out for the purpose of removal, or was “relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit.”)

 

The Supreme Court has now confirmed a further reason – truth can be used to spread hate, just as lies can. True statements can be marshalled to hateful, bogus arguments about the denial of the Holocaust, the inferiority of blacks, the perversion of Muslims, the slyness of Jews “The vulnerable group is no less worthy of protection because the publisher has succeeded in turning true statements into a hateful message,” as Mr. Justice Rothstein put it. “Truthful statements can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech.”

 

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-power-of-hate-a-legal-primer-on-this-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-against-william-whatcott/wcm/2a7706e4-81e7-4e48-832d-532cfbeeba86

 

 

I may have chosen a poor example but my scenario is still plausible. That said, I do not believe that the average citizen needs to worry about being taken before the CHRT. My issue is with the fact that the path has been set for the possibility. Incredibly low probability but still possible.

[Dakota 4722]

Llethander is simply showing a scenario where a slippery slope may occur. JFK I think you're focusing in the holocaust bit a little too much.