Really? Tell us about Canadian Hate Speech Laws.
You mean the laws that have only ever been enforced 5 times in the last 19 years and 8 times since the 1970’s only in cases in which people have issued threats of murder to groups of people? the most recent case someone publishing a newsletter denying the holocaust and suggesting Jews should be murdered.
or are you talking about the Provincial anti-discrimination laws? which are more of people suing each-other.
Would that be the languages of the indigenous peoples of the USA? Maybe it is Irish?
We like it CJ.
What about former Aussie culture?
So St Paddy’s day has nothing to do with the USA.
Perhaps you missed it the first time so I’ll repeat. The indigenous peoples of the US were pretty well wiped out during the 19th Century. What remained of them were sent to reservations where they rotted for most of a hundred years.
Most of them unfortunately got stuck in the victim mentality for many decades and are only now recovering in the last 20-30 years.
Also Hate speech law only exist in Canada because of the Jewish population campaigned to make holocaust denying not be covered as free speech.
also this is how “Hate speech” is defined.
“detestation” and “vilification” aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims
I will quote Angela Merkel twice on multiculturalism in Germany. Since she is often held up as the beacon of hope for the west.
Oct 2010 - When talking about foreign workers mainly from Turkey.
“We kidded ourselves a while, we said: ‘They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone’, but this isn’t reality.”
“And of course, the approach to build a multicultural society and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.”
Dec 2015
“Multiculturalism remains a sham” “The challenge is immense,” “We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably.”
And now the number 2 party in Germany is the AFD a party only two years old, which is often labeled (I think unfairly) as far right. At what cost is it worth trying to change societies on a massive scale? I personally would like to avoid seeing Germany or another country go down the road of former Yugoslavia, but it seems others are hellbent on it.
Immigration (migration) should be slow and vetted, when it comes at a massive level often there are massive problems that last for generations.
Book bans, gov’t censure for unpopular speech. Yep, that’s freedom!
1 Like
The Germans have been at odds with the Turkish Laborers since the post WWII era began.
I know at one time the crime problem among the Turkish population was pretty dramatic and the chief complaint seems to remain that they have refused to assimilate.
Paul Robeson had his passport taken from him. What was the legal principle for that action?
If by unpopular speech you are talking about denying the holocaust then yes.
Truman through a tantrum and issued an EO to have his passport revoked so that he could not travel abroad over his support of communism.
So his freedom was illegally impinged: so much for your alleged rights.
In Australia the Liberal Party/Country Party legislated to ban the Communist Party. The High Court of Austalia ruled that it was unconstitutional. They then tried via a referendum that failed.
So it seems to me we have far more rights than you think we do.
Also take into account that 2.1 million Turks in Germany can vote in Turkey elections in which the majority voted for Erdogan, in which the green party called the German Turks “Far Right” for supporting a dictator.
I can almost smell the disdain from your post and if you dont mean that I am sorry.
First you say they were wiped out and then sent to reservations to rot…and then go on to lament how they got stuck in a victim mentality…go figure
His actions were unconstitutional. What part of that do you fail to understand?
What happened to his rights? Why didn’t the USA congress act to re-instate his rights?
I’m simply stating facts which I’ve know for a very long time and which were laid out for me again at dinner with a national tribal leader.
The discussion was about everything from regaining their tribal status to his helping other tribes utilize their resources to create wealth and getting people on the reservations out of that mentality.
It’s been much easier and more successful for some tribes than it has others.
